Updated: Cuadrilla to seek another 18 months to drill and frack at Lancashire shale gas site

pnr 190726 Maxine Gill4

Cuadrilla confirmed today that it would be seeking more time to drill and frack at its Preston New Road shale gas site near Blackpool.

In a letter to people living nearby, the company said it would be applying to change a condition of planning consent on the duration of operations.

One resident has already criticised the company for a failure to estimate accurately how long work will take.


Planning consent for Preston New Road was granted by then local government secretary, Sajid Javid, in October 2016

Condition 2 of the consent allowed 30 months for drilling and fracking the four shale gas wells permitted at the site.

Cuadrilla and Lancashire County Council agreed that the deadline for this work would be the end of November 2019.

So far, the company has drilled two wells, known as PNR-1z and PNR-2. It also partially fracked and tested PNR-1z from October-December 2018.

Fracking is due to start imminently on PNR-2. Cuadrilla has said it expects this work to be completed by the November 2019 deadline.

But the company has not yet drilled or fracked the remaining two permitted wells. It could also refrack PNR-1z.

The letter to residents said there were no plans to change the permitted operations at the site:

“Our proposed variation would seek to allow additional time for drilling and hydraulic fracturing operations but not to change either the existing approved work scope to drill and hydraulic fracture up to four wells at PNR or the requirement for the site to be decommissioned and restored by April 2023.”

The letter did not state how much more time Cuadrilla would be seeking. Nor did a company press release issued on Monday 5 August.

DrillOrDrop asked Cuadrilla for information on how much time the company was seeking. The company responded on Tuesday 6 August that it would be seeking 18 months.

A local resident, who received the letter, said:

“Has the local community not already suffered enough? Now Cuadrilla want to extend the timescales of their intrusive operations.

“Yet again Cuadrilla are demonstrating that they are not able to estimate their tasks accurately. We anticipate that this will be the first of many such extensions. They have spent the last seven months doing very little. Why should the community be inconvenienced as a result?”

Lancashire County Council’s head of planning and environment, Andrew Mullaney, told a DrillOrDrop reader that Cuadrilla would need to make a section 73 application to vary the condition on duration of work. He said:

“This will be managed in the usual way with submission of a planning application and an accompanying environment statement submitted under the normal planning act requirements; and will involve the usual  public and statutory body consultation together with determination by the County Council’s Development Control Committee.”

This is the second formal application to change the planning consent for Preston New Road. In December 2017, Cuadrilla was allowed to bring in night-time deliveries. There have also been multiple updates to the traffic management plan and four applications to vary the substance of the environmental permit.

Last week, the Environment Agency approved the hydraulic fracturing plan for PNR-2. This is intended to set out measures to limit the extent of fractures, maintain well integrity and protect groundwater.

But last month, the community group, Preston New Road Action Group, sent a lawyer’s letter to the Environment Agency about its concerns with the plan. It said there were “serious and fundamental errors” in Cuadrilla’s interpretation of local geology.

Updated 6/8/2019: Addition of 18 month extension to permission 

82 replies »

  1. Sorry but I understood from Francis Egan we would be cooking with gas from Cuadrilla’s frack site last Spring but that still hasn’t happened!

    Basically any permitted extensions to Cuadrilla’s schedule just extend the period Francis Egan and colleagues can draw their wages and claim their expenses!

    The anti-injunction legal proceedings are to be heard in September by the way and these injunctions are simply corporate bullying against peaceful protest!

    • peter if your not invested then why worry?
      Your very specific with the ongoings of cuadrilla and especially mr egan! Should be be concerned!
      Have you ever thought that realistically progress takes time, not surprising that a lot of the time wasting has been from the crowdfunding of the protestors lawyers of, Chuntso and Dennett red tape and the TLS!
      Thomas Edison once said regarding the Invention of the Light Bulb. “I haven’t failed — I’ve just found 10,000 that won’t work.” “Many of life’s failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.”
      Cuadrilla is so close to Success, and that scares the sh!t out of protectors!

      • My family and I live on the Fylde within the area zoned to become the Largest Onshore Gosfield in Europe according to Cuadrilla mouthpiece Egan.
        Having relatives die prematurely around the chemical complexes of Runcorn I am particularly aware of the nasty byproducts and other hazards we now face.
        No financial reasons drive me, purely good health and survival for my family and friends.
        How about you Eli-Goth? What’s your motivation?
        By the way the best efforts of the frackers Cuadrilla and Lancashire Constabulary don’t ‘scare the shit’ out of my friends and I! We are though extremely concerned for our Community which is threatened by Corporate Environmental Terrorism on a perverse scale!

        • Corporate Environmental Terrorism?? Very slight exaggeration peter. Many people live on the fylde! You are reading too many USA fracking literature errors, try laying off the Erin Brockovich reruns! And read some facts, the UK is one of the leading oil and gas regions regarding health, safety and the environment! Unfortunately some things happen and there have been some uk o&g tragedies, but they can be calculated and reduced and eliminated! I guess you drive in you unicorn fuelled transport down to Perenco’s Wytch Farm assets and see how undisturbed this huge onshore oil and gas field operations are regulated! Do some factual research and stop reading google!

        • My family and I live on the Fylde within the area zoned to become the Largest Onshore Gosfield in Europe according to Cuadrilla mouthpiece Egan. But you don’t believe it will happen because your scientific specialism in the sector says otherwise. But the truth is you don’t know!

    • Well well, good morning ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls. It’s another balmy Sunday, and what is it, the fiftieth Sunday since fracking was redirected last time, only to fall foul of their own unchallenged agreed TLS limits?
      What an interesting couple of weeks it has been since I last had a Sunday or indeed any day to myself?
      Now we have a new PM and cabinet, dear old double voted BoJo, don’t you just love him? He went down a storm in Wales didn’t he? Without the support of the DUP too and Ireland and Scotland moving further away politically too, BoJo seems to be burning bridges in all directions, including the Severn and Forth bridges apparently.

      And it looks like the anti antis are hoping for yet another resurrection for Cuadrilla at PNR and hoping that this nitrogen lifting will save them from the old shake rattle and roll and more embarrassment and the usual Cudrilla battle cry of “run away!”.

      I see there is precious little from the “eminent real scientists”!!??? on DrillorDrop of any actual explanation or examination of this new “nitrogen lift’ process which is supposed to be such a great advance, and the EA seem to have approved of the process in secret without any explanation either?

      Well I saw this from David Kesteven of The Fracking Farmhouse and sent the link to the document to Paul and Ruth at Drill or Drop, because it has a link to a questionnaire from the EA regarding this same process and the closing date for comment is bizarrely the 13th of August. So I thought you should all know at least about it and send the EA your thoughts on the proposals. But I see nothing from the anti antis or from DrillorDrop, however, so I thought I would jolly things along a bit today.

      Here is the Tracking Farmhouse link and the link to the document, everyone concerned with this new nitrogen lift proposal should reply as quickly as possible as I did on Friday.

      The Fracking Farmhouse – A Must Read

      Link to report:

      The Fracking Farmhouse – Urgent request for keyboard warriors

      Link to document:

      There you go, useful information that you will never see from those anti anti “esteemed” “real scientists” that we see bandied about so much, but never actually carry out the minimum requirements of their “proffession’ that of serving and informing and guiding the public in an unbiased manner.

      Have a great day with family and friends and look at that EA report and reply with your thoughts and maybe ask them why the reply deadline is so ridiculously short? as if we didn’t all ready know of course.



      [Typo corrected at poster’s request]

      • Oops! I see that “Fracking Farmhouse” is now spell checked as “Tracking Farmhouse”? Sorry David Kestevev, it seems that this spell checker does not like fracking either? Can’t say I’m surprised.

        Could that be changed please?


          • Phil C

            I like the bit where David says ….oooooh now they plan to use nitrogen lifting. Then ….having fracked the well they will use nitrogen to force the methane out.

            So … nitrogen lift was used before ( although Ian Crane thought it was propane ) and gas.lift is not injected to force methane out ( the clue is in the term ‘lift’). It is used to lift liquid out of the well.

            So, some incorrect stuff from the farmhouse, mainly due to a poor grasp of the concept of gas lift I suspect rather than an intention to mislead. Or. Some useless information that you will not see from the anti antis, as it is …useless.

            Better to look at the flaring, which is where the main changes are ( as mentioned here on DOD in the comments section in the past ) and comment accordingly.

            • A fascinating opinion from hewes, but no substantiation of the claims nor of any evidence of any poor grasp of anything whatsoever at all as usual, just the by now common place attempt to discredit anything said without verification or proof to thecontrary.

              Why is that not a surprise? No change there it seems.

              All it does is to illustrate that simply isolating one word from someone’s talk does not a scientific analysis make, it only serves to indicate the usual practice of accusation of isolated terminological inexactitude is no argument at all.

              Again, no change there.

              Perhaps you are failing to understand the process yourself hewes, you provide no scientific validation of your theory, therefore by implication, you suffer from your own poor grasp of the practice in theory, let alone the actual practical application of the theory at PNR.

              I am sure you are equally suffering from a poor grasp of the concept of nitrogen lift rather than an intention to deliberately mislead. However the connotations of nitrogen lift regarding safety and methane pollution and increased use of further chemicals are far too dangerous to actually discuss than a scientific definition of the process that has not so far emerged from the “eminent” “proper scientists” in any form whatsoever.

              Perhaps if such “eminent proper scientists” are so well informed and without bias or prejudice, they would be only too pleased to explain the entire process without bias or prejudice so that we all may be equally well informed.

              Meanwhile I am sure we can all do some research to discover the actual parameters of nitrogen lift/force/pressure/or whatever and make up our own minds.

              Perhaps the EA will oblige with a detailed breakdown since they were so ready to approve it without public consultation? They at least must understand the process fully,for they would not have made such an approval….would they?

              So thank you for your unsubstantiated opinion hewes, however in honour of best scientific practice I will track, or frack down the available information myself and I am sure others will too, and I sincerely hope someone out there has the gumption and the expertise to keep us fully informed rather than such indirect opinions as you illustrate here.

              Incidentally, looking at the first Fracking Farmhouse video, it seems that in the opinion of Pennsylvania, no fracking can take place without harm to health of those nearby, let alone the public at large. Now there is another source of informed opinion to set the anti anti pulses racing and keep them excited on a gentle Sunday in UK.

              Have a nice day.

              • Phil C

                I would agree that there is no change, but from my perspective it is about correcting disinformation in links posted by you, or incorrect statements you make. Do not take these challenges personally, you post it, and I am happy to point out points I disagree with. If I am in full agreement I may concur.

                Re substantiation …

                I can save you some time in tracking down the truth. It has been posted here on DOD before and indeed Ian R Crane has provided links to gas lift,

                DOD link


                Regarding the substantiation ……

                1. Nitrogen Gas Lift at Preston Road is not new ( as posited in the fracking farmhouse ).

                That nitrogen was used to lift the well is covered in the EPR compliance assessment report, under ‘Findings’ paragraph 1.

                So, it is not new.

                Click to access Preston%20New%20Road%20Compliance%20with%20Permit%20Assessment%20Report%2027.02.2019%20_%20Flare%20Operations.pdf

                2. The Nitrogen is used to ‘ force methane out’. ( as per the fracking farmhouse ).

                Gas lift is introduced in the well to lift associated fluids, not to force methane out of fractures ( that would be something akin to CO2 injection in a conventional reservoir.

                How gas lift works is explained below.

                Is you have any questions specific to the two above, I am sure there are a number of people on this site who can help ( having been involved in gas lift operations et al ).


                3. You say ‘ this is useful information that you never see from those ‘esteemed’ anti antis ….’

                My position is that, for the first two items covered in the fracking farmhouse ( 1 and 2 above ) are not useful information, but incorrect statements, which, therefore would not normally covered by the esteemed persons you refer to.

                It is difficult to discus something someone has made up on the spot, as there is an infinite supply of such incorrect statements, compared to the truth.

                However, as you raised the issues I am happy to respond to these 1 and 2 on a factual basis and No 3 as an opinion.

                Impact of fracking reports

                Re the impact of fracking on humans, it would be correct to say that any activity ( be it fracking, wind farms, farming, rock concerts, building new homes, HS2 etc ) had an impact on those living nearby.

                The report noted is interesting. I would point your target audience ( Ladies and Gentlemen, boys and girls ) to page 126 to compare reported issues in the US and the regulatory framework in the UK.

              • Phil C et al

                Regarding encouragement to comment on the ‘new nitrogen lifting proposal’ ( although not new, the flaring methodology is new, not the use of nitrogen lift ).

                The link provided to the comments re nitrogen gas lift are interesting.

                Below is a list of comments relating to N2 lift.

                However ( to save time ) skip to 854982359, which is the one I will be most interested to see addressed by the consultation process ).

                1. Comment 110001408

                The comments include concerns that the ‘extra nitrogen will add pressure to the existing chemical’ the concern being that the chemicals will be ‘forced through the fissures’.

                This shows a lack of understanding of what gas lift is. It is not part of the fracking process and is carried out post fracking. And does not involve the gas entering fractures.

                2. Comment 318421970

                This supports the use of nitrogen lift but incorrectly assumes it is a new process in the well.

                3. Comment 311433219

                This assumes that nitrogen gas lift is a new process for this well. There is an assumption that the nitrogen could ‘burrow into the side of the well’, as well as saying that nitrogen is ‘ use to lift potentially high viscosity oil’.

                Outwith the burrowing thought, nitrogen lift is used on liquid loaded wells to get them going, not as a permanent fix.

                To lift high viscosity oil you inject process gas, either what you have at hand, or imported via pipeline to the well ( as per a small proportion of UK gas exports to lift Norwegian oil say ).

                The comments show a lack of understanding of nitrogen gas lift use at Preston Road and gas lift overall.

                4. Comment 91138152

                This supports the application but assumes that nitrogen lift is new.

                5. Comment 252028304

                In a comprehensive comment feels that nitrogen may force chemicals to go in unwanted places, and that the extra pressure from the nitrogen could cause more earthquakes. The author notes that he is not an engineer ( so he is not sure if his concerns re nitrogen injection are warranted ).

                6. Comment 4497349

                Is against the changes, but notes that the nitrogen used in the prior gas lift was taken to the site ‘last autumn’.

                7. Comment 439993833

                Opposes on the grounds that using nitrogen lift will increase cold venting ( presumably along with the flaring changes ). See comment 10

                8. Comment 432168637

                Talks of nitrogen being used to ‘force’ methane to the surface.

                9. Comment 825559376

                Considers that using nitrogen lift to produce methane should not be allowed.

                10. Comment. 854982359

                Lists concerns re flaring capability if using nitrogen lift. This comment gets closest to the issue.

                • Well said hewes62. As a regular observer and occasional poster on this BB I find you the most polite, reasonable and factually correct poster on here. A pity many others do not follow your example.

                • You still thundering on here hewes?

                  Sorry old thing to put you to all this effort on a Sunday just in order to attempt to discredit the Fracking Farmhouse videos I dared to post. As far as I can see they still stand correct and only differ in terminology from your opinionated view, which is irrelevant to the points raised anyway.

                  We should rise above such mere word games and get to the nitty gritty before it all fragments into the standard flare attempts that will no doubt pour out from your “esteemed” “proper scientists”?! Colleagues?

                  I will ignore your first reply as irrellevant and its claims of disinformation are rejected, that is simply insulting and is merely your own biased unsubstantiated opinion so I ignore it entirely.

                  This latter post is more interesting though and less insulting, so I will have a look at that tomorrow when I get a chance.

                  Do try to be less volatile hewes, I know it’s difficult when all your peers do little else but discredit themselves, but do try to rise above them and then maybe we will get somewhere as we are beginning to do here instead of this childish polarisation that has become so prevalent amongst the anti antis posts to date.

                • Phil C

                  I look forwards to your thoughts on the two factual issues I raised.

                  If past performance is anything to go by, that will never happen.

                  Critique or agreement with the contents of the FF blog is normally confined to the household and locally ( Eckington just up the road from Shirebrook ). But when you uncritically promote it all as the truth here on DOD, expect comment.

                  Off to Renishaw Hall later in the week to admire the gardens and the expertise of those who keep them in good order.

                • Thanks hewes62. Very thorough and correct. If the antis are starting to worry about N2 lifting they really do have problems understanding the industry and completion processes. Why worry about an inert gas which makes up a high % of what we breathe? Of course the N2 unloading is only required because there is insufficient reservoir energy in shale gas which is why shale wells are so much easier to control than conventional wellss.

                • Unfortunately Paul, we are beginning to understand the industry only too well, to coin a phrase. Why it has taken this long to even get a discussion going is simply bizzarre.

                  Also unfortunately, nitrogen may be inert, but in high isolated volumes and used exclusively in industrial processes, it displaces oxygen and can lead to asphyxiation due to oxygen starvation. In normal concentrations it is as I understand it, a gas as vital to life as oxygen or CO2 (not methane however) but in higher concentrations or displacing the other gasses altogether as in industrial situations such as nitrogen gas lift, it can be deadly within 40 seconds if in high exclusive concentrations.

                  There are a couple of other interesting aspects about nitrogen gas lift too.

                  It requires on site nitrogen, presumable a concentrated liquid frozen supply, and without pipework delivery, that will be either on site generation or delivery tankers. That is known to be expensive and hazardous in transportation without expert handling and delivery. Are the local communities aware of this I wonder?

                  Also the lift, means simply means injecting nitrogen to reduce the density of the fluids and oil so that they might be easier to pump, compress, or suck out which is where the term lift comes from, a quaint little word, since a reduced density reduces the energy required to get the gas in this case to the surface, which seems to be it’s prime purpose. I have not yet seen the application in natural gas extraction explained in the same documents, they only mention oil extraction using gas or nitrogen lift.

                  That means that the nitrogen needs to be extracted from the natural gas, since nitrogen reduces it’s calorific value and prevents combustion.

                  So several expensive methods are required to transport, inject and extract the nitrogen and presumably recycle some of that nitrogen by whatever method. Not to mention the expert on site staff required to safely operate the gas lift process in its entirity. The rest of the nitrogen is to be vented presumably, since it cannot be flared and that will be along with the extra chemicals and gas into the air, and therein lies the rub so to speak.

                  There are apparently many methods of gas lift and are well known to be expensive processes and require careful handling and expertise on site, which must be also expensive and potentially hazardous to local communities since nitrogen has no odour and is relatively undectable unless specialist monitoring is installed and correctly calibrated.

                  The actual intended gas lift method has not yet been revealed by Cuadrilla I see, so more fun to come yet it seems.

                  So we are back to the old fracking connundrum again, a hazardous extraction process that is intended to reduce earthquakes is to be experimented with, but the full implications of the method of gas, nitrogen lift are only just now being discussed at all on Drill or Drop. Where are these esteemed proper scientists keeping us all informed in a non biased, non prejudiced manner?

                  No, it takes David Kesteven to throw some spanners in the works to get only this far. But it’s been fun in spite of the empty rhetoric that gets thrown around instead of any real discussion on Drill or Drop these days.

                  Never mind, we are getting there at last.

                  This should have been discussed in great detail months ago, but it took the usual frustration with the silence from the “esteemed proper scientists” to tease out even this amount of detail from hewes only so far apart from the usual jeer leaders, and that only with the assistance in revealing the truth from David Kesteven of the Fracking Farmhouse, so thanks David for setting yet another cat, Oscar or Jelly, amongst the many anti anti pidgeons.

                  And I am sure there will be more to come as we progress.

                  This is fun! Have a nice day.

                • There you go hewes, off on your vitriolic fracking fantasy world again, you really can’t keep a civil keyboard in your screen can you?

                  But we know from long experience ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, that from past performance from our esteemed protagonist above, that is sadly quite typical and predictable, so no change there yet again it seems.

                  I will continue to investigate this so far illusive subject of nitrogen lift, with or preferably without such rudeness, but I shall not address it to such a personage as yourself in future at all, and I will as usual ignore the proffered bitter bile and team upon ream of repetitive prevarication salted with personal insults that passes for comment from your direction.

                  So sad, it could have been such an informative excercise for everyone concerned with this new experiment in their communities and further afield. But we all know that was never going to actually happen don’t we. Knowledge is power, and the fossilised fools never give that away without a fight to extract it by other means.

                  But never mind, much more fun to be excavated from the secretive narrow blinkered world of the fossilised fuelers yet.

                  Clearly there is much that is hidden to be brought out into the light for all to see, otherwise why all this vitriol, noise fuss over a couple of videos from the Fracking Farmhouse? It never ceases to amaze me how a little information is seen to be so dangerous by those who should be keeping everyone informed in a non biased non prejudice way?

                  Methinks they doth protest too much

                  Some seriously raw nerves there methinks.

                • Phil C

                  Still no comments on the two factual issues noted. Hmmmm. Do you say he is correct or not?

                  I shall add a few notes to your comments re nitrogen ( noting the comments by Paul Tresco ).

                • Phil C – as usual you are getting confused about oil and gas upstream operations. But at least you are consistant.

                  The nitrogen is used to displace the completion fluid from the well so that the reservoir fluid (in this case natural gas from the fractured shale) can flow to surface using the pressure difference between surface and reservoir. Fluids, being denser than gases, tend to restict this….. Once the fluid is out of the well N2 is no longer required. The N2 will be cold vented or if mixed with methane possibly flared by adding propane at surface (sound familiar?). Once the fluid is displaced there is no further need for N2. It is common practice in any completion operation conventional or unconventional oil or gas or both. N2 may not be required in overpressured reservoirs as these can displace the completion fluid using their own energy and or dissolved gas which comes out of solution.

                  No conspiracy, not discussed probably because it is irrelevant and undertaken all over the world and has been for at least 40 years. N2 can be brought in by road in liquid form as you have noted or made on site by extracting N2 from air.

                  Don’t go for an MRI – the liquid N2 may cause you problems…..

                • Paul Tresco
                  Thanks for the comment. We ( ie more than just me ) follow the Fracking Farmhouse and other Frack Free sites closely over here in the East of England.

                  So it was a good opportunity to comment on the content in this case, in the context it was aired.

                  I wonder what happened to Ian R Crane ( as you asked before ) as he raised the issue of gas lift a while ago, but gave the impression propane was being used to lift the gas, and it was that which was burning in the flare.

                • Perhaps FF and IC thought Cuadrilla were using propane-gel as the carrier for the frack sand (and pretending it was water…..), perhaps they and PhilC thought N2 was substituted for propane was substituted for water…….


                  Old article but it has been done a few times, not sure how common it is now. It appears GasFrac went bust:




                  PhilC loves a good conspiracy theory…

                • You lot still chattering on amongst yourselves? Keep it up, you might say something interesting yet?

                • PhilC – you raised the N2 issue via the FF videos you posted which hewes62 took time to watch and comment on. It appears you don’t like facts (I thought your subject was physics?). But as usual when you are clearly shown to be wrong you drop the subject. Not to worry, at least we (hewes and I) have provided the BB with some guidance on N2 lifting which will educate the antis so they don’t need to worry about it anymore.

                • Fascinating Paul, you seem to be labouring, or more accurately forging under one of you many misapprehensions again.
                  Let me put you out of your misery gently….
                  1. I have already said I would not be addressing anything to hewes, since he could not keep a civil keyboard on his screen and I would do my own research unprompted by hewes or yourself or anyone else at any time.
                  2. I said I quite correctly did not agree with hewes endlessly repetitive and quite wrong pedantic unsubstantiated opinions.
                  3. hewes grandiloquently announced that I would comment on his “facts” without my agreeing that such claims are even true or relevant, or even answering his self generated expectation, I merely said I would reply if I had the time and I did and this week I will not have the time, so I did not bother to waste my time considering the first and second points above.
                  4. All hewes arguments are merely dissembling and pedantic word criticism which I have all ready said I would neither participate nor comply with.
                  5. I do not agree with anything you or hewes say, regarding the tracking industry since it is nothing but prejudiced fossil fuel propoganda and mere irrelevance to the greater, Greta, problems of climate disaster which we all see accelerating day by day. And that has been evident for a couple of years now.
                  6. I do not take instruction from you or hewes any day of the week, and never will, I will do as I see fit, when I see fit and how I see fit and both you and hewes have no say in that whatsoever and never will.
                  7. hewes is clearly obsessed with disagreeing with anything I say and produces reams and reams that merely criticise every word and ignores anything he won’t admit to, regardless of context and that is a mere time wasting strategy that hewes uses all the time. I will not have anything to do with that prevarication repetition and time wasting (just a millennium) since it gets no-one nowhere and is only intended to waste time and drown out anything said in not picking irrelevance and claims of “correcting” [edited by moderator].
                  8. I have been with my family most of the time and I would rather spend these prescious sunny days with them than waste any time and energy arguing the toss, a toss incidentally to which I don’t give a, with such overbearing egotistical repetitive pedant industry hacks as is illustrated by hewes and yourself.
                  9. You clearly have nothing better to do than sit behind a PR desk trotting out insults left right and centre. Or perhaps more accurately right right and right of centre, than actually without prejudice, honestly and scientifically discussing the clearly poisonous and badly organised and unregulated fossil fuel events which may well affect all our lives and is all ready doing so.
                  10. I stopped reading hewes comments when I said I would, as he clearly has nothing to say that I have the least interest with.
                  11. I am doing my own research into nitrogen lifting and some very interesting concerns are becoming obvious, and if I ever get the time I may comment in my own time in my own way and at my own pace but I will not be ordered, prompted, cajolled, intimidated, insulted, or bullied into doing anything other than that.
                  12. Have a nice day….both of you.

                • “Forging” in the first line should be “Torying”
                  Could that be changed please?

                • PhilC – hewes62 is one of the few posters on this BB who posts well researched, accurate and relevant information. Perhaps partly due to the fact that he worked in health & safety in both the coal and oil and gas industries. Unfortunately you do not fall into this small group of posters but perhaps one day you will post something relevant, accurate and useful. Your loss not to read hewes62’s posts, I’m sure many others on this BB (particularly those that are interested in learning about the industry) will continue to read his posts and thank him for the time he takes in putting them together. But you are not interested in facts about the industry. [Edited by moderator]

                • Unfortunately Paul, you merely state your own epitath, the day that unbiased information creeps out from amongst the jealously guarded confines of the fossil fuel gatekeepers, we will finally begin to construct a real future for all.

                  [Edited by moderator]

                  Unfortunately the nitrogen lift process is seen by hewes and yourself as very sensitive, since Cuadrilla Et Al future depends upon an untarnished image and close examination of the process is therefore dangerous hence the insults and attempts at intimidation to prevent further information being made public.

                  The industry clearly does not want a non biased open and honest conversation, in this or anything else, presumably because that is too dangerous to allow the real issues to emerge from the inevitable mix into the light of day. Fracking in general illustrates that.

                  If any of you want to actually discuss anything in an open honest and unbiased manner then I will be happy to comply, but from recent experience that is far too dangerous and hence we end up here at loggerheads once again.

                  Maybe that is exactly the way you want it, but sooner or later all the worms will hatch out and the concealed truth will emerge but that might be too late for the local and planetary communities and health of all living things and the future of our children and future generations to come.

                  Better that is thrashed out now before it all gets out of hand and we leave even greater cock ups for future generations to have to deal with.

                  I suspect they will call this present age as the second dark age and condemn us all for not turning aside from the suicidal plunge we are presently in.

                  Time to wake up and become responsible for the planet which suffers our greed and ignorance in growing anger.

                • This thread relating to Nitrogen lift seems to have drawn to a close.

                  I look forwards to seeing how this progresses when fracking kicks off again at Preston Road.

                  I suspect that Cuadrilla will be very happy if their updated frack plans result in a well which returns gas to the surface without the use of N2 lift, saving time, money and trouble ( especially troubles around getting the flare to light ).

                • PS Paul, since you clearly love my Sunday posts, i have only just decided to entertain you further with many more and some poetry and quotes from so many of the wonderful people who have left their beautiful legacy for us to enjoy.

                  It is a pity that the onshore fracking operators will leave an entirely negative and poisonous legacy for future generations to have to deal with and not a word other than the bitterness and bile displayed here by the anti antis all too frequently here.

                  So kind of you to say you are a fan! You can thank yourself for prompting me, well done!

                  Have a nice day and thanks for the reminder..

      • David Kesteven
        Green Party candidate for North East Derbyshire, Head Gardener at Renishaw Hall since 1997. Horticultural speaker and aspiring chess player.??? Credibility! haha…

        • ‘7. hewes is clearly obsessed with disagreeing with anything I say and produces reams and reams that merely criticise every word and ignores anything he won’t admit to, regardless of context and that is a mere time wasting strategy that hewes uses all the time.’ Ever heard of irony Phil C?

            • Yes I have heard of irony and find it ironic that the comments you make about hewes equally apply to yourself. I suggest you purchase a copy of ‘Private Eye’ if you don’t know who Dave Spart is

  2. What happened to the “lawyers letter” submitted by PNRAG? Was it binned in file 13 by the EA as predicted? I thought mr smythe et al had proved Cuadrilla to be completely wrong in their interpretation?

    • Eli-Goth,

      Whoever you are, FT just trying and failing to prop up the oil and gas industry share prices like yourself!

      85% or even 18% power supply up to 2040 will mean we’ll all be floating around in Arks just like Noah!

      • Nonsense peter, whoever you are. You are just trying and failing to stagnant an energy source which will propel us to energy security beyond 2040. You selfish individual Nimby!

    • Tommie

      Good luck to them, but the road to CCS and allied technology has been somewhat rocky and slow. Plus it still attracts protest due to the impacts of fossil fuel extraction. Mind you, extracting lignite ( the kemper plant ) has not attracted as much protest as shale gas.

      • Phil C

        Regarding your comments re nitrogen ( all without substantiation I note, but we should let that pass ).

        1. Discussion

        Yes, good it is being discussed here, although it is more along the lines of education.

        2. Uses of nitrogen

        Yes, primarily used in industry, which includes the health and food industries.

        You can get nitrogen ice cream, as I did in york today.

        Hence it is well used and delivered across the uk as we speak ( see below re hazards of transport ).

        3. Displacing oxygen

        Nitrogen does not displace oxygen. However, it can, as would any other gas if present in sufficient quantity, reduce the % of other gasses in repairable air, it depletes the oxygen content.

        This ability ( to deplete the oxygen content ) is one method used in industry nitrogen for, to purge pipework, in particular when you cannot flow gas through it.

        The hazards of nitrogen are well known in the large industries that use it, as the ‘ one breath kills’ campaign a few years ago.

        In mining, nitrogen rich ( oxygen poor ) concentrations were called ‘blackdamp’ found at floor level ( as the mixture is heavier than air ) and detected by your flame lamp ( it went out ).

        4. Hazardous to transport, locals and expensive

        As the BOC website notes, large quantities of liquid nitrogen are transported around the country. At less risk than tankers of petroleum one suspects.

        It’s transport is not particularly expensive, as it is something already going on in the UK, all around us.

        It’s use is an expense ( as you note ) over and above being able to do without, but not as expensive as a frack spread.

        Hence the transport risks are already present in the Fylde. It is a good question you raise in that, are residents of the Fylde ignorant of this existing risk,. They maybe ignorant of many others, many of which have no link to fracking? If they are made aware, it must be good, as the risk is there 24/7 which it is not-the case for Preston Road.

        You are correct in that liquid nitrogen needs careful handling, something well managed offshore through to its use in cooking ( see master chef … they use thick gloves ).

        For risk to locals from gas lift, the hazards are from either compressed nitrogen ( in quads ), liquid nitrogen in tanks, or an N2 generator. N2 is not a COMAH substance and the affects of a release would be local. The key risk is to those on site within a small radius.

        Detection of low O2 levels, if required can be by O2 meters ( relatively cheap ) if required, normally in confined spaces or sumps.

        5. Use of nitrogen for gas lift

        Paul Tresco has addressed this and corrected your assumptions for this and any need to separate nitrogen from the produced gas.

        For clarity ( to save scrolling to other replies ), while nitrogen lift can lift liquids, it does not lift gas. It removes ( lifts ) liquids which prevent the gas flowing.

        6. To pump, compress or suck oil

        You assume, in your reply, that has lift reduces the density of the oil, making it easier to pump, compress or suck it out of the well.

        You are incorrect in your assumptions

        The gas lift reduces the density of the oil in order for it to flow up the well without any pumping, compressing or sucking.

        Oil is pumped out of wells by placing a pump at the bottom of the well. If there is free gas in the well, your pump will cavitate ( not work very well ). A problem Angus had ( see DOD passim ).

        You cannot compress oil. Gas lift has nothing to do with compressing oil, or gas.

        No one sucks oil out of a well, you have to pump it, or use gas lift. Indeed, it would be difficult to suck oil mixed with gas as anyone trying to siphon water would know ( you get an air lock ).

        For clarity, sucking would require the application of a pressure lower than atmospheric pressure at the well head.

        So, no, gas lift does not aid the pumping, compressing or sucking of oil out of a well ( the opposite ).

        7. Actual gas lift method not revealed

        Paul Tresco has covered this. It will be nitrogen, and in the well ( options are limited ).

        8. The full implications of the gas lift are only just being discussed on DOD

        No, we are correcting incorrect comments in the FF and providing feedback on what gas lift is along with the dangers of Nitrogen.

        We have yet to touch on how the gas will be burned, or how the other proposed changes would impact any gas lift regime. If the fracking were more effective ( by use of a gel ) then gas lift may not be required, or to a lesser extent … and so on.

        For a critique of gas burning see my post above re comments to the EA

        9. David Kesteven throws spanner’s in the works

        David has made some incorrect statements. It was that his statements were challenged that drove the discussion.

        If the ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls had just scrolled past it all, you would be none the wiser as to the incorrect statements ( I suspect you believed them ).

        However, should David ever make incorrect statements about gardening ( unlikely as it would be ) I would not spot the issue as it is not my area of expertise.

        But good it is being aired here on DOD.

        I look forwards to your replies on the two factual issues raised following my substantiation in both cases.

  3. Or carbon fibre £15m yachts just like Greta!

    Pretty huge carbon footprint there. You would have thought she could have fashioned a long ship from timber.

    • According to Giggle he has been seen in a chip shop, April!

      So, for those who get their “knowledge” from such, they will be happy that he is.

      However, for those who really want to do some proper research they could have a look at the manufacture and disposal of carbon fibre.

      • Hmmm, carbon fibre yachts, private jets, a house on stilts to avoid climate change sea level rise……let’s see who is more culpable then anyone else shall we?

        Jim Ratcliffe, Private Jets and his Hampshire II Yacht and several others, how revealing, something there about don’t do as Jim does, but do as Martian says?

        Yacht Specifications

        Yacht Name: Hampshire II

        Yacht Length: 78.5 m (258 ft)

        Guests: 14 in 7 cabins

        Crew: 23 in 11 cabins

        Builder: Feadship

        Designer: RWD Design

        Year: 2012

        Maximum Speed: 16 knots

        Engines: MTU 16V4000 (diesels)

        Displacement: 1,887 ton

        IMO: 1011599

        Cost/Value: US$ 150 million

        Yacht Hampshire Owner

        Name: Jim Ratcliffe

        Country: UK

        Net Worth: US$ 11 billion


        Ineos Owner

        Born: October 18, 1952

        Residence: St Jean Cap Ferrat, France

        Private Jets:

        Gulfstream G550 (M-USIC)

        Gulfstream G280 (M-ISTY)

        Gulfstream G280 (M-INTY)

        Dassault Falcon 2000EX (M-CHEM)

        Ratcliffe also owns the 74 meter Feadship Sherpa. His business partners Andrew Currie and John Reece own the yachts Hampshire, Hampshire I and New Hampshire.

        All that carbon, not so much a footprint more a displacement.

        Apparently someone is expecting a flood?

        Inoahis more like!

        [Typo corrected at poster’s request]

        • Somewhat confused around who helps makes carbon fibre and who whinges about climate change, Phileas.

          Seems quite reasonable for a manufacturer to display and use his products-its called promotion- whereas for someone to whinge about climate change and then use same products is called something else-hypocrisy. Definitely culpable. Thought she was concerned about creative carbon accounting?

          • Ha! Ha! We can always tell when the Martian Chronicles stumbles and falls, out come the old name calling attempts, pity that Philaes Fogg means “the end of fog” isn’t it?


            You forgot to do any research again on that, Oh dear me, what a disaster! I am just living up to that name that’s all. Just clearing that self generated fog from those total black out blinkers you love so much….

            And Nope! It ain’t me who is confused, it’s Jimbo’s 4000 litre diesels for the Hampshire 2 and the Sherpa. And solar and electric powered yacht for Greta all the way to USA, that sticks in that craw isn’t it.

            Seems you forgot that carbon fibre plank in your own and Jimbos eyes, whilst carping on about the tiniest of carbon splinters in anyone elses eyes. But no change there, we are used to that display aren’t we ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls.

            And, no Martian, wrong again, I have had an electric car for two years now, and before that I had the only vapourised fuel injected petrol hygro engined car for miles, so boo hoo 2 U old thing…..

            Think you got your maths wrong again Martian, never mind, better luck next time.


            • Stumbles and falls!!

              Think you had better check who is who, rather than just generate fog.

              It is quite easy. You read the post, and then reply to the individual who posted, rather than someone else. You will find I have never had any interest in your mode of transport. Not even before the guff regarding red diesel and vegetable oil.

              Not doing too well with the reality since your break. “It ain’t me that’s confused”!!! Oh yes it is.

            • Whoo! Manners Martian!

              The fog is all yours Martian old thing that’s why you stumble and fall when you realise that Jumbo’s carbon displacement is of gravitational displacement proportions greater than Greta, oh, that rhymes!

              And still all you can do is harp on and on and on about anyone who’s carbon footprint is infinitesimally smaller compared to Jimbo’s or perhaps your own?

              Never mind soon be over, even the EA are pushing for a zero carbon approval protocol now!

              Wonders will never cease will they?

              Always a pleasure, such fun, you be careful out there, wouldn’t want to stumble again would you.

              • And, of course that guff means no one remembers that once again you were incorrect.

                Oh yes they do, because I, or someone else, will point it out.

                I, or someone else, will also point out the hypocrisy of those who wish to campaign against something, but fail to set a good example.

                There are video links widely used to prevent the need for transatlantic travel.

                • Still trying to regain some credibility Martian?


                  No Martian, i am afraid that you are quite wrong again, and in fact once again i am perfectly correct in pointing out that you said Greta Thunberg flew everywhere, but that was not true at all was it and nor has it been since.

                  Your were quite incorrect on that yet again weren’t you.

                  And then you are quite wrong in trying to insinuate that Greta was somehow responsible for the carbon fibre racing yacht Malizia 2, whereas the truth is that the Malizia 2 is probably has the least carbon footprint on the high, and getting higher, seas.

                  So I merely point out the gross hypocrisy of your words, the example i gave of the massive carbon footprint yachts and private planes that Jim and co are responsible for that are perfectly true. Not to mention the Ineos tankers that deliver daily all the way from the USA to Grangemouth and back and the sacks of polymer beads that roll off the production line at Grangemouth every 30 seconds?

                  Now that collective Ineos carbon footprint is of gravitational displacement proportions, and you petty and pout about a small racing yacht that is energy neutral?

                  Hypocrisy indeed…..

                  Sent from my Windows 10 phone

        • Phil C: Bitter much??? You and your friend refraction still powering your 3 litre diesel bmw’s on fabricated unicorn dust?

          • Whoops! Temper temper, old thing? Why, if it isnt the old low priest of the barbarians come to grace our little discussion? That was a mistake wasn’t it.

            Nope wrong again on all counts Ele as usual, simply illustrating that you guys havent the brains to see the wood for the trees, let alone the 4000 litre diesel yacht for the solar powered water turbine racing yacht?

            Pot kettle black and blue.

            Hypocrisy rules anti anti land it seems…..

            Far from bitter old thing, after all, that is your Jag isn’t it, but what is so funny old thing, is that you and your best bosom buddy Martian don’t know what is going on, you are both so lazy you’ve grown soft and complacent, time to wake you both up a bit,

            Welcome to the future….

              • No, of course not, do try to keep up Ele, do you have to lag behind all the time?

                The 4000 litre yacht is Jim Ratcliffes, in St Jean Cap Ferrat , and its just a bit bigger than anything you can comfortably imagine, so actually quite small really….

                The other one is the racing yacht Malizia 2, don’t you know anything?

  4. Wot? No Emoji, late reaction?

    (You will be pleased to know that the carbon fibre yacht has a diesel engine! Not sure if it is from BMW, and probably not supplied by vegetable oil, so two antis who may need a bit more research.)

    However, just to keep you and the Jacks happy:

    “American oil giants enjoy shale surge

    Surging shale oil production in the Permian Basin helped Exxon Mobil and Chevron to beat Wall Street’s second quarter forecasts”.

    The rest of the article is a bit too deflating for some, so I will leave that out.

    Shame reality has a continuing habit of Trumping the guff posted as excitement fodder.

    • Goodness me Martian! if you had only done a bit more research you could have happened upon this:

      “Fracking has been an “unmitigated disaster” for shale companies themselves, according to a prominent former shale executive.

      “The shale gas revolution has frankly been an unmitigated disaster for any buy-and-hold investor in the shale gas industry with very few limited exceptions,” Steve Schlotterbeck, former chief executive of EQT, a shale gas giant, said at a petrochemicals conference in Pittsburgh. “In fact, I’m not aware of another case of a disruptive technological change that has done so much harm to the industry that created the change.””

      Don’t get too deflated though. Shame reality has a continuing habit of Trumping the guff posted as excitement fodder.

    • MARTIN ,

      It warms my heart to be reminded, that I’m in your thoughts.

      I am though a little disappointed that you have still not understood my very simple step by step guide on the Great American Fracking Ponzi Scheme , even though I’ve given you the children’s nursery guide version , sooooooo many times.

      Here are a few links from reputable organisations that will help you understand what a WHOPPING, GREAT , PLUMP PONZI scheme American Fracking is.


      Fracking Could be Heading Us Into the Next Financial Crisis

      Exposing the economic lies behind the fracking hype

      The Fracking PONZI in the USA has been fuelled by, near ZERO interest rate borrowing and gullible investors that for years have been promised elusive pots of gold at the end of a never ending rainbow.

      Also lets not forget the sympathetic US government that has all but abolished, any Shale regulations and these companies STILL CAN’T make it pay .

      A ‘’Gusher Of Red Ink’’ for US Shale

      Fracking in 2018: Another Year of Pretending to Make Money

      And WHO MARTIN will eventually be saddled with MOST of these debts ???????

      Any ideas MARTIN ???????

      That’s right , the good old American Tax payer and small time investor whose have been well and truly ripped of .

      Please feel free to come back anytime, to seek further advice from your old buddy Jack.

      [Typo corrected at poster’s request]

      • Oh, hello Big Green Jack. All the other Jacks, jacks doing well?

        “Chevron’s second quarter profit was $4.3 BILLION.”

        Less than 5 billion barrels out of the Permian, which leaves over 70 BILLION of recoverable reserves.

        Yep, looks pretty much on its knees. LOL

        How are the Tesla “profits” going? Who is going to clean up all those spent batteries? Surely not the USA Tax Payer?

        • MARTIN , and other potential investors

          WARNING ……..DON’T BE FOOLED.

          The Permian Basin is a colossal great , 8,903 sq km ( that’s kilometres ) sweet spot of gas in the USA.

          Even your grandmother could close her eyes and randomly prod a stick in the ground and strike gas .

          BUT in reality, the Shale debts across the rest of the USA are eye watering and growing bigger by the day .

          U.S. Oil Companies Face $240 Billion Debt Mountain

          • USA is the USA jack: the UK is the UK different geographical regions, different geology! Nice try, try again!
            By-the-by, your research is very lazy, why don’t you look for oil and gas exploration research closer to the UK!

            • ELI-GOTH

              Yes , the ” USA is the USA ” and in the USA , the land of almost ZERO Oil and Gas regulations where anything goes……. The vast majority of shale companies STILL CAN’T make it pay…… NO MATTER how much shale reserves are below their feet .

              Over here, UK shale, trying to operate in our more densely populated areas, with more highly restrictive regulations. Well lets be honest , they won’t have a cat in hells chance of making a buck………

              Unless your talking about the endless milking of investors , now thats the only place where anythings been flowing freely……….BUT these investors are now waking up to the fact that Fagin has been at their pockets.

              As far as new investors go, well lets be honest . It would now be easier to sell Snow to Eskimos, than sell Shale company shares .

              Now ELI-GOTH, to turn round and to loosely use the words ” UK different geographical regions,different geology ” like thats somehow going to make a magical difference here in the UK

              Well your going to have to enlighten us as to how and why that will kick start and make profitable a highly restricted, deeply unpopular industry .

              My advice to you buddy, is to cut your loses and get out of UK shale .

      • Jack TL

        Good to see you posting.

        I expect Trump to bail out the ( uncompetitive bit ) of the US fracking industry. It’s cheaper than the sub prime bail out, and supports real jobs rather than flipping houses. It also keeps the US as top dog re oil production.

        His recent tweets re China have also driven down the oil price, so that day inches closer. He does not like the price to be too high.

        I guess he thinks that if state aid to industry is good for China, its good for the US.

        We should keep an eye on how it goes, as well as BP investment in fracking.

        It seems that the way to fund it all is to print money ( or just make it appear on your computer ).

        The printer of cash ( a central bank ) then buys shares.

        Some feel that the UE will start to do this soon to prop up the Euro, which props up the bankrupt southern states ( but at the expense of Germany ) but it levels the playing field. It may also generate inflation which will help distribute wealth from the old to the young.

        So ..when you ask who pays when frack companies go bust, the answer, as ever, is the same for all companies, or indeed countries.

        • Good evening HEWES62, I hope all is well.

          I’ve never been away, just quietly been sitting in the background, minding my own business, reading through the forum posts……

          Then all of a sudden , straight out of the blue, like a shot in the dark, my old buddy MARTIN deliberately rattles my chains.

          I feel that when he mentions my name in one of his posts , It’s like a cry for help . What else can one do but to come back and try to show him the error of his ways and explain where he’s going wrong ..

          Regards, Jack

          • Well Jack, having worked for two USA companies that were extremely profitable, I remember there were several competitors who racked up debts they couldn’t service. (One of the companies I worked for was so profitable that it was subject to an aggressive takeover! Perhaps debt is a safer option!)

            Perhaps you could find ANY industry where that is not the case?

            Maybe your employer, who pays, according to you, based upon your conversion rate, could furnish you with some exceptions-but, I doubt it.

            (Do they pay extra for night time working?)

    • Well well ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, what do we have here?

      Now this is really dredging the last desperate dregs from the bottom of that empty cracked barrel, but still so desperate to attempt to pull out that soiled little list…..

      Yes folks it’s the old discredited dead weasel red diesel vegetable oil guff that should have died of embarrassment years ago and smells like it should have died everal years before that.

      But oh dear ladies and gentlemen boys and girls, something is wrong, it’s not working, I’m afraid it’s passed away in its disturbed sleep.

      Oh dear, as the last ditch Martian attempts to regain some credibility…..any credibility… gone, the old dead weasel joke sadly died of unnatural causes due to ill wealth and terminal irrelevance…..awww, shame……

      The deceased dead weasel red diesel joke funeral will take place when we find a casket infinitely small enough to contain the wit of its author……

      Never mind Martian old thing it was well past its crime anyway….

  5. You mean buying and holding Exxon or Chevron has been an unmitigated disaster??!!

    Must be on a par with Tesla!

    It is possible to “happen upon” a great number of things on the Internet, delayed reaction. I tried searching pheromones the other day and it took me to some dubious sites frequented by who knows what. My agenda was to deal with garden pests, others were attempting to make themselves something they were not. Reality and guff.

    Sound familiar?

    The answer is simple. Just stop looking for what you think might excite others and focus upon the reality. Prevents a lot of disappointment.

Add a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s