User:Kennywpara

I am a retired physics teacher and an oil rig engineer before that. I graduated from Manchester University in Engineering, and worked for 2 years for Schlumberger as a wireline engineer. After a break of 3 years I joined Halliburton in their wireline department and finished as District Engineer, dealing with problem wells and advising oil engineers. I worked offshore and onshore in Libya, Kuwait, Taiwan, Bangladesh, the Philipines, Saudi Arabia. I then left the oilfields for 25 years of Physics teaching in secondary schools.

=Is editing based on established science and regulation a POV?= I am involved in the debate about Hydraulic Fracturing, using my engineering experience to ensure scientific accuracy. I am however totally independent from the industry. Is it a POV to trust organisations like the Royal Academy of Engineering, the Environment Agency, the HSE, the British Geological Survey, Public Health England and the like? That is what I have used as a basis for my edits rather than the ample amounts of dubious pseudoscience around. Wikipedia should be based on solid evidence. I have made several complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority against anti frack organisations including Friends of the Earth, Resident action on Fylde Fracking (RAFF) and others, including Breast Cancer UK and Medact. In all cases, once the science has been discussed, these organisations have withdrawn their claims as they were based on inaccurate science. In the case of the Medact report, I made a professional complaint that was not upheld against one of the authors, and it was reported in the Lancashire County Council comments on that report that "Unfortunately one of the contributors (contributing to three of the report’s six chapters (ie 2, 4 and 5)) has led a high profile campaign in the Fylde related to shale gas. This has led to questions from some quarters about the report’s objectivity. In light of these uncertainties it is not clear how much weight the county council should attach to the report." I also sent a comment letter to Yorks County Council that stated that decisions should be taken on science rather than inaccurate statement. I also spoke in opposition to a motion 'This house calls for an immediate ban on Hydraulic Facturing' Again all I used was reliable evidence. I debunked the false claims of the local opposition group. That is not promoting industry, it is calling for proper science to be used. In my editing I use my extensive knowledge of regulations and proposed drilling practice which was necessary to sustain the complaints I made. This is not POV editing. It informs a NPOV edit. There is no need to 'bias' reports. The science and research has been done, and the article should reflect that.

On these matters AND ON THESE MATTERS ONLY I undertake not to make any edits as I had a personal input. THat is the reason for the tag.

I also was an editor on the Facebook page 'Blackpool Fracking for a better future' but resigned that some time ago. I also comment on social media, helping to dispel misconceptions about fracking.

I have never been remunerated for the edits I do, or for any other activity relating to this in any way or form. My motivation is to present an accurate account of HF in the UK, (using evidence from expert bodies mentioned above, who have researched this extensively) and only that. Kennywpara (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Kennywpara (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)