Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road shale gas site, 10 August 2017. Photo: Katrina Lawrie
The shale gas company, Cuadrilla, said today it had doubled the amount of money it had spent in Lancashire in the second quarter of the year.
The company today released the latest figures of what it called its “Lancashire Commitments Tracker, for the period up to 30 June 2017.
The campaign group, Frack Free Lancashire, said Cuadrilla’s figures showed it had added 0.01% to the county’s economy and it was “laughable” to suggest this was a “significant boost”.
Cuadrilla tracker up to 30 June 2017
According to the document, Cuadrilla’s total spending, direct and indirect, in the county now stood at £2.9m. This was up from £1.47m in the previous release covering up to March 2017 (see left-hand chart below).
The figures show that the company had created 18 full time employees up to 30 June 2017, compared with 14 in the previous figures.
The number of contractors had also risen, from 14 for the period up to March 2017, to 19 up to June 2017. Apprentices rose from two to five over the same period.
The period from December 2016-March 2017 saw no new full time jobs, apprentices or internships, despite the start of work at the Preston New Road site near Blackpool.
Cuadrilla made no local community donations during the second quarter of the year. Local community sponsorships increased by £13,000, up 12.5%.
The number of businesses registering with the supply chain portal, rose 137, from 432 to 569.
Cuadrilla’s chief executive, Francis Egan, said:
“These figures clearly demonstrate that our Preston New Road exploration site in Lancashire has already significantly boosted the county’s economy as well as creating jobs for local people.
“As we start drilling the first exploration wells within the coming week we are proud to continue to put Lancashire first in order to ensure the county continues to benefit from this important national need of exploring for a new indigenous source of natural gas.”
A spokesperson for Frack Free Lancashire said:
“The value of the Lancashire economy is about £30 billion. Even assuming that £2.3 million does not include spend with Greater Manchester-based A.E. Yates, it is laughable to suggest that an injection of 0.01% of the total could “significantly boost” the county’s economy. Perhaps Cuadrilla has a different definition of the words “significant” and “boost” to the rest of us?”
“It is also interesting to note that although the number of businesses registering with the supply chain portal, rose 137 from 432 to 569 in the last quarter, this is still a long way short of the 715 they claimed as recently as January. Can Cuadrilla explain where the rest of these registrations have gone?”
Categories: Industry
DRILL OR DROP? 
It would be interesting to see a better break down of the contracts, how close they are to the site/the Fylde, the nature of the jobs, whether they are all/mainly local, the duration of contracts etc etc. Lancashire is a large county. This is not simply splitting hairs. Economic development and development projects have to be measured in terms of true job creation to be sure it is not simply a case of job displacement. The quality and sustainability of any jobs created must also be taken into account, the impact on the immediate and wider area and socio economic factors included. The government sets specific criteria with regard to how economic impact assessments must be carried out and project risk must be a factor. If we are to look at this constructively, the data needs to be more detailed and more of the total impacts need to be considered and that includes both positive and negatives as well. As this stands it is relatively meaningless. Anything requiring some form of construction and haulage etc, no matter how bad for an area, will create some direct and indirect expenditure, the issue is whether or not the project/industry has a longer term positive or negative economic impact on an area. I appreciate this is early days but this is hard data, rather than speculation and it would be good to have a more detailed breakdown of the facts as it would help us better understand.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the three new apprenticeships will be included in the full time employee number (I understand that the requirement of the govt scheme is to create actual positions in order to receive the monetary incentive) so net increase only one full time employee? If this is in fact the case then more then a third of the workforce are subsidised by the taxpayer. This is a disproportionately high number of apprenticeships for such a small company…
errata: more than a third should read – almost a third (sorry looking at 14 not 18)….it’s late 🙂
Kat, you are lost in the trees. Use one of the “protectors” drones to rise above and see the forest.
http://oogeep.org/2016/09/shale-fracking-added-nearly-115000-jobs-10-billion-in-ohio-study-says/
Lancashire’s total GVA is about £30 billion. Even assuming that 2.3 million does not include spend with Greater Manchester based AE Yates in what world would a £2.3 million spend (0.01% of that GVA) “significantly boost” the county’s economy . I think Francis Egan must have different definition of the words “significant” and “boost” to the rest of us.
It is also interesting to note that although “The number of businesses registering with the supply chain portal, rose 137, from 432 to 569” this is still a long way short of the 715 they were claiming as recently as January. Wherever did they all go?
Interesting that the two comments so far were so busy splitting hairs they seem to have missed the key announcement. (I’m sure they haven’t but would rather avoid anything that could be construed as a positive to the “other side”, and is contrary to previous speculation.) Counting the deckchairs on the TitANTIc. Going down, within the coming week.
Sorry Martin – I must have missed the key announcement – can you help? I do agree that the deckchairs are dancing around that rig though.
So they’ve spent just under £1,000,000 less than the police have in the same period. Doesn’t that mean they have actually taken £1,000,000 out of the local community and local people’s pockets.
The infantile nature of this response reduces the whole debate to the level of gravity and importance associated with, for example, a village duck race. There are no winners if fracking goes ahead at the level intended by the corporate powers.
Nice photos. Very artistic.
I did help refracktion, but you seemed to miss the reference. Try again in day light.
I wonder whose cash Cuadrilla have been spreading around so generously?
It’s not their own because they haven’t earned any yet despite being registered in the Cayman Islands apparently!
So, Peter, most of the companies on AIM would appear to have the same problem!
I think you will find plenty of references to companies who operate for a period in exactly the same way. I understand it is almost impossible to get sight of the Times from some posters on DOD, but if you check the business section in today’s Saturday Times you will see an example where one company will be spreading around several £billion before they start earning. Risk and Reward is what drives it, has done for centuries, can’t understand why it should be envisaged that Cuadrilla should be any different. If they are successful, and go on to make large profits everyone will forget the risk costs and claim they are undeserving-but that’s todays society-and media.
‘if’