Drilling companies confirm work underway at West Newton-B

West Newton B location Rathlin Energy

Location of site (red triangle) and access track.

The oil and gas company, Rathlin Energy, has confirmed that it has started work at its second site in East Yorkshire.

DrillOrDrop reported on 8 April 2020 that site work appeared to have started at the West Newton-B site. But Rathlin Energy declined to respond to our questions about operations.

The company posted on its website yesterday (14 April 2020) that it was: “conducting preparatory work … in compliance with landowner and regulatory agreements, and consistent with government guidance on the COVID-19 situation.”

It added:

“Initial operations involve the completion of the access track and site along with activities that are pre-operational conditions of our Environment Agency and East Riding of Yorkshire Council (ERYC) permissions.”

This morning, Rathlin’s partners, Reabold Resources and Union Jack Oil, issued statements to shareholders.

David Bramhill, executive chairman of Union Jack Oil, said:

“We are very pleased that Rathlin are able to safely progress activities at the West Newton B site, especially in these challenging and unprecedented times.

“We anticipate West Newton to be a key driver for shareholder value during 2020 and beyond.”

Stephen Williams, Reabold’s co-chief executive, commented:

“During this period of global uncertainty and restrictions related to COVID-19, we are extremely pleased to be able to safely progress activity at the West Newton B site, where drilling will be a key driver of value for Reabold and its shareholders in 2020.  We are very excited by the potential scale and value of West Newton and look forward to providing further updates as operations move forward in due course.”

Reabold said the West Newton-B site would further appraise the hydrocarbon finds made at the nearby West Newton-A site in 2019 in the Kirkham Abbey formation. The new site would also target the deeper Cadeby formation, where oil had been encountered at West Newton-A.

Rathlin said it had informed East Riding of Yorkshire Council on 17 March that work was due to start within 14 days. The council has not published this notice on its online planning website.

West Newton B key facts and timeline



30 replies »

  1. I guess the contractor has spoken to the police about the work so we expect no arrests or fines unless the activity breaches the Covid Regs?

    However, the OGA could have been pragmatic and given them some flexibilty in the timing of the development, should Rathlin have asked for it.

  2. “In compliance with landowner and regulatory agreement ….”
    What are regulatory agreements? Surely these are legal, enforceable requirements?
    An interesting admission that exploration takes place in a culture of negotiation and compromise rather than gold standard regulation.
    How will the archeological conditions be met in this particularly important part of Holderness. Is there an archeologist on site all the time they are digging the access road? (Overlooked at Crawberry Hill)
    Are the environmental conditions being met during a peak period of risk for nesting birds and amphibians. ( Numerous complaints about breaches at Crawberry Hill and WNA)
    Are traffic plans being adhered to?
    ( If so it will be a first because Rathlin and the wider industry ignore these restrictions every time)
    Once the site starts operating will HSE regulations be applied. ( Repeated breaches at CH and WNA)
    Will emission and pollution regulations be adhered to?( They we’re not at CH and serious breaches at WNA we’re the reason why Rathlin had to stop all operations.)

    • Johhn Mager

      All environmental and HSE regulatory requirements are legal (none are illegal? ), and they are enforceable (under the section titled enforcement in the relevant regs and or overarching Acts).

      Re a culture of negotiation and compromise, I would draw your attention to two relevant guides.

      The enforcement of the HSE and EA regulations apply to a large number of UK operations, including the onshore oil and gas industry as well as civil engineering (as building a roadway to a well site is a civil engineering task ).

      For those with an interest in both HS legislation i would recommend a read of the article below

      the article explores why the Robens Committee felt the need to emphasise a turn to greater self-regulation and non-prescriptive law, rather than more detailed regulation or more vigorous enforcement of the existing legal provisions……..

      Hence i do not see that there is an admission of a culture of negotiation and compromise (sic) as the regulations as they are, and in the case of safety regulations, have been that way since the 1970s. More the regulations are as they are, and admissions are as a reult of lack of knowledge?

      An example of the way the Safety regulations are being enforced is linked below. As this relates to pressure vessels and lifting equipment it is likely to be relevant during construction of th road should anything require lifting.

      It is worth noting that the HSE say how they will approach the issue.

      HSE will adopt a pragmatic and proportionate approach towards enforcement action for non-compliance with statutory requirements which are directly attributable to the coronavirus (Covid-19) outbreak.

      Our usual enforcement response will be to take no action if the only failing is that TE&T is not carried out by the required date.

      Equipment should only be used outside of its test regime if you can demonstrate that it is critical for essential work and that it can still be operated safely.

      You must be able to demonstrate that you have made all reasonable attempts to have the TE&T carried out, made a thorough assessment of the increased risk and taken appropriate action to manage it.

      Happy to take questions on any of that.

      I would note that the issues raised (archaeological, environmental, traffic plans etc ) are as relevant for H2S and the Lincoln bypass (which continues to be worked) as a very small road in Yorkshire.

      Plus, we still do no know if they will start bolting the drilling package together during the lockdown, or are just completing the civils.

      • Flippant and personal responses as usual Martin. You haven’t a clue about my experience and professional record and especially not for the local residents at WN who were successful in closing down WN precisely because of their detailed professional knowledge, experiemce and reputations.
        Stick to the facts. This is a cowboy operation in a cowboy industry with a long history of accidents and breaches of regulations.

        • Don’t think I made any reference to your experience and professional record, Jon, so how can I have made any personal response? Are you suggesting you are the sole individual objecting, or has objected at WN? Facts?

          If you want to suggest UK on shore oil and gas is a cowboy industry with a long history of accidents and breaches of regulations, that is your choice. However, most will recognise that is NOT the reality. Indeed, my “flippant” comment about farmers would direct many to understand there are industries which do have a much worse record, yet are accepted as essential for our well being, and controls are applied to keep the standards as high as possible. Often some will observe “breaches” in that industry-usually those who are Nimbys or just have no knowledge of the industry- that many will also observe and find totally acceptable. I know MANY farmers who “enjoyed” the visit of the EA knowing that an infringement would have to be found and recorded, however minor, to justify that a thorough inspection had taken place. They knew it, the EA person knew it, but that was the reality. It certainly did NOT make that farmer a cowboy farmer. Facts?

          Doesn’t seem to me that WN is closed down currently. “Work underway” seems pretty concise. And it was NOT “the” local residents at WN, but a few of them. Facts?

          Maybe not wise to suggest sticking to facts, when it is yourself who has just driven a coach and horses through them and left the evidence for all to observe.

          • Thank you for apologising for suggesting that I am not one of the ” not a few who have no experience and no record of being able to do better themselves”. Why make such personal comments in the first place?
            Not sure why you keep persist in going on about farmers.

            The first vehicle to approach the Crawberry Hill site when it reopened was owned by the farmer who leased the site.
            1. It approached from the wrong direction. Breach of the Traffic Management Plan
            2 It did not stop at the entrance. Breach of the Traffic Management plan and breach of the HSE guidance for agricultural vehicles.
            3. There was no banksman employed by Rathlin to supervise vehicle access to the site. Breach of the traffic management plan.
            4. A Protector standing by the gate of the site was knocked down and was taken to hospital.
            5. The driver was told by the police to go home and have a cup of tea.
            6. There was no inspection of the vehicle or check of its service record before it resumed work on the site a few hours later.

            Some farmers do not take environmental regulations seriously, many do care for wildlife.
            Some farmers have a lax attitude to HSE at work , most don’t.
            I am not clear how lack of concern for nesting birds or amphibians supports the oil and gas exploration industry in East Yorkshire.

            • No, I did not apologise, simply because there was nothing to apologise for! You changed my text to try and manufacture a grievance. That was your choice, not mine. Perhaps not the best signal of how you approach this subject?

              Why do I persist in going on about farmers? I thought it was obvious. They operate in the same area as this site. They conduct a lot of their field work in the Spring. They have the same wildlife considerations, and they manage their operations GENERALLY in a way that supports the wildlife as much as they can whilst doing so. Both have regulations they have to follow in these respects. Certainly better than those who wish to disturb the area to make their protests, who follow few regulations and whinge continuously about anyone who tries to say they should.

              Wildlife and on shore oil and gas sites are shown to be very comfortable together. There is good experience of that within the UK. You can even check out DoD for references to buzzards and butterflies-not from me, but from Ruth! Or, take a visit to Europe’s largest on shore active oil field, in the UK. There is also a very good history of health and safety with regard to UK on shore oil and gas sites, certainly superior to most countries that export oil and gas to UK currently. Yet, you claim it is a cowboy industry.

              You have your viewpoint, but it is quite different to others I can quote. Like a colleague who lived in a rural setting opposite an oil exploration site. I met with him in his home and asked how he was getting on with his new neighbours. Fine, he told me. A little bit of “lights at night”, as he put it, but no worse than he was used to from the local farm completing harvesting. A bit of a “hum” during drilling, but similar in his opinion to the hum he experienced from the local grain drier. He ate bread so he expected farmers to do their job to help produce it, he lived in the countryside with oil fired central heating so expected someone to do their job to enable him to be provided with the fuel he needed for heating and the fuel he needed for transport to run his business.

              Or, a lady who worked with me in Lincolnshire. She travelled to the office each day and drove past an active oil site, but had no clue it was even there. Maybe she would have, if she had lived there when it was first built, but then she lived in a new house in a neighbouring village that was built afterwards-and probably disturbed more wildlife during construction than the oil site. But, soon after construction, the wildlife returned.

              I still remember the false claims of rare snails to try and halt the Newbury bypass. They were re-housed at vast expense to tax payers, and then found to be as common as muck! Protestors have their own cowboy history. All those trees to be cut down-but more were planted to replace. Disturbance of wildlife? Yet, red kites have now used the A34 as a “corridor” to spread their way back to some southern counties that had not seen them for many years.

              “Cowboy” industries are emotive, but usually not supported by any significant data. The River Test has remained pristine in terms of any oil pollution whilst it has had a neighbouring oil extraction site at Stockbridge for many years. The last pollution scare I noted for the River Itchen was pollution that was tracked back to a salad washing facility! And the final irony is that the salmon run for both is ASSISTED by the oil refinery at Fawley helping to CLEAN the water in the Solent that the salmon swim through to enter both the Test and the Itchen.

              • There were many claims of breaches of safety, environmental and planning regulations and that Rathlin were a cowboy outfit during the work activities to drill the West Newton ‘A-2’ well.

                As a local resident I feel that it is vitally important to separate fact from fiction.

                Out of the various claims to the HSE of unsafe working practices on the site, only one was found. That being the method used for lowering a vent pipe during demobilisation of equipment used by a contract company to install the conductor casing.

                Tachographs displayed no evidence of speeding or other driver infringements. No vehicles or trailers where found to be unroadworthy. Police and Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency inspections found a couple of minor advisory faults on only one trailer, no enforcement action was necessary.

                A number of different Compliance Officers from the Environment Agency visited the drilling site on several occasions as part of both scheduled and unplanned visits, no compliance issues found.

                • In 2016 Cuadrilla stated on their website,

                  ‘in accordance with the planning consent well plugging and site restoration work will be carried out after the wintering bird’s season, ending 31st March 2016 and before the deadline set by Lancashire County Council of 31st October 2016.’

                  That did not happened.

                  No reason given. A Biological Heritage site that could and should have been restored.

                  ‘Wildlife and on shore oil and gas sites are shown to be very comfortable together’


                • But, you have conflated Cuadrilla with many other sites, that are bog standard oil and gas, jP!!

                  Wonder why? Nobody will notice? Oh yes they did.


                  (By the way, has the site been restored?)

                • An example of an onshore oil site living in harmony with nature.

                  I note that while Cuadrilla breached their planning consents, I do not see evidence that there drilling affected the birds, and would ask if the still site is part of a biological heritage site or adjacent to one.


                  Good pictures can be seen below, though the story should be read with a pinch of salt, the oil field was fracked ( not HPHV Shale stuff ) and operates in harmony with its surroundings. The coal fired power station is still there and operational ( though not for long ).


                  So, there are examples of oil and gas fields living in harmony with nature, examples of operators breaching planning consents and presumably examples of where such sites do not.

                  Meanwhile I expect ( once the pandemic is over ), that onshore wind will be rammed through the planning process, though we need a few thousand of them to replace the power station. Whether It is in the teeth of local opposition or not is yet to be seen. Lots of good civil business to be had by civils building them, and a fair amount maintaining them.

                  Tho like Scottish wind farms, a lot of roads need building across land ( and good agricultural stuff in Lincs ) to install them.


                  Here is a I Tube video …. Constructing a wind farm base. Quite rightly so local companies are quite supportive if hundreds of these get built ( or thousands ).

      • Thank you very much for taking the time to provide a detailed response to my comments.
        Thank you for providing the analysis of the evolution of HSE culture in the UK which appears to bear out all I have observed in my engagement with the HSE during the Rathlin operations in East Yorkshire and Third Energy in Ryedale.
        In contrast to the repeated claims by Ministers, MPs, local planning officers and local councillors that the oil and gas onshore exploration industry is highly regulated and works to a “Gold Standard” the reality is self regulation and a marked reluctance by HSE officials to intervene when breaches occur and are reported with photographic evidence,
        Having been required to undergo annual HSE training and certification as the named senior executive responsible for thousands of employees I found the lax approach to safe working practices at West Newton and Crawberry Hill extremely concerning, not only for the workers employed but for the public because of the wider risks arising from gas exploration and production.
        Having worked in Aberdeen for several years I know something of the human consequences of a foreseeable and preventable disaster like Piper Alpha.
        Events at Cuadrilla’s first drilling site showed a contempt for the regulators.
        You are right to highlight the collaborative and self-regulating philosophy underpinning HSE culture. My experience is that this is not appropriate for the current onshore oil and gas exploration industry in the UK.

          • I do not disagree with any of the points you make but what you need to explain is why Rathlin were forced to stop work at West Newton A and why they had to abandon Crawberry Hill.
            You might also want to check why there have never been unannounced inspections by the EA or HSE when I challenged them directly on this issue.
            If you care to examine the Inspectorate sites for prisons or school you will see a description of the arrangements for unannounced inspections where there are reports concerning safety.
            May I suggest that an oil and gas exploration site is potentially a much more dangerous place an indeed the reason given for not having unannounced inspections is that it would not be safe to do so. Inspectors phone before they visit and the site is then shut down for safety reasons – so the reported operational breaches like workers climbing the rig without safety harnesses, working without any PPE etc or venting of gas cannot be observed.

            • According to the minutes from the community liaison meetings, the EA and HSE made regular visits to the West Newton site, including planned and unplanned ones during 2019.

              A quick read of the CAR documents on the EA website also indicate that the site was operational on many of the visits.

              Going back to 2014 site operations is interesting. This is taken from the HSE report following their investigation regarding the complaint of unsafe working at height on the workover rig (not wearing a safety harness) lodged under the name of Joe Public, by email with a video clip attached.

              The investigation included a site visit on the 17/10/2014 and interviews with the complainant, another witness and the main duty holders.

              The investigation concluded that only the derrick man knew for certain whether he was safely attached to the fall arrest equipment, but the evidence available supported the conclusion that he probably was.

  3. I see every year farmers on the roads who deviate slightly from what would be Gold Standard. Quite normal.

    There are plenty of organisations to determine whether any slight deviations are okay, or not, with much greater levels of knowledge and independence than so called “observers”, who have not exactly shown themselves to be very good at the job, let alone impartial.
    Nesting birds? Hmm. Seems it is okay for antis to prance about dressed up as owls.

    And as for Mr. Musk and amphibians! OMG.

    Nope, same rules and interpretation apply to all, and need the appropriate bodies to oversee, not a few who have no experience and no record of being able to do better themselves.

  4. Jon Mager

    There are a few conversations going on here so I will try and reply to those not in play.


    How worried should one be?

    The West Newton Site , as any onshore site has a mix of parts which deliver the whole. A part of the operation is exclusively oil and gas, a fair amount is not.

    Building the track.

    Whoever is building that will be a civils company contracted by Rathlin. What you see going on should be a reflection of the local HSE standard of construction for SMEs.

    Rathlin have a duty of care to ensure contractors comply with the law, but they ( presumably ) hire locally and the Safety culture that turns up reflects local conditions.

    Hence concerns relating to Health and safety due to that activity should be no more or less than any relating to work carried out for non oil and gas companies.

    Traffic management

    As a planning condition this is a generic requirement for many non O& G sites. Typically, as Martin has noted, for house building sites. The TMP for the three house building sites in our village is regularly flouted ( lorries speeding, on pavements, wrong way, wrong time, no wheel washers). A vexing issue for the parish council. One company has access to the site without going through the village, the other two have to go through The village. The troublesome 2 have building permission via a review.

    Traffic management is a local issue and reflects the local safety culture and acceptance of risk by what are in general local drivers. The employing company has a duty to enforce it, but on balance suspect that what you get is a reflection of the local culture .

    For drilling equipment a number of contractors haul this, a few up the road from where I live. They haul a variety of loads all over the UK as well, and follow ( or not it would seem ) traffic management plans.

    Hence the risks from O&G are no more or less than any development requiring one,

    If the site eventually produced loads of oil, and truck it off site, you would expect that regular drivers of oil lorries would be fully compliant with all relevant rules ( while more itinerant ones may make the odd mistake ).

    I wonder how UKOG are getting on?I

    This may look like statement of the obvious, but the issues above are well aired here on DoD. Primarily in my mind because they are generic issues to all developments ( and not subject to O&G specific regulation), resulting in a war of words between those against hydrocarbon development at all costs and those who focus on the specific risks O&G developments present.

    Happy for anyone to disagree.

    Next, more specific thoughts closer to the site, but general legislation to look at first ( WAH for sure ) and my thoughts on why un announced inspections do not do much in relation to O&G sites onshore ( and certainly offshore ), and why they work for schools and prisons.I


    Here is a link to a pdf . It discusses the improvements to Safety following piper alpha. See page 144 ( download the report not everything, the page 144 is a few pages in and a short read) which looks at the pre piper alpha regime. This was prescriptive, regulated by the poacher ( the DOE ) and understaffed. It was not in line with HSWA.

    Due to Piper Alpha the offshore O&G industry moved to a goal setting, Safety Case \ HSWA type regulation.

    • Have you been present on a daily basis when an exploration site is set up?
      More importantly have you been present when drilling equipment is mobilised on and off the site?

      When the rural setting of sites in East Yorkshire and North Yorkshire is taken in to account the construction involved is on an unprecedented scale which cannot be compared to a housing development.
      In addition, according to sworn statements of truth made by Ineos to the High Court the loads carried are highly dangerous, not just sand, cement, aggregate and some steel.

      Your comments about the arrangements for actually digging the access road may be correct but from the point of view of regulations it is Rathlin who hold the licence and the planning permission and they have overall responsibility for adherence. Not that this does much to protect the local residents, including small villages like Sproatley, because as you have pointed out, the regulations rely largely on self-reporting.
      It should also be noted that HSE have stressed they are only responsible for what happens on the site, not any accidents or spills on the roads to and from.

      There are two general objections to oil and gas exploration in the UK.

      It involves industrialisation of rural landscapes; thankfully few sites have been successfully developed but the disruption caused and the scale of activity in the small exploratory sites has given an insight into the large scale industrialisation which would happen if the thousands of wells envisaged in the fracking revolution ever did take off.

      Secondly the industry is too late to provide their claimed transition to a renewable future. The current world glut of oil and gas and falling prices underline the reality of huge existing global reserves and the developing climate emergency suggests we need to keep much of these reserves in the ground against very long term strategic needs where oil and gas are the only viable sources of energy.

      • John Mager

        I have not been present at a fracking site ( Gearing for fracking by installing a frack spread ). I know people who have.

        I have been present at sites gearing up and carring out exploratory drilling.

        This includes Road construction, pad construction, drilling, demob.

        I have lived next to onshore oilfield in production. I regularly walked aroundcthat 100 plus well development ( most now defunct ).

        I once lived in Long Riston ( where there was no oilfield but i know the area well).

        I see your point about fracking, but i thought your question related to Rathlin and the West Newton prospect which is not fracking nor a development relating to continuous source rock exploitation.

        Is that correct?

        That is why i popped the video of windfarm base construction in there.
        A few wells is small beer compared to what you need to get a decent wind farm in ( including 10s miles of access roads). I am ok with both. Solar and wind are industrialising the countryside. When visiting Donna Nook Seal Sanctuary ( Saltfleetby ) its easy to see the wind tubines and the static caravan parks, but you have to root around to find the gas field now operated by Angus ( which i did tho the family were grumpy about it).

        • Jon Mager

          Sorry missed the last point

          Rathlin and their small oilfield will not be part of the touted frack gas transition. They may produce a fraction of UK oil ( or a larger fraction of english oil ) while we try and reduce consumption.

          Plus re regulation of civils and traffic management, it is the same for any road building or traffic management system in the UK?

        • Rathlin had permission to frack the WNA and CH sites.
          (I managed to get a no fracking amendment to the WNB planning permission much to Rathlin’s disgust but they can still frack because the Govt changed the definition).
          Rathlin confirmed they drilled right through the Bowland Shale , why go to the expense if they weren’t part of the fracking strategy underpinning the Government dash for gas?
          Cuadrilla ‘s failures in Lancs have proved that fracking is unsafe in UK faulted geology and the slump in oil prices has made the project unviable.
          I respect your knowledge and research but can’t see the point of arguing for fracking and conventional oil and gas when the game is over for fossil fuels.

          • John Mager

            I think that John Harisson addressed the issue of drilling and shale although i need to look back through thd posts.

            Re the game up for oil and gas, that is more of a value judgement.

            I was addressing your point … how worrief should you be for your safety from the West Newton proposed oil field. This answer tied to the regulatory system and compared to other similar activities which are typically carried out in an area.

            I will carry on with the legal stuff, but will root around for the drilled through the shale bit although it may be picked up by someone else.


      • Sorry, Jon, but your comments are just strange and contrary to what is reality.

        There is NO connection to thousands of wells spoken about regarding fracking. The development in E.Yorkshire is nothing to do with that, as anyone who knows what a moratorium is can see quite clearly. It is just bizarre. Like referring to someone who is wanting to build a bungalow and trying to connect it to a new town project that is not happening!

        There are very successful on shore oil and gas sites operating within the UK , and are quite happily accepted by neighbours. Not saying they are everyone’s cup of tea, but no less so than many other operations that are conducted in the countryside. You seem to be trying to present a false image of the countryside. If people are living in the countryside they have already disrupted it in the same way, and will be there a lot longer. The countryside has always had a certain level of industry. Not all countryside dwellers want to work in agriculture, or travel long distances to get to work.

        With respect to hazardous loads, it depends upon your view point. There are MANY hazardous loads carried on rural roads. How do you think the chemicals used by the farming sector get to the farms, or from the farms to the fields? Every vehicle that travels these roads contains hazardous materials, whether they be diesel, petrol or electric. Add a small quantity of cobalt to most situations and you need to add a skull and crossbones, too, even though the car industry has been very quiet about that.

        You are also very confused regarding supply/demand and price regarding oil and gas. Yes, there is a large drop in demand for oil and gas currently because of Covid-19, just like there is a large drop in demand for many other industries. This is not new to the world, but Covid-19 is. We already have TODAY strategic needs where oil and gas are the only viable sources of energy. Most ambulances are currently run using diesel, most farm machinery operates using red diesel, aircraft bringing PPE from China and Turkey are able to fly because of oil. The demand today is due to Covid-19 and will change as quickly as and when Covid-19 is controlled.

        Interesting how the media is whinging so much about UK being vulnerable because it has relied too much on overseas supply chains, and you want to perpetuate that folly. Think you are backing the wrong horse there. Some neighbourhoods may end up with laboratories, some clothing manufacturers and others a small, discrete oil or gas site-that if successful, will produce not only oil and gas but some tax revenue to help pay for the NHS. Although, it seems from another section on DoD, some want to set out to delay such and cost the operators money, both of which would just delay and diminish that tax revenue. Somewhat different mind set to Captain Tom.

  5. hewes62

    Very useful.

    We have a number of new housing sites around us and what is quite a common feature is that during construction the deliveries to them are operating under different circumstances than after the site is complete. This is usually because the entrance is temporary rather than the finished article, so lorries frequently have to cross into opposite lanes to acquire sufficient turning capacity to enter the site. Noticed a few young drivers who are unaware of this and get into problems making a silly overtaking attempt. Of course, why make the entrance permanent until after construction is complete, as it would probably only need to be rebuilt afterwards?!
    The same turning issue also relates to farm equipment. It is easy to see a tractor on its own will operate through a gate in one way, with a large set of equipment behind it, another.

    A lot of this comes down to consideration of what other good drivers are required to do, and some allowance that they might not be that good! But then, most drivers do not have to put up with individuals making their lives more difficult by deliberate obstruction, or jumping onto their vehicles.

  6. The official statements from Union Jack Oil and Reabold say it all really.
    The fracking industry exists to create short term ‘shareholder value’. Honest but shocking none the less.

    • Stephen
      Looks like they have no interest in shale gas or shale oil industry then ( warning us against it ).

    • Why shocking, Stephen? You could define a load of industries in exactly the same way. It would be a very narrow and incomplete definition of each of those industries, like saying the football industry exists to get people to run around. Say it all? No.

      As for the reason the Internet exists, then you could define that as the opportunity for some to express extremely selected, and often fake “news”. I think even the really young are aware of that, and have ceased to be shocked even when encouraged to be angry and panic..

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