Campaigners rebut IGas shale gas claims for Misson

Opponents of fracking for shale gas have dismissed comments made by IGas about the role of its Misson site in Nottinghamshire in solving the energy crisis.

IGas site at Misson Springs, December 2020. Photo: from IGas planning application

IGas said the site, which has one vertical well, could begin extracting gas within a year if the government lifted the moratorium on fracking in England.

It told last week’s Mail on Sunday that the site, known as Misson Springs, could produce 60-80 billion cubic feet of gas in total, if fully developed with 10 boreholes.

Extract of the online article in the Mail on Sunday, first published on 12 March 2022.

But Frack Free Misson, which has opposed IGas’s operations in the area for seven years, said today:

“It can only be concluded that IGas’ most recent claims regarding Misson Springs are ill-founded and incredulous at best.”

Planning permission at the site expired in 2021 and an application to extend consent was refused. The company has previously said it would restore the land later this year.

But IGas told the Mail on Sunday it could prepare a planning application within weeks and begin a commercial pilot nine months after approval if the government helped speed up the process. The extracted gas could heat up to 125,000 homes, the company said.

Frack Free Misson responded:

“The notion that fracking for shale gas will alleviate the current energy price crisis is totally without foundation.

“An increasing body of scientific evidence concludes that UK geology is unsuitable for this extreme form of energy extraction.

“IGas’ latest assertion that they could provide gas from their Misson Springs site ever, let alone within a year, is just another chapter in their book of spin and false assumptions.”

The moratorium in England was imposed in 2019 because of concerns about the predictability and control of fracking-induced seismicity. This followed series of earthquakes caused by fracking at Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road site near Blackpool. One measured 2.9 on the local magnitude scale, the strongest fracking-induced earthquake in the UK.

Earlier this week, the government said shale gas was “not the solution to near-term [energy] issues”. The energy minister, Greg Hands, said “it would take years of exploration and development before commercial quantities of shale gas could be produced”.

Last month, Mr Hands said the government’s position was unchanged. Fracking would not be allowed to proceed in England unless compelling new evidence was provided that addressed concerns about the prediction and management of induced seismicity.

Frack Free Misson said the industry had “spectacularly failed to prove that it can meet the conditions to have the government moratorium lifted”.

“Wrong place for shale gas extraction”

The group also said the IGas site was always the wrong place for shale gas extraction.

It is next to the Misson Carr site of special scientific interest, a breeding area for rare and protected birds.

The group said:

“In selecting the site at Misson Springs, IGas either overlooked or willfully neglected the fact that, according to their industry’s own modelling, operating fracking equipment would massively exceed the statutory noise limits in place to protect the adjacent Misson Carr nature reserve.”

Because IGas applied for consent at Misson to drill, but not frack, the noise of hydraulic fracturing could not be taken into account when planning permission was granted in 2016.

Frack Free Mission also said the pursuit of fracking, while also scaling back on home insulation and renewables, had resulted in a wasted decade for national energy.

“As a result, the current energy situation is far worse than it could have been. Now it will be hard pressed domestic consumers picking up the bill for the government and fracking industry’s folly and incompetence.”

68 replies »

  1. Oh, so living without energy is not linked with increased risk of early death? I think you will find it is, Jack, and within the UK.

    Please do tell, Jack, whether you prefer that way to die, or you prefer Russian gas and oil for Europe, where Europe is paying $1billion/day to Russia for oil and gas-and it can be seen what that is buying.

    And, now updated in July 2021! Are you aware what the Covid situation was in USA through 2020 and into 2021?

    Give it up Jack. You have been rumbled.

    • MARTIN ,

      Just accept it , your on the ropes once again . When taking note of the above posts , the readers can clearly see who is presenting the facts, with supporting evidence and who is giving an OPINION only.

      You WRONGLY questioned the date of the information. I corrected you ( fact ) . You can wriggle and turn as much as you like on this one , but let’s face it old chap , you were wrong .

      AHHH the Russia phobia card again. A classic default position of yours ….. Well let’s put it this way , how many UK and EU citizens will die due to fuel poverty as a result of not buying Russian gas ?????

      In the past, it has never been a problem buying our energy from rogue nations . Looking at the current situation , there are a rising number of countries that are willing to break ranks and continue buying from Russia.

      When you consider the toxic , climate changing, environmentally damaging , energy intensive process of Fracking and you also take note that it won’t lower our gas bills by a single penny . You have to ask yourself , what are the alternatives.

      There are a number of ways to tackle the UKs future energy problems , I hope the government continues on its current path and keeps fracking out of the equation .

      • MARTIN ,

        Just let me get this in , before you start trying to brand me a communist, a red , a Russian sympathizer.

        I have NO allegiance with Russia . I support dialogue and peaceful solutions , not death and destruction.

  2. Oh dear Jack.

    What you support is plonking out the same tired, historic nonsense that you have done in the past, becoming more hysterical when it is exposed as very selected and historical, and often completely inappropriate as per Chesapeake.

    However, the past is past and what the current situation and the future situations are is what you could focus upon, but refuse to do so as the situation is inconvenient. You attempt to display fracking in USA as a failed experiment, well, it isn’t. It is proceeding at pace to help supply the EU who made some pretty stupid energy calls to placate greenies, who like you, do not consider energy security and simply trot out the lines from those in power (with links from “experts”!) to state their energy is secure. Then, time passes, and the absolute twaddle is exposed, those who were in power are writing their memoirs, and the gullible are left high and dry and still trying the same old historic nonsense. It is time to move on Jack. You need to rehearse a new story. You may do better to try the line that fracking in USA is such a success it is not needed in UK!

    Meanwhile, those like Shell, are moving on to consider the reality of the present and the future, as they start to re-examine their decision on Cambo. And, the same suspects will take to the air waves denouncing the fact that they do so, but the reality is oil is at $100/barrel plus and economics look different. I note interconnectors were suggested as a solution by the Greens yesterday! Come on. Half the time they do not work, locals in UK do not want them, and those at the other end can turn them off if they have a paddy. Caught out with insecure energy supplies and the solution is to go for even more insecurity. Get real.

  3. MARTIN ,

    Are you living in some sort of parallel universe to the rest of us ?????? I knew that your diversionary, unsubstantiated, incomprehensible, out of touch OPINIONS are legendary and the stuff of folklore on here , but the is really setting a new benchmark.

    Ladies and Gentlemen, please note , MARTIN will only ever give you an OPINION, he never, I repeat never , backs up anything he/she says with evidence..

    The American fracking industry, whether you like it or not, has been part to some of the biggest bankruptcies in US history .

    It has been shown to be a debt riddled ponzi scheme.

    It’s a highly toxic, environmentally damaging climate changing, dangerous to animal and human health, energy intensive process., FACT

    As far as oil/gas prices go , I would like to put to the readers , WHO benefits from the current prices. ??????

    ANSWER not the people it’s the oil and gas companies….. This current situation in Ukraine if fantastic for their profit margins. Oil and Gas companies will be in NO HURRY to see speedy resolution to this current situation, why would they, £2 a litre is great for their bottom line .

    Anyway MARTIN , let’s CUT TO THE CHASE and get back to the topic of fracking .

  4. There you go again, Jack, in denial, whilst in USA crude output is expected to hit record levels in part of Texas and New Mexico even with limits upon output from a shortage of sand supplies.

    US shale production is expected to rise by 109k barrels/day in March to 8.7m bpd.

    Facts Jack.

    But, there is no data out there to bring yourself up to date, is there? You have the ability to find those facts, but decide not to.

    Cheaper for whom, Jack? What would the price of oil and gas be now without them?

    No answer, no wonder.

    • MARTIN ,

      Thank you for your OPINION once again .

      The Fracking industry in the USA has left the landscape of American like a Toxix Pin Cushion.

      These many thousands of abandoned/ orphaned wells will need conntinual maintenance from here to eternity… Please tell the readers what the annual cost to the American Tax Payer will be ????????

      I ask this question so that we can try and factor in the true cost of fracking.

      We know fracking is toxic . What will the ongoing financial cost be to the American health care service ?????

      We know fracking is toxic to the land . What will the lost agricultural financial cost be ,?????

      We know that fracking is devastating to the climate. What will be the financial cost be to the world ????? Try and quantify it to the nearest $ trillion please .

      At the moment the energy intensive , costly extraction process known as fracking , may well be able to hold its head above the water … This though brings me back to a previous question WHO BENEFITS from this current self inflicted energy crisis.??????

      ANSWER , not the ordinary people.

      It’s the oil and gas companies , £2 a litre fuel , they’ve never had it so good . It’s big fat bonuses all round .

      When , ” IF “normal energy supplies are allowed to resume once again , fracking will quickly return to being nothing more than a debt ridden ponzi scheme ,( 2:0 )

      MARTIN , one again I ask you to comment on the articles ( LINKS ) I have posted on this page … Please stop trying to divert away from the topics.

      I have shown you evidence that fracking is nothing more than a toxic , environmentally damaging, climate changing, environmentally damaging, dangerous to human and animal health, debt ridden ponzi scheme. NOW YOU PROVE OTHERWISE.

      • Nope, you haven’t.

        You have posted a load of historic, selected data, that upon scrutiny is not what you suggest. You have been repeating the same old stuff for years Jack.

        Meanwhile, Russia announces “repairs” to an oil pipeline that may last for two months, may last for longer and the global price of oil rises again. (Caspian Pipeline Consortium.)

        So, without the frackers in USA producing record outputs, Jack, where would the global price be? Come on, all this “cheap” supply of renewable energy, so surely the price of energy would not be impacted by such events. You can only fool the people until the foolishness is rammed down their throats. I received notification today my energy supplier wants to double my direct debit. They must have made an error?

        In 2019, the Permian was able to produce oil with a breakeven price in the low $30’s/barrel (source: Rystad Energy), Jack. You have seen that figure before, yet you now try and suggest costs of production are so high that when prices return to “normal” they will be uncompetitive. That is nonsense. I recognise that arithmetic is difficult for you, but even a primary school pupil should be able to work out what you can’t.

        Oh, by the way, electricity is dangerous to human and animal health! And, cobalt is a known and designated carcinogen.

        • MARTIN ,

          Let me put this in ” simple ” terms for you .

          At this moment in time , I could recycle my own ” ear wax ” in to candles and make a handsome profit .

          The fact that fracking is holding its head above water line in the USA , the land of almost ZERO fracking regulations is nothing to party about .

          It’s the Oil and Gas producers that are having the time of their lives with £2 a litre fuel. This is rewarding them with eye watering profits . This is where the real parties are being held .

          The ordinary people are the ones who will suffer .

          The evidence I have supplied , which whether it be one day or five years old is relevant to the dangers, long term effects and overall costs of fracking.

          Ladies and Gentlemen please note , MARTIN has failed to address any of the points raised in my above LINKS .

          Your OPINION MARTIN , as that’s all it ever is has been duly noted .

          AHHH , you mention the highly toxic Permian Basin , USA . As you always seem to be so concerned about the children mining rare earth minerals in the DRC for electric vehicles……. How concerned are you knowing what appalling effects the Permian Basin will have on climate change ????? Are you concerned about children of today and the future ??????


          • So, you couldn’t answer the question, Jack. I am not surprised.

            Without the answer to that question you have no idea whether the consequences of not fracking in USA for oil and gas may be a lot greater for all, today, and in the future.

            How much more than £2 liter would petrol be without that supplier Jack? But, hey ho, when did you buy petrol? Is it actually £2? Nope. Once again, you plonk out information that is simply incorrect. However, how much is petrol in USA, Jack??? Oh dear, first you plonk out incorrect information-again-and then you act as an advertisement for US self sufficiency, ably assisted by fracking! Another hole in your foot.

            Of course Jack, when that LNG arrives in Europe, as it is on a regular basis, you are free to tell those who need heat, industry that needs energy and agriculture that needs fertilizer, that they had better do without, or buy at much higher prices because you want to take a further supplier out of the equation, just as European Governments are trying to remove another. Good luck with that.

            Holding heads above the waterline? Oh, only just, Jack. LOL.

            • MARTIN ,

              I’m stunned at your ability to completely switch off from uncomfortable FACTS .

              I have shown you clear and indisputable evidence on this very page that categorically proves , without a shadow of doubt that fracking is a highly toxic , climate changing environmentally damaging, dangerous to human and animal health, debt ridden ponzi scheme which I would like to add leaves a toxic , costly legacy for future generations.

              LADIES and GENTLEMEN please take note of the ,MARTIN offers NO evidence EVER to back up anything he says .. Therefore treat what he says as his OPINION only .

              WARNING …….. MARTIN will say you are incorrect about something , but will NEVER back up what he says with any evidence

              • Nope, Jack.

                The price in Chelsea at one station. And what was the UK average at the same time? How are oil and gas executives affording the time of their lives based upon one outlet?

                Looks like you are in the habit of continuing to select data that is not representative of the full picture. Thanks for showing that, but it was already obvious how you work to excite the gullible.

          • You’re not going to break through here, Jack. Fracking is a manifestation of the anthropogenic nature of climate change, and while your interlocutor accepts that global heating is taking place, he has repeatedly refused to recognise its anthropogenic credentials. His argument appears to be – fracking will not affect global heating, so why not accept it as it holds out the prospect of such riches to the global market. That’s what is important after all.
            No need to engage in further argument with this non-scientific approach.

            • Ahh, there is now 1720 directing you, Jack. Another of those with arithmetic issues. You are obviously getting to a point where you need muzzling. Perhaps it was that unwise comment about the price of petrol and what it might be in USA, thanks to the frackers?

              However, Jack, going back to your links, many of which are not stating what you indicate they state, then I can find you many other links also aimed at exciting the gullible.

              There have been several on DoD about missed reservoirs. The correct information was available and offered numerous times, but not so exciting, so the correct information was avoided. There remain several links about a missed reservoir. They are incorrect. Fake news. My comment may be excluded to perpetuate the myth, but the reality will remain.

              Then there was a discussion about chlorinated chicken, and there are many links to battery chicken associated with that. Except, they are not. Battery is a term for a caged housing system, chickens that are reared for the table are not kept in cages, laying hens might be. Again, I could contact numerous sources and correct, but it would not get published because the gullible need exciting. The links remain for those gullible enough to use. They are incorrect. Fake news.

              And, as for 1720’s blind spot-transfers-then every January and every summer there are hundreds of links about transfers. Very few will be found to be true. They are to excite the gullible. They are incorrect. Fake news.

              Now, you may be proud to tread the same path, Jack, but please excuse me if I do not.

              Meanwhile, how are countries like Egypt going to cope with current wheat prices whilst UK is merrily plonking wheat into petrol? That should test your scientific skills! Maybe, some less wheat used in E10 petrol might equate to less people starving in places like Egypt? Or, perhaps “we” will have to rely upon USA to use their fossil fuels to produce some fertilizer, obtain high grain yields and ship the grain to Egypt-with all those transport emissions. I believe that is the “science” that may be needed. The only up-side, Jack, is that as pigeons have now become carnivorous, then the crops of wheat should be safe from them-until they remember they are herbivores!

              • Difficult to get more gullible than to exclude the anthropogenic explanation for global heating. Suits the polluters fine that such gullibility is still prevalent.

              • MARTIN ,

                There you go again making sweeping statements, implying that somehow I am exciting the gullible, without one single shred of evidence to back up your comments .

                I present FACTS, from reputable organizations and qualified, professional people who are not afraid to put their REAL names to back up what they say .

                You, whoever you really are , Male or Female offer nothing but your own OPINION , which sadly as I have proved on many occasions is incorrect.

                Thank You LAITH1720 for your contribution, I take note of what you say.

                • Ahh, I knew you would have to go there, Jack. Eventually, as always, you corner yourself.

                  So no shred of evidence?

                  Ermm, how did this discussion start? Oh yes. You posted a link about Chesapeake Energy, who like many companies were hard hit in 2020 when the pandemic shut down many companies and markets. That year, when “we” are now told that oil and gas companies were making huge profits, except they were not. That is fake news. They were making huge losses and on DoD there were a few who thought that was something to rejoice in. You can check the record. So, 2020 was a difficult year, but your link, when examined, showed that same company is assessed now, March 22, as one of the best value gas stocks in USA and a buy rating from 10 out of 10 analysts. Professional people who put their real names to back things up-unlike JacktheLad or 1720. (One was a petty criminal, thought to be the model for the Artful Dodger, the other, the year of the South Sea Bubble, when Sir Isaac Newton recalled “irrational exuberance” was the problem!)

                  So, your link demonstrates you selected just about the worst example you could to manufacture a point. Then, when your error was pointed out, you became hysterical, and moved on to petrol at £2/liter! So, you believe people on DoD will not be aware of the situation with Chesapeake Energy, or make themselves aware, and then you insult them further that they do not go out of their houses and past a fuel station, or simply review fuel prices on the RAC service.

                  You are certainly doing your best to excite the gullible, Jack, however, for individuals to have to be that gullible, I fear your audience is pretty small. I do not think there are too many of them who read DoD, and even if there were, I would treat them with a bit more respect.

                  Meanwhile, I note you have still not been able to assess what the price of oil and gas would be without the US frackers doing such a sterling effort. I provided you with a clue as to what has happened in the oil market after one supply was interrupted-the Caspian Pipeline Consortium. Facts, 1720. So inconvenient to you, but reality often is.

                  It was always going to be interesting to see how a situation of high prices for oil and gas were going to be addressed by the antis, because they were inevitable, and had started a long while ago when some were not aware Brent had gone past $70/barrel, (“in your dreams” was the comment) but it had, and it was obvious why it had. Seems that the old playbook is all that there is to offer, even though it is not relevant anymore. As more people suffer more through high oil and gas prices then I suspect the gullible will shrink even further, Jack. Bit like those Messi transfer links that will be seen a decade after he has retired, but I am sure there will be a few who still feel that they can waste some plastic on such a task.

                • MARTIN ,

                  Your forgetting, EVERYONE can also read our posts .

                  People can see when viewing the above posts that you avoid difficult questions ,with endless diversionary tactics and irrelevant waffle .

                  It’s all THERE people can see it for themselves.

                  You ONLY ever give an OPINION.

                  People can also see that you make things up as you go along,

                  I will continue making sure people are aware of the dangers of Fracking and I’m sure you will continue giving the readers a laugh wild fantasy.

                • MARTIN ,

                  I’ve proved you wrong every step of the way . Pretending that’s not the case, will only provide entertainment and amusement to the readers .

                  I would quit whilst your not to far behind .

                • That’s all okay then, Jack. Everyone can see how correct you were reference £2/liter. That must be your opinion because it is not fact.

                  Yes, you are certainly showing how much you know!

                • WRONG again MARTIN ,

                  For the SECOND time on this very page , I’m have to cut and paste my previous message and ” link ”

                  Here it is AGAIN .

                  Referring to your above OPINION , third paragraph, quote ” But, hey ho, when did you buy petrol? Is it actually £2? Nope. Once again, you plonk out information that is simply incorrect ”


                  £2:20 a litre at Petrol station in Chelsea, London…..

                  MARTIN ,it looks like your making a habit of being wrong .

  5. Just as the gullible swallowed whole the tobacco companies’ arguments against the scientifically proven deleterious effects of tobacco; just as the gullible followed the industry and argued against initial intimations of the anthropogenic nature of global heating, so, now that this is a well-nigh incontestably proven scientific fact, the gullible continue to exclude the anthropogenic explanation for this global crisis. To style these flat-earthers gullible must be one of the understatements of all time. No matter: the industry will benefit, be it only in the short term, but at what colossal cost, and all to advance the deluded aims of the few. Is it worth arguing with the few? Probably yes, if it prevents the infection spreading. We are faced on all sides with those who seek to turn fact into fiction, who persist in promoting their own definition of truth. Buyer beware. Fossil fuel development is at the expense of renewables and other alternatives. Don’t let their proponents waste any more of our time, and more importantly posterity’s time on this planet. Continue to argue against their pernicious doctrines.

    • Who was it who incorrectly defined “fact”, 1720? I believe there is a record of that.

      First, tidy up your definition of fact and that leads you to truth. Yet, you seek to avoid that. Your choice.

  6. “Be it only in the short term”.

    Hmm. As you have previously stated you know little about the oil and gas industry that is an interesting “fact” you present. Except, the OBR yesterday were far more explicit about world oil and gas prices, and I am afraid their assessment is quite different. So, continue to argue against their pernicious doctrines, but I would suggest the doctrine of fact will be with the OBR and the doctrine of fiction with those who admit they know little about the subject.

  7. No, Martin, we are not going to look the other way, no matter how persistent your diversionary tactics. Continuing fossil fuel exploration and development will kill, sorry, is killing us all, gradually, and of course, like this government’s policies, forcing the have-nots down first. Global over-heating is anthropogenic. That is the truth.

  8. Ahh, the “we” !

    I recall my biggest contribution when mentoring young sales people was to spot the “we”. When an individual starts stating “we” in a sales conversation, it invariably meant that the individual didn’t know much and was passing the buck, or that the individual was not the decision maker. There are many animals in the world who try a similar tactic, as well as some humans.

    However, unfortunately, in this instance I am inclined to believe the OBR rather than the “we”, 1720, and that it was yourself who attempted a diversionary tactic of quoting short term without any evidence to support. I would welcome it if you were correct, but there is currently no evidence to suggest you are. The OBR projections go through to 2027 and there is not much in that “short term” to support your speculation.

    In terms of your real motivation, the have-nots I have spoken to are really very pleased about this Governments policy regarding NI, that will make a lot of difference to them. They had no issue with NI being used to pay for Social Care either, as they understood about there being a social contract, where individuals pay for things they may not receive themselves for decades, or never. Just think how much better off the UK have-nots might be if there was a larger tax receipt from UK fossil fuels, rather than allowing it to be shipped abroad, often to countries where the income is invested in things that may not be as beneficial to have-nots there. I hope in USA the have-nots are being supported via all that gas and oil the frackers are producing and sending to Europe, whilst they still enjoy their petrol at under £1/liter.

  9. I take it you are focusing your attention on the third line of my posting. The diversionary tactic still won’t work.
    However –
    On your selected bit of my email, (my mistake in making a political observation as an aside), try lifting your head from your plastic and doing a bit of research. I refuse to enter into a conversation with you on the extent to which your party (I guess) have ruined my country, contributed to the descent of the planet, cast hundreds of thousands into poverty, wrecked our global reputation, feathered their pockets at the expense of the poor, provided a role model in sleaze and corruption, sold off the capital to your oligarchs, expanded the foodbanks , mismanaged a pandemic, reacted too slowly to geopolitical threats, crippled the NHS, ruined our educational system, to name just a few of the benefits accruing to us from the rule of your friends. You can do that research yourself. You won’t, of course. In the meantime, stick to the point, not to the asides.
    FFs are killing the planet.

Add a comment

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s