The Lozza and Ken tag team is back!

Ever since we learned that the moratorium on fracking might be lifted we’ve been wondering when we’d have the pleasure of hearing Lorraine Allanson and Ken Wilkinson performing their shameless double act again. Listening to Tom Swarbrick on LBC yesterday we finally got to hear them both again when they called in to his programme (Imagine my surprise!). I thought I’d analyse what they said as they came out with the standard industry lines as usual and it is interesting to debunk them.

Serial self-propagandist and fracking industry fog horn, Lorraine, was up first, and she hasn’t improved since we saw her and Ken fall flat on their face at the Harrogate debate!

She was clearly still giddy from her barn-storming performance on the fringes of the Conservative Party Conference where she joined some Nyet Zero Watch fruitcakes on a panel in front of a massive audience of 10 people.


Lorraine Allanson

Lorraine Allanson
Why does my glass feel half empty tonight?

Good afternoon. Well, first of all, this is nothing new about giving communities payment. They do it for wind farms, though the hysteria around the payments is false really. And when I hear, such as the councillor speaking, you know, he’s still into the sensationalist and the emotive campaign information, rather than the facts and the anti-fracking movement backed by the big green NGOs, has actually done a tremendous job at destroying our own shale gas industry.

Refracktion Commentary:

Yes, they do do it for wind farms, but onshore wind farms are incredibly popular in the UK. Even the majority of Conservative voters support them. If any one is campaigning sensationally and emotively here it is Ms Allanson herself!


It’s probably fair to say that it wasn’t the anti-fracking movement that finally destroyed the fracking industry, but the industry itself with it’s inability to control the seismicity it generated. The anti-frackers just made sure they were held to account.

Lorraine Allanson

Yet we are happy to import 57% of our gas, and most of that will be fracked.

Refracktion Commentary:

Yes we did import just under 60% of our gas demand in 2021, however 63% of that was from Norway and was not extracted using High Volume Hydraulic Fracturing at all. Neither was the gas imported from The Netherlands or Belgium. 17% of total demand is accounted for by LNG imports of which about 26% comes from the USA, so will include fracked gas. So about 7% of our imports might be fracked. Not “most of that”. Naughty girl! Talk about being sensational and emotive eh?

Lorraine Allanson

In 2004 we were actually self-sufficient for gas, and because we’ve got all this anti oil and gas rhetoric, they are the ones that caused this, because the oil and gas industry daren’t invest anymore, because they can get stopped from trying to test for oil and gas, by the rhetoric of, by politicians. It’s a political decision. It’s not based on facts.

Refracktion Commentary:

Lorraine appeared to be letting her excitement about being on the radio again get the better of her in this outburst as it’s rather confused. It’s almost as though she was getting “hysterical”, “sensationalist” and “emotive” isn’t it?

Investment in new oil and gas projects is not stopped by the rhetoric of politicians, although it may be discouraged by the facts around the country’s legal commitments to Net Zero 2050. Nobody in their right mind wants to be left with stranded assets, whatever a B&B owner from North Yorkshire might wish!

Tom Swarbrick

I just wonder Lorraine, whether the argument that you’re putting forward that there is a lot of shale gas underneath our feet, that we would be energy self-sufficient were we to extract it and use it. I can see that you will argue that until you’re blue in the face, perhaps but I don’t think that argument is going to persuade people because it doesn’t seem to have done.

Refracktion Commentary:

Well quite, it wouldn’t persuade anyone as nobody sane believes extracting UK shale would make us “energy self-sufficient”. It won’t even get near meeting just our gas demand!

Lorraine Allanson

Well, that’s battling against a lot of this emotive language about earthquakes and contaminated water. I mean, even that councillor said about oh, it means (unintelligible) drilling through the aquifer. They’ve drilled through the aquifer to get oil and gas for decades. How do they think they get deep down into the earth? The aquifer is only about 300 meters below the surface? It’s a nonsense what a lot of people say. They don’t understand the process.

Refracktion Commentary:

Yes, they drill through the aquifer. Yes, they use multiple sleeves. Yes, these sleeves can get deformed by earthquakes. Yes, one was deformed in 2011. Yes, we are concerned that contaminated flow back fluid might escape and find its way into the local aquifers, which are used as a source for irrigation and potable water. There is nothing emotive about that. Just facts Lorraine!

Tom Swarbrick

The problem is that the government’s own language suggests that there is a higher degree of risk. In fact, the government says tolerating a higher degree of risk and disturbance appears to us to be in the national interest. I don’t think anyone even the government is announce.., is suggesting that they wouldn’t be higher risk.

Lorraine Allanson

I think I think the main thing would be when they’re setting up the wellsite, all the traffic, but that’s only temporary. Same with the drilling. I think the risk is not doing this and to say that we have energy security as the councillor said is an absolute nonsense. Look at the state we’re in. Do we want to rely on foreign states with dubious human rights issue or do we want to produce our own oil and gas which is actually four times better in emissions than importing gas

Refracktion Commentary:

Traffic volumes are indeed an issue, and with 40 wells on a pad they would be an issue that will last a long time.

Apart from in exceptional circumstances the UK does have security of energy supply. We enjoy a plentiful and disparately sourced supply. The current Ukraine crisis is exceptional and is not expected to impact security of supply in the medium to long term. It is absolute nonsense to suggest otherwise. In fact it is emotive and sensationalist to do that.

I am not aware of Norway, The Netherlands or Belgium having “a dubious human rights issue”, although maybe America does have one. Russia of course does have one, but we are trying, quite rightly to wean ourselves of them as a source.

I am really not sure why she allowed herself to claim that producing our own oil and gas is four times better in emissions than importing gas. The mean emissions for electricity generation using U.S. exported LNG were found to have an 11% increase over U.S. natural gas electricity generation. One tenth is not 400% and to suggest it is is “hysterical”, “sensationalist” and “emotive”. Could she have been trying the old industry trick of “forgetting” the combustion when measuring global warming potential?


I think she probably was trying this one one as her co-panelist last week, Charles McAllister wrote a puff piece for the Yorkshire Post at the weekend in which he wrote that imported LNG has “a carbon footprint four times that of UK shale at the point of delivery” which totally ignores the fact that the difference is rather less significant once you have actually burned the stuff as the 2013 MacKay and Stone Report makes clear when referring to total life-cycle emissions.

The carbon footprint (emissions intensity) of shale gas extraction and use is likely to be in the range 200 – 253 g CO2e per kWh of chemical energy, which makes shale gas’s overall carbon footprint comparable to gas extracted from conventional sources (199 – 207 g CO2e/kWh(th)), and lower than the carbon footprint of Liquefied Natural Gas (233 – 270g CO2e/kWh(th))

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/237330/MacKay_Stone_shale_study_report_09092013.pdf Page 3

Yes you read that correctly. The uncertainty range of the data mean that it is possible that LNG is actually better in GWP terms than shale gas, and taking the midpoint of the two ranges the difference is just 10%. Now ask yourselves why they always quote pre-combustion data at you.

So Lorraine was obviously regurgitating Charlie’s pap, but didn’t understand it enough to remember to add that all important qualification.

Tom Swarbrick

There is still some debate about just how much shale gas is under our feet, how much actually the country could gain from … from extracting it. And Lorraine, it seems as if, if the government cannot generate consent, none of this will happen anyway.

Lorraine Allanson

Well, it’s going to be difficult to generate consent because of the anti-fracking campaign with its emotive arguments. But if people would allow, you’ve got to do several test wells initially, to see how much is down there. But we can all talk ’til we’re blue in the face saying how much we think’s down there they need to …. and I believe Ineos that company has offered to do a test well and frack it and everything and have the liability for it , if anything which I don’t think it would , went wrong with it. That needs to happen. If these people are so sure that it’s going to be a disaster then why are they frightened of allowing them to do one test well, that would end the debate if it wasn’t a disaster.

Refracktion Commentary:

It’s going to be difficult to generate consent because of the fact that the UK fracking industry has a 100% failure record over a decade. She may not be aware that they started fracking in 2011. We don’t need any more test wells because we know, based on repeated experience that they can’t frack here without causing earthquakes. Nothing has changed as the recently released BGS report made clear. We don’t need another disaster to add to Preese Hall, PNR1Z and PNR2 thank you Lorraine.

Tom Swarbrick  

I’m not sure people are willing to take the disaster. That’s why

Lorraine Allanson   

Because it won’t be a disaster. I mean ..

Tom Swarbrick

That’s what you’re testing, your risk, the disaster and that’s not what people are after here

Lorraine Allanson

Yeah, but hydraulic fracturing of wells has happened for decades. The Wytch Farm down in Dorset has fracked wells there. These are deeper. We use much more water to reach down there. But it’s not a new process

Refracktion Commentary:

Lorraine can, on occasion be quite shameless. She knows as well as I do that the wells at Wytch Farm have not been hydraulically fracked. The technology used at Wytch Farm was a process called “water injection”, also known as “water flooding”. This is not the same as “hydraulic fracking”. The Daily Telegraph ran a lengthy article making claims that nobody noticed the “fracking” there and then had to issue a red-faced apology when it was pointed out that there hasn’t really been any fracking there at all.

The operator, Perenco’s permit specifically prohibits fracking wells for shale gas at the field to protect the local environment.

Lorraine is doing the equivalent here of trying to tell you that the Tesco hypermarket that they want to build next to you is really the same as the corner shop at the end of your street. She knows the difference but she makes the claim anyway.

Tom Swarbrick

Lorraine, I’m grateful for your time. Thank you Lorraine Allinson pro fracking campaigner 


Refracktion Commentary:

I think he meant “emotive, sensationalist and hysterical pro-fracking campaigner”


Next up it was the turn of Ken Wilkinson. Ken is also well known for his tandem act with The Rambling Reverend, Michael Roberts.


Tom Swarbrick

Ken’s in Bristol. Ken…

Ken Wilkinson

Ken Wilkinson
The man who stared at eggs

Yeah, okay. You want my views obviously. I just I’m just absolutely flabbergasted that the same nonsense is coming back about water pollution, and all these other kinds of problems. There is an issue. There’s a genuine issue with seismic issues. That could be a … er you know not allowed to go ahead. But the trouble is, it’s so much disinformation about this. I basically ran a campaign against er Friends of the Earth and won on it all counts. Basically water pollution that’s looked at by the Environmental Agency. There’s been a million wells drilled in the UK, most of them going somewhere  near aquifers. And basically, they know what they’re doing. They’ve been running the North Sea for the last 45 or something years. They have very skilled drilling engineers and know what’s going on.

Refracktion Commentary:

Ken is at least honest enough to acknowledge the issue with seismicity but he clearly doesn’t want to address it so he tries to distract with his thoughts on water pollution and the fact that he tried (and failed) to get an ASA ruling on a leaflet put out by Friends of the Earth.

For him to say he “won it on all counts” is ludicrous, as a ruling was never made, unlike in the case of Cuadrilla who were censured for 7 breaches of the ASA code in one neswletter!

There have indeed been a large number of wells drilled in the UK which penetrate the aquifers. However, only 3 of those were High Volume Hydraulically Fractured and the first of those had its casing deformed when they provoked an earthquake. Looking at history isn’t perhaps the hot take he seems to think it is.

Tom Swarbrick

So someone somewhere Ken might be able to form the argument put the point across rather better than it has at the moment to persuade people that this is quite safe.

Ken Wilkinson 

Drilling-wise, it’s absolutely safe. The trouble is they scare people with this idea that “oh, they’re going to pollute the water”. There’s a 2010 Infrastructure Act that was passed. It was European law anyway, but it’s passed into UK law. You are not allowed to put any chemicals down any well with any possible damage and not in any concentration at all. The only chemical they used, for instance, up in Preston New Road in Lancashire, was polyacrylamide. It’s a food additive

Refracktion Commentary:

Pollution of groundwater from fracking fluid itself is not one of the foremost issues concerning people about fracking, so he is trying to distract again here. We are far more concerned about what might happen if the contaminated flowback water managed to find its way into the local water table. That contains heavy metals and radioactive material.

At the Preston New Road PNR1Z well they used polyacrylamide as he says, but according to Cuadrilla’s Hydraulic Fracture Plan they would also have used up to 3 cubic metres of <10% concentration hydrochloric acid per stage. They originally planned up to 45 stages and completed just over one third of them.

45 x 3 x 10% = 13.5 cubic metres, which is nearly 3,000 gallons of undiluted hydrocholic acid. Even the stages they actually completed would have used up to 1000 gallons of neat acid! That’s a lot of acid to forget about Ken.

Ken knows all this, so we have to ask why he made this claim.

Tom Swarbrick 

Ken you make your points very well, and you speak with the experiences of being a former engineer?

Refracktion Commentary:

LOL. Maybe Tom wasn’t aware that Ken had misled him?

Ken Wilkinson

Yeah 12 years in drilling yeah

Tom Swarbrick  

Why? Why do you think it is that the argument that you’re putting forward hasn’t taken hold amongst the minds of people like Joy and could it, could people be persuaded back round?

Ken Wilkinson 

I don’t know. I’ve done my bit to persuade and a lot of people were very happy when my complaints against these liars that are Friends of the Earth were taken to task and shown that what they were saying was complete and utter nonsense. And you know lots of this is er originally comes from Russian disinformation.

Refracktion Commentary:

It’s a mystery isn’t it? The ASA wouldn’t take him seriously enough to issue a ruling (in spite of his ludicrous claims here), and the IET chucked out his vindictive attempts to get local engineer Mike Hill punished by his professional body. He spends a lot of time and energy being a thoroughly nasty piece of work and I think people can see this side of him when he pontificates as dishonestly as he does here.

His final flourish about Russia merely shows he is as ridiculous, ill-informed and untrustworthy as the Rees-Moggs and the Matt Ridleys of this world. Most of the anti-frackers that I know have done extensive and meticulous research over the last 10 years about its impacts and are very careful to check the sources of the information they use. If only Ken showed the same diligence we’d all be better off!

Tom Swarbrick ?

I don’t know I genuinely don’t know about that kind of … In all honesty, I don’t. I can see why people do have concerns because the chap we spoke to who lived near one of the fracking sites he felt a tremor in his home during the periods that they were fracking. So I can see why people are absolutely nervous, concerned and worried about it, particularly when the science or the the British Geological Survey Report didn’t change much in its opinion about whether it was much safer to do it. Ken, thank you.

Refracktion Commentary:

I think Tom realised at this point that he was wasting his time with Ken and shut him down. Well done Tom.

We look forward to Ken and Lorraine representing the fracking industry again as they do such an appallingly bad job of it that they are almost like an anti-fracking secret weapon.



You may also like...