Offshore Oil Gas exploration Newcastle - Central Coast - Sydney

[SquibblyDibbly]

12 hours ago, Steve-o said:

Is this a joke?

You're against oil and coal?

If you don't use any oil and coal in your life, such as a car, a recreational boat, electricity from the grid, and food from the store that uses oil and gas for logistics and storage, then I applaud you for doing something you believe in.

However, if you still take advantage of these things and just want them somewhere where they don't impact your leisure activities, or are looking to pat yourself on the back and feel warm and fuzzy, then you are really selfish and elitist and a stain on the human race. 

Hey Stevo-o,

I appreciate your view point there mate, I really do. Most who oppose fossil fuels consume more than their fair share.

I personally don't advocate flicking a switch and turning off all fossil fuels overnight, as I mentioned earlier our entire economy is built around mining and to a lesser extent agriculture. 

However, I believe we have to transition to renewable methods of energy production and more sustainable methods of agriculture and that we need to speed up the timeframe attached to this. There are lots of interesting developments here such as a seaweed based cattle feed product that neutralizes the methane they produce, continual improvements in PV solar panels cost and efficiency, solar/hydro projects to produce electricity at night.

We export the majoirty of our coal and gas, we do not need more new coal and gas projects. Especially ones that threaten the health of our oceans.

Its not something to be done over night but we cant throw our hands in the air, give up and continue digging up limited supplies of fossil fuel to power our lives.

Thanks mate!

[zmk1962]

12 hours ago, Steve-o said:

Is this a joke?

You're against oil and coal?

If you don't use any oil and coal in your life, such as a car, a recreational boat, electricity from the grid, and food from the store that uses oil and gas for logistics and storage, then I applaud you for doing something you believe in.

However, if you still take advantage of these things and just want them somewhere where they don't impact your leisure activities, or are looking to pat yourself on the back and feel warm and fuzzy, then you are really selfish and elitist and a stain on the human race. 

Oh-Karen...I mean, Oh-Steve...I mean Steve-O ... or is that Oh !!!!!

I sense you are carrying some baggage and I am sorry for that.

If this was meant for me ... then I'd like to point out you know nothing about me otherwise you would not be making such statements.

Infact, it is inaccurate, insulting and polarizing comments like yours that stop intelligent debate and undermine the democracy that we have. 

So until you are ready to have a fact based discussion without the insults and unwarranted extrapolations please don't come back.

Cheers Zoran

[Guest Guest123456789]

@Steve-o I am going to put the emotive language and rude and insulting words to one side and acknowledge the valid point you do raise - we all do consume fossil fuels. 

Many Australians do earn a livelihood from oil, coal and gas exploration and production. We cant just suddenly take that from them. But we do need to progressively move away from that for the sake of future generations.

We are in a climate emergency, no one can deny that the stats and anecdotes are overwhelming and irrefutable. Fortunately there are alternative sources of energy which I need not spell out here and as @SquibblyDibbly pointed out we are in the process of transitioning to net zero carbon emissions.

The key problem with the PEP-11 licence is that the seismic blasting is killing small baitfish, which in turn is killing the fish that predate them. This is happening in big numbers and is impacting commercial fisherman (along with rec fisherman like us) both here in Newcastle and down in the Otway Basin.

Moreover, there is a very real risk of oil spills as happened off the Louisiana coast in 2010 as part of the deepwater horizon BP disaster. Our tourism and commercial fishing industries would be decimated by an oil spill not to mention the potential impact of the annual migration of the humpback whales along with a myriad of other species like sea turtles, dolphins and various fish species.

Australia is (by a massive factor) an net exporter of energy. We do not need the oil and gas off the east coast of Australia to keep our economy functioning. It's  a case of a single business wanting to make massive profits regardless of the impact to the community or the environment. There is nothing wrong with wanting to stop profit driven multi nationals from mining in sacred aboriginal sites, under warragamba dam, kakadu, the great barrier reef or along the most heavily populated part of the coastline in Australia.

 

[mrsswordfisherman]

Members I have received several report alerts on this thread. 
There are a few posts hidden for the moment.

I am reviewing the thread. 
Fishraider is all for free discussion on political subjects and this is why we have a sub forum. 

Site rules need to be followed. 

 

[mrsswordfisherman]

I have reviewed this thread. 
Please no more personal attacks.

The discussion needs to continue in a constructive way or site rule breaches will be applied. 

I have added moderator approval to this thread. Each post will be approved. 
 

Thanks for authoring this post and letting members be aware. If you are passionate about this and want to be involved go to the website below or visit the facebook group and “like it”

https://m.facebook.com/stopseismictestingnewcastle/ 

https://www.saveourcoast.org.au/ 

[Steve-o]

5 hours ago, SquibblyDibbly said:

Hey Stevo-o,

I appreciate your view point there mate, I really do. Most who oppose fossil fuels consume more than their fair share.

I personally don't advocate flicking a switch and turning off all fossil fuels overnight, as I mentioned earlier our entire economy is built around mining and to a lesser extent agriculture. 

However, I believe we have to transition to renewable methods of energy production and more sustainable methods of agriculture and that we need to speed up the timeframe attached to this. There are lots of interesting developments here such as a seaweed based cattle feed product that neutralizes the methane they produce, continual improvements in PV solar panels cost and efficiency, solar/hydro projects to produce electricity at night.

We export the majoirty of our coal and gas, we do not need more new coal and gas projects. Especially ones that threaten the health of our oceans.

Its not something to be done over night but we cant throw our hands in the air, give up and continue digging up limited supplies of fossil fuel to power our lives.

Thanks mate!

I support anti pollution initiatives and keeping things clean and pristine. I love rainforests more than most. Renewable energy is great, I support this too - less pollution. 

I don't think people in developing nations should be held back because we, in already developed societies, have decided to boycott certain systems after we already have the infrastructure in place. Sorry, I am more concerned about millions of women dying in childbirth and children dying of dysentry than I am concerned about a shoal of bait off the coast of Newcastle. 

Let's give them all the coal and gas they need to catch up and talk about it in 20 years, when the systems we gave them need to be replaced at the end of life cycle, rather than hold them back by not letting them use the same things as we have when we still don't have a green solution to replace our own infrastructure. 

5 hours ago, zmk1962 said:

Oh-Karen...I mean, Oh-Steve...I mean Steve-O ... or is that Oh !!!!!

I sense you are carrying some baggage and I am sorry for that.

If this was meant for me ... then I'd like to point out you know nothing about me otherwise you would not be making such statements.

Infact, it is inaccurate, insulting and polarizing comments like yours that stop intelligent debate and undermine the democracy that we have. 

So until you are ready to have a fact based discussion without the insults and unwarranted extrapolations please don't come back.

Cheers Zoran

I am now an American woman. Awesome. That was always my childhood dream since I heard that Lenny Kravitz song. 

It's not about you. I just don't understand how anyone can put personal recreational fishing ahead of global human development. 

5 hours ago, flatheadluke said:

@Steve-o I am going to put the emotive language and rude and insulting words to one side and acknowledge the valid point you do raise - we all do consume fossil fuels. 

Many Australians do earn a livelihood from oil, coal and gas exploration and production. We cant just suddenly take that from them. But we do need to progressively move away from that for the sake of future generations.

We are in a climate emergency, no one can deny that the stats and anecdotes are overwhelming and irrefutable. Fortunately there are alternative sources of energy which I need not spell out here and as @SquibblyDibbly pointed out we are in the process of transitioning to net zero carbon emissions.

The key problem with the PEP-11 licence is that the seismic blasting is killing small baitfish, which in turn is killing the fish that predate them. This is happening in big numbers and is impacting commercial fisherman (along with rec fisherman like us) both here in Newcastle and down in the Otway Basin.

Moreover, there is a very real risk of oil spills as happened off the Louisiana coast in 2010 as part of the deepwater horizon BP disaster. Our tourism and commercial fishing industries would be decimated by an oil spill not to mention the potential impact of the annual migration of the humpback whales along with a myriad of other species like sea turtles, dolphins and various fish species.

Australia is (by a massive factor) an net exporter of energy. We do not need the oil and gas off the east coast of Australia to keep our economy functioning. It's  a case of a single business wanting to make massive profits regardless of the impact to the community or the environment. There is nothing wrong with wanting to stop profit driven multi nationals from mining in sacred aboriginal sites, under warragamba dam, kakadu, the great barrier reef or along the most heavily populated part of the coastline in Australia.

 

I am not talking about climate of pollution or any of the sort. This oil rig is not going to have an effect on net global carbon, that is determined by demand for fuels. So it's not even a valid global climate issue. Electric cars and a reduced demand for petrol is what will change things. I believe the UK and France are outlawing combustion engines for new vehicles between 2035-2050? In the meantime, a tractor beats a donkey for harvesting enough grain for millions of people in Africa, enabling less people to be toiling in the sun and the development of an economy followed by massive increases in living standards.

Hopefully there won't be an oil spill. But if there is, I'm sure there are methods to clean it all up and it's not a cataclysmic event. I really don't think there will be one. I didn't know we were a net exporter of energy. I thought the overwhelming majority of petrochemicals were imported. 

[Guest Guest123456789]

19 hours ago, Steve-o said:

I don't think people in developing nations should be held back because we, in already developed societies, have decided to boycott certain systems after we already have the infrastructure in place. Sorry, I am more concerned about millions of women dying in childbirth and children dying of dysentry than I am concerned about a shoal of bait off the coast of Newcastle. 

Let's give them all the coal and gas they need to catch up and talk about it in 20 years, when the systems we gave them need to be replaced at the end of life cycle, rather than hold them back by not letting them use the same things as we have when we still don't have a green solution to replace our own infrastructure. 

Fossil fuels are not the only way to power farms and homes, both here and in the developing world. There are many viable and renewal alternatives that can, not only can meet this need, help alleviate the many real problems the developing world face as a consequence of man made climate change: flood, fire and drought. For example, the East African drought of 2011 killed between 50,000 to 260,000 people.

Battery storage and technology can enable this to be dispatchable as is the case in South Australia. The price continues to come down and its undeniably the future. No one is suggesting we deprive the developing world of infrastructure, we still export plenty of iron ore etc.

 

19 hours ago, Steve-o said:

This oil rig is not going to have an effect on net global carbon

Really? So extracting then burning oil and gas wont have an effect on carbon emissions? The argument might be 'if power plants don't burn this oil and gas they will burn something else's' ignores the economic reality that constrained supply drives up price and reduces demand/consumption and carbon emissions.

19 hours ago, Steve-o said:

Hopefully there won't be an oil spill. But if there is, I'm sure there are methods to clean it all up and it's not a cataclysmic event. I really don't think there will be one. 

You can't exhaustively clean up an oil spill in the ocean, its gets into the ecosystem from the smallest mollusc right up to the largest shark. And while the spill is being cleaned up what of the Oyster farmer in the Hawkesbury or the Pearl Farmer in broken bay and their stocks/livelihood? Then what about the subsequent spills, just clean them up too? I don't want my 4 year old swimming in the shore of Avoca rock pool to be ingesting micro particles of oil while she chews on sand, nor do I want to duck dive through a wave and cop a hair full of oil. And the recent statement that BPH Energy are only going to drill for gas I don't believe. If BPH Energy discovered a large and rich oil deposit near the broken bay FAD they would simply leave it in the ground? I suspect it's the 'thin edge of the wedge' strategy, they just want a single site established then they will progressively roll out more over the years. 

20 hours ago, Steve-o said:

I didn't know we were a net exporter of energy. I thought the overwhelming majority of petrochemicals were imported. 

Energy includes oil, gas and uranium. We are a net importer of oil but a net exporter of the other two. Domestically, with the rise in solar, wind and hydro we are do not need to explore and develop new fossil fuel mines (like this one being proposed) to meet our current or future energy needs.

Three elements you have not contested (therefore must not care about):

* Sonar blasting and the impact on the environment

* How close this is to the coast line, the PEP 11 licence permits drilling and exploration as close as 5 kms off the beach.

* The risk/impact to commercial fishing and tourism industries.

AGL for example have recognised the reality of the new environment and diversified their business to include renewal energy sources. AGL will probably survive into the future continuing to employ tens of thousands of Australians, other firms will rightly end up going broke much in the same way the shipping companies that didn't invest in/embrace shipping container technology went broke. 

[Steve-o]

1 hour ago, flatheadluke said:

Fossil fuels are not the only way to power farms and homes, both here and in the developing world. There are many viable and renewal alternatives that can, not only can meet this need, help alleviate the many real problems the developing world face as a consequence of man made climate change: flood, fire and drought. For example, the East African drought of 2011 killed between 50,000 to 260,000 people.

Battery storage and technology can enable this to be dispatchable as is the case in South Australia. The price continues to come down and its undeniably the future. No one is suggesting we deprive the developing world of infrastructure, we still export plenty of iron ore etc.

 

Really? So extracting then burning oil and gas wont have an effect on carbon emissions? The argument might be 'if power plants don't burn this oil and gas they will burn something else's' ignores the economic reality that constrained supply drives up price and reduces demand/consumption and carbon emissions.

You can't exhaustively clean up an oil spill in the ocean, its gets into the ecosystem from the smallest mollusc right up to the largest shark. And while the spill is being cleaned up what of the Oyster farmer in the Hawkesbury or the Pearl Farmer in broken bay and their stocks/livelihood? Then what about the subsequent spills, just clean them up too? I don't want my 4 year old swimming in the shore of Avoca rock pool to be ingesting micro particles of oil while she chews on sand, nor do I want to duck dive through a wave and cop a hair full of oil. And the recent statement that BPH Energy are only going to drill for gas I don't believe. If BPH Energy discovered a large and rich oil deposit near the broken bay FAD they would simply leave it in the ground? I suspect it's the 'thin edge of the wedge' strategy, they just want a single site established then they will progressively roll out more over the years. 

Energy includes oil, gas and uranium. We are a net importer of oil but a net exporter of the other two. Domestically, with the rise in solar, wind and hydro we are do not need to explore and develop new fossil fuel mines (like this one being proposed) to meet our current or future energy needs.

Three elements you have not contested (therefore must not care about):

* Sonar blasting and the impact on the environment

* How close this is to the coast line, the PEP 11 licence permits drilling and exploration as close as 5 kms off the beach.

* The risk/impact to commercial fishing and tourism industries.

AGL for example have recognised the reality of the new environment and diversified their business to include renewal energy sources. AGL will probably survive into the future continuing to employ tens of thousands of Australians, other firms will rightly end up going broke much in the same way the shipping companies that didn't invest in/embrace shipping container technology went broke. 

Hey there Luke. Thanks for keeping this going. 

I'll try and do every point you raise from here on in.

1. Combustion engines and mechanical parts are a better solution for the developing world. The skills needed to operate and trouble shoot a diesel are much lower than those required for electrical storage, generators and repairs. It's also safer. In addition, electricity needs to be delivered usually with high voltage wires. This type of infrastructure is not available in the rural communities of developing nations, neither is the expertise necessary for maintaining an electrical system. Our systems cannot be transplanted to these places. They do not have the infrastructure or skill to use and maintain the equipment. 

2. Droughts are bad. I agree with this. Modern agricultural practices such as powered irrigation, bores and drought resistant crops can alleviate this. Cereal grains could be planted in vast quantities rapidly, and harvested just as quickly, using tractors instead of hand sowing. These grains could be drought resistant crops instead of the traditional crops. The people taken off the land could work in infrastructure development such as road construction, or in stores and banking to modernise the economy leading to other advances due to a labour surplus. 

3. Net carbon is determined by global demand. This rig, if it goes ahead, should reduce the pressure on other rigs. Running at reduced capacity could even be more efficient with less emissions per tonne occurring due to economies of scale. Regardless, the emissions at the capture point are not the pressing concern when you have billions of cars on the road and people lighting up their homes for Christmas to show the neighbours their level of social prosperity. 

4. Oil can and does naturally leak in to the ocean where no drilling occurs. I have great faith that if there was an oil spill it would be dealt with and cleaned up. The ocean is huge. Over time any oil that wasn't cleaned up would disperse in to the background and become undetectable, having no impact on the environment. The localised effect on populations of marine and bird life would be harmful for that immediate area, but it wouldn't wipe out life and it would all come back in short order. 

5. If there was an oil spill and an oyster farmer was hit hard, the government would bail them out and they would be compensated by the company responsible. Life for them would go on. They would still have refrigeration, running water, electricity and food. There are hundreds of millions of people in developing nations without plumbing and electricity. I'm sure the oyster farmer can see the big picture and would be annoyed, but I'm also sure he would survive. 

6. You write as if major oil spills are a regular thing and will harm your ability to enjoy the beach. I do not believe this is a regular thing at all. 

7. So we are a net exporter of energy but for all the energy we actually use as Australians we are net importers per capita? There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics....

8. Green energy is in development. I welcome the day it comes. Meanwhile, children are starving to death and living in mud huts. We can do something about this but for some reason a bloody sardine takes priority? And before anyone says they can do it themselves, worry about our own backyard - unless you are Einstein or invented the internal combustion engine or wrote the Magna Carta, you have no dog in this fight. You yourself did nothing and prosper off the discoveries and teachings of others. You are no Da Vinci.

8. Sonar blasting - the problem is what? Some fish died? Okay? I don't see the outrage. 

9. The government lady said if anything is built it will be 30km offshore. She said you will barely be able to see anything unless you use binoculars. In fact, I think that that distance is beyond the curve of the earth and over the horizon, so you won't be able to see it or be affected by it. 

10. Again localised commercial fishing and tourism should not be placed ahead of human development. This should be about everyone. 

11. Am I up against AGL now? Why is AGL here? AGL is a company that does what makes best business sense. Unless you are arguing on their behalf I do not want to discuss AGL without giving them the right to reply. 

Edited February 17, 2021 by Steve-o
Auto-correct

[Rebel]

I believed when I joined Fishraider it was all about fishing.

Lets keep it that way.

Cheers.

[Guest Guest123456789]

1 hour ago, Steve-o said:

Hey there Luke. Thanks for keeping this going. 

I'll try and do every point you raise from here on in.

1. Combustion engines and mechanical parts are a better solution for the developing world. The skills needed to operate and trouble shoot a diesel are much lower than those required for electrical storage, generators and repairs. It's also safer. In addition, electricity needs to be delivered usually with high voltage wires. This type of infrastructure is not available in the rural communities of developing nations, neither is the expertise necessary for maintaining an electrical system. Our systems cannot be transplanted to these places. They do not have the infrastructure or skill to use and maintain the equipment. 

2. Droughts are bad. I agree with this. Modern agricultural practices such as powered irrigation, bores and drought resistant crops can alleviate this. Cereal grains could be planted in vast quantities rapidly, and harvested just as quickly, using tractors instead of hand sowing. These grains could be drought resistant crops instead of the traditional crops. The people taken off the land could work in infrastructure development such as road construction, or in stores and banking to modernise the economy leading to other advances due to a labour surplus. 

3. Net carbon is determined by global demand. This rig, if it goes ahead, should reduce the pressure on other rigs. Running at reduced capacity could even be more efficient with less emissions per tonne occurring due to economies of scale. Regardless, the emissions at the capture point are not the pressing concern when you have billions of cars on the road and people lighting up their homes for Christmas to show the neighbours their level of social prosperity. 

4. Oil can and does naturally leak in to the ocean where no drilling occurs. I have great faith that if there was an oil spill it would be dealt with and cleaned up. The ocean is huge. Over time any oil that wasn't cleaned up would disperse in to the background and become undetectable, having no impact on the environment. The localised effect on populations of marine and bird life would be harmful for that immediate area, but it wouldn't wipe out life and it would all come back in short order. 

5. If there was an oil spill and an oyster farmer was hit hard, the government would bail them out and they would be compensated by the company responsible. Life for them would go on. They would still have refrigeration, running water, electricity and food. There are hundreds of millions of people in developing nations without plumbing and electricity. I'm sure the oyster farmer can see the big picture and would be annoyed, but I'm also sure he would survive. 

6. You write as if major oil spills are a regular thing and will harm your ability to enjoy the beach. I do not believe this is a regular thing at all. 

7. So we are a net exporter of energy but for all the energy we actually use as Australians we are net importers per capita? There are lies, there are damn lies and then there are statistics....

8. Green energy is in development. I welcome the day it comes. Meanwhile, children are starving to death and living in mud huts. We can do something about this but for some reason a bloody sardine takes priority? And before anyone says they can do it themselves, worry about our own backyard - unless you are Einstein or invented the internal combustion engine or wrote the Magna Carta, you have no dog in this fight. You yourself did nothing and prosper off the discoveries and teachings of others. You are no Da Vinci.

8. Sonar blasting - the problem is what? Some fish died? Okay? I don't see the outrage. 

9. The government lady said if anything is built it will be 30km offshore. She said you will barely be able to see anything unless you use binoculars. In fact, I think that that distance is beyond the curve of the earth and over the horizon, so you won't be able to see it or be affected by it. 

10. Again localised commercial fishing and tourism should not be placed ahead of human development. This should be about everyone. 

11. Am I up against AGL now? Why is AGL here? AGL is a company that does what makes best business sense. Unless you are arguing on their behalf I do not want to discuss AGL without giving them the right to reply. 

Hi Steve,

I'll leave you with this final thought: BPM Energy have no chance of winning this fight. They have wasted $25mil so far - they should quit before the losses pile up even further. Anyone investing with them will at the very least have a loss to offset against their tax return.

We will get the entire east coast community in our corner. Fishing Clubs, Surf clubs, Bowling Clubs, sand castle building clubs you name it. This will be a single issue at the next state and federal election much like work choices were. The PM and Premier will come in and squash this (either current Liberals or future Labor). 

Go try and mine in a country where its a case of simply bribing a despotic dictator to dud the locals and make billions.

[Steve-o]

1 hour ago, flatheadluke said:

Hi Steve,

I'll leave you with this final thought: BPM Energy have no chance of winning this fight. They have wasted $25mil so far - they should quit before the losses pile up even further. Anyone investing with them will at the very least have a loss to offset against their tax return.

We will get the entire east coast community in our corner. Fishing Clubs, Surf clubs, Bowling Clubs, sand castle building clubs you name it. This will be a single issue at the next state and federal election much like work choices were. The PM and Premier will come in and squash this (either current Liberals or future Labor). 

Go try and mine in a country where its a case of simply bribing a despotic dictator to dud the locals and make billions.

Thanks for the thought Luke.

If I thought you had a fight worth fighting, I'd be fighting right alongside you. 

Ultimately I don't see your concerns as outweighing human development in Africa, South America, Asia or the Indian subcontinent. 

I feel bad that for the second time in this thread mining and big business have been portrayed as evil. I'm not here to change your mind for you but I actually do not resent people who have an idea that they bring to market and become rich off. I am more or less grateful that they gave millions of people something nice, like an iPhone or a PlayStation or even a cheap pair of Nike's built in Vietnam - helping that country establish an economy for future living standard increases.

I'm happy with my very unimpressive bank balance that lets me afford the products billionaires push on me, products that enable me to have a standard of living where I can go clubbing, hiking, camping, fishing, diving, driving and wear nice clothes all at the same time as being in a lower socioeconomic class. 

I really think if someone did all that for me and millions of others, they deserve their billions and they have done great things for the human race.

Edited February 17, 2021 by Steve-o
Auto-correct added an apostrophe

[kingie chaser]

While I don't think anyone could disagree that we need mining but lining pockets seems to to always out trump environmental protection.

 

To me it's like Adani trying to put a mine in a place  that could spell disaster for Australian greatest natural beauty, I can't believe the government would even consider it but $$$$ talks.

 

Just look at the cold seam debacle, do you ever even own your own home/land when these idiots  essentially have the authority to come in & take over your land.

 

Like I said in my original post, how did they go from proposed introducing of marine parks all up the nsw coast the then possibly approving a gas mine that could affect such sanctuaries??

Surely there are better options?

[Steve-o]

23 hours ago, kingie chaser said:

While I don't think anyone could disagree that we need mining but lining pockets seems to to always out trump environmental protection.

 

To me it's like Adani trying to put a mine in a place  that could spell disaster for Australian greatest natural beauty, I can't believe the government would even consider it but $$$$ talks.

 

Just look at the cold seam debacle, do you ever even own your own home/land when these idiots  essentially have the authority to come in & take over your land.

 

Like I said in my original post, how did they go from proposed introducing of marine parks all up the nsw coast the then possibly approving a gas mine that could affect such sanctuaries??

Surely there are better options?

I can see it form your view, but if you put it in to perspective, mining contaminates an area than can be measured in distances of approximately 5km at the greatest extent. 

This is a large area in the context of how big your backyard is, or how big a city block is, but 5km of contaminated land is really really insignificant. It's not an entire ecosystem going down. 

Think about the average walking speed of 5-8km an hour, and think how far you walk in an hour.

The area contaminated is less than that and the area made barren (and able to be reclaimed) is much less than that.

I have no conflict of interest here my only belief is that the vested environmental interest groups know the exact situation on the ground and want to use fear and panic to control my thoughts and behaviour towards fulfilling their agenda. 

I believe they show absolutely zero respect for the human condition and seek to exploit it for enabling a level of social conformity reminscent of a police state with ideologues, group think and a cult of confession.

Kind of like brainwashing people to burn witches at the stake in the name of eternal salvation for expressing political dissent as in days past.

That's just what it looks like to me. They have the FULL picture and only give you the half of it.