Updated DrillOrDrop factcheck: Web articles on Misson shale gas site

DrillOrDrop has worked with local people to factcheck web articles by The Sun and LBC about IGas’s Misson Springs shale gas site in Nottinghamshire.

Drilling operation at IGas shale gas site at Misson Springs. Photo: Frack Free Misson

The Sun reported (5/8/22) that a “huge fracking site” in Nottinghamshire had been ordered to be shut by “meddling councillors” because “it might upset owls – which flew off years ago”. The following day, LBC stated that permission for the Misson Springs site had been “revoked” partly “over fears about breeding long-eared owls”.

Both articles quoted unnamed wildlife experts that the owls had left the area in 2018. The Sun said the site operator, IGas, had “agreed to strict rules to keep birds safe” and “agreed with planning officers” to work at the site until November 2023. But, the article said, planners were overruled by councillors, who said the site “must shut within weeks”.


Misson Springs is not a fracking site.

It was granted planning permission in 2015 for two shale gas exploration wells – but not for fracking. The planning permission expired in November 2020. IGas drilled one of the wells.

To frack at Misson Springs, IGas would need a separate planning permission, an environmental permit, an approved hydraulic fracturing plan and hydraulic fracturing consent.


Councillors were not “meddling”. The planning committee, with a majority of Conservative councillors, considered a planning application by IGas, made in December 2020, to extend the life of the Misson shale gas exploration site for three years.

Extract from the Sun’s web article, 5 August 2022

“Revoked” permission

Permission was not revoked. The committee voted in July 2021 to refuse IGas’s application to extend the life of the site until November 2023.

Reasons for refusal

The reasons for refusal, given in the decision document, did not mention breeding long-eared owls.

They focussed on “an unacceptable length of time” of the proposed extension. During this time, the decision document said, the site would continue to “adversely impact the amenity of the local community and the sensitive local environment”. This was contrary to two planning policies, the council said.

IGas had six months in which to appeal but announced in October 2021 that it would not challenge the refusal.

“Owls flew off years ago”

The owls did not leave the site in 2018.

Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust, which manages the Misson Carr nature reserve, near the Misson Springs site, has confirmed that long eared owls bred this year.

In 2018, however, they did nest further away from noise from drilling at the shale gas site in 2018.

The closest part of the Misson Springs site is 125m from the nature reserve, . The reserve is a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), an area with a high level of UK wildlife protection. It is an offence to recklessly disturb wildlife on a SSSI.

NWT told councillors that surveys in 2018 showed the long-eared owls on the SSSI had moved further east from their habitual breeding locations, away from the drill site.

“Strict rules to keep birds safe”

The original planning permission for shale gas exploration set conditions for protection of birds on the SSSI.

These included no site construction work during the bird nesting season (1 February-31 August).

This gave IGas a window of nearly 22 weeks to complete site construction, seven more weeks than the company said it needed.

But IGas did not begin site construction work until 20 November 2017, losing 10 of the available weeks. The work overran and IGas failed to complete site construction by the start of the bird nesting season in February 2018. It then had to apply for permission to work during the nesting season, which the council approved.

The conditions also required IGas to provide environmental monitoring data on the SSSI. But IGas failed to abide by this rule.

NWT told the council in 2021:

“During the construction of the wellsite in 2018 and the duration of drilling, the Applicant [IGas] failed to provide complete and comprehensive data on noise, air quality and water flows and quality, despite being required to do so under the planning conditions.”

When drilling was underway, the noise barrier faced the western end of the site, away from the most sensitive area, the SSSI. The rig was also not fully enclosed, despite the recommendation from the council’s noise engineer in 2016.

The campaign group, Frack Free Misson, has suggested that IGas deployed greater noise protection for a cottage, partly screened by an industrial unit and further from the rig, than for the nearer nesting area, formerly used by long-eared owls.

The group transposed noise modelling for fracking at Cuadrilla’s Preston New Road site to Misson Springs. If IGas had applied to frack at Misson, the group suggests that the modelled noise levels at the SSSI would be above the statutory limit of 42dB. This could have meant IGas would not get permission for fracking.

Frack Free Misson noise predictions for fracking, based on data from the Preston New Road fracking site. The red circle indicates the distance of the Misson well pad (blue rectangle) from the SSSI. The SSSI is in the yellow area, where noise levels were predicted at 62-65dB. The statutory limit is 42dB.

Shutting well “within weeks”

The councillors did not require the well to be shut “within weeks”.

The formal refusal of the extension application was dated 3 August 2021. But at the time of writing, more than a year later, the well has not been plugged and abandoned.

Planners “overruled”

Planners recommended approval of IGas’s application for three more years at Misson.

But 12 councillors voted against granting planning permission, with one abstention and none in support.

Councillors can, and do, vote against the advice of planning officers. They should be ready to explain why they have not accepted the recommendation.

Local reaction

Frack Free Misson told DrillOrDrop the articles by The Sun and LBC had been inaccurate by stating that the owls were absent. The group also said:

“The articles wrongly imply the fracking industry has suffered some form of injustice.

“In reality, IGas’ failure to complete the scheduled works within the original timescales and protect the SSSI as required leaves serious questions to be asked regarding the company’s competence.

“That the fracking lobby resorts to such inaccurate ‘journalism’ to sway the public mood demonstrates how ill-founded their case is, and to what depths the industry’s cohorts will stoop in order to justify its ongoing existence.”

Updated 17/8/22 with confirmation that the long eared owls bred in 2022.

53 replies »

  1. National interest or individual profit is not material if there is no facility to export UK gas other than through the existing pipelines, Philip.

    I prefer that pipeline to have more gas from UK and less gas shipped half way around the world in liquid form and then turned back to gas to plonk into the pipes. Yes, someone will make money either way. The first way happens to be a lot better for the environment. The first way makes more money for UK and therefore more tax revenue. Either way is better than paying money to Putin for him to use as he is using it. Either way is better than countries opening up their coal fired power plants again.

    I also find the desire to attempt to saddle oil and gas with nasty profit motives a bit rich from the antis. There seems to be a collective memory loss around such “altruistic” (irony!) schemes as Cash for Ash. Cobalt, a known carcinogen, mining using child labour? No profit motive there then? And, many more.

    Interesting how downsides can be so easily ignored to promote dogma, but other downsides can not be ignored.

    Also, somewhat ironic as the intention of the piece was to promote the merits of fact checking, and then along came the comments celebrating fact checking but in a way that was devoid of much fact checking!

  2. Come on, Martyn. You can’t have it both ways. Either shipping LNG is a good thing or it’s not. Surely our lack of capacity to liqiufy gas is a cause for celebration if LNG movements are so injurious .

    At least you have made it clear that your ideal scenarion would be to extract shale gas in volumes in excess of our own requirements and to pipe the surplus abroad. That’s an awful lot of Fracking, Martyn. And don’t be too confident about the tax receipts : before it had a Damascene conversion to Renewables , our local Company (Third Energy) had already set up its trading platform in the Cayman Islands.

    As regards “fact – checking”, the reality is that the Exploration and Appraisal stages of onshore recovery have barely begun. I am sure you are well aware of the hierarchy of proof that has to be demonstrated before deposits can move from Prospective Resources through to Contigent Reservers and finally to Proven Reserves. The availability of Finance for drilling will be contingent on what assets an Operator can show in its balance sheet. And your own enthusiasm for Fracking might not carry as much weight as the experience in America in which debt delinquency was the rule rather than the exception.

  3. It was you who suggested UK gas would be shipped around the world, Philip, not me. I already knew that would be difficult without the infrastructure and with a huge market already connected, without need to liquify, why go there? They can pay for their own storage. Helping European friends is not a bad thing, who knows what might be reciprocated, willingly or unwillingly?

    I certainly think that importing LNG into UK from fracking overseas is good for someone, but not for UK or the environment.

    No problem with finance for drilling. INEOS have already offered to do it at their cost. HQ in London. They already pay significant UK taxes, I am sure they would be happy to pay some more, but no more than required, as they prefer to donate extra to good causes rather than leave it to Government to do so.

    You should have a word with some other antis who tried the debt card and soon changed to “fortunes being made”. Debt delinquency is alive and well in UK ,Philip-it is termed the Premiership. As far as fracking in USA is concerned, it is exactly the same as other sectors where there has been a rush into it. Some are good at it and stay and make “fortunes”, others are not, and fail. That is the American way. Agriculture is another such area. However, in 2014 oil prices were over $100/barrel, then USA got fracking and moved rapidly to self sufficiency, and world oil prices dropped dramatically as OPEC+ fought a losing price war to try and prevent their biggest market vanishing. The rest of the world benefitted for a number of years, and even now, expecting them to increase drilling to do it again. They are certainly showing willing looking at weekly rig numbers. If they succeed they will only get criticism from some, so, they will make profit from the same people providing the criticism. Those idiots who were referring to stranded assets a few months ago. The $trillions the world has been saved is ignored, yet those who took the risks and did so via debt have their debt used against them. Not very logical. Perhaps individuals need to consider how they would have fared if oil prices had stayed at $100/barrel from 2014 until now? They are able to fact check that if they want to.
    Going by the current outcries for a period of a few months, pretty badly it would seem.

    The reality is that not enough was invested in oil/gas exploration due to demand dropping during the pandemic. That needs to be corrected now, otherwise the current cost of living situation will remain longer than it should. Unless you have a way to build nuclear much quicker than has been previously achieved, more unreliable renewables will just give more unreliable energy provision. Fine, once the two reliable sources have been expanded, until then, nope. Just stranded assets when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow.

    • MARTIN when will you finally give the readers the full picture . ???????????

      Just take a quick peak at the Brent Crude Oil , historical price data .


      2021 …….… $70.86 a barrel
      2020 ……..… $41.96
      2019 ………..$ 64.28
      2018 ………..$ 71.34
      2017…………$ 54.71
      2016…………$ 45.13
      2015…………$ 53.03

      Should we now say , for arguments sake , a ” normal ” Oil price would be about $ 60.00 a barrel ??????????

      Which when looking at the historical Brent Oil price is , far , FAR lower than your $ 100.00 a barrel.

      • What nonsense, Jack.

        You can avoid what the price was in 2014, but it is rather obvious that you do.

        There is no normal price for oil. It is dictated by supply and demand. If demand drops dramatically against supply due to the world’s largest importer becoming self sufficient then the price drops, especially when previous suppliers attempt a price war-until such events like a war, and/or world economies suddenly waking from enforced slumber.

        So, “we” can say what we like, but as per usual they are wrong. You can wriggle around as much as you like, but the fact is that fracking made the USA self sufficient with a large impact upon global politics. That dramatically decreased the world price. You would like it to be different and suggest without fracking the world would be a better place. Well, it would be for those suppliers wanting to export to the USA but there do seem to be an awful lot of people who don’t find $100/barrel too pleasing, having become used to $50-$60. Never mind Jack, I am sure those suppliers will still continue to lobby for the good old days, but as a consumer I will avoid their siren calls toward the rocks.

        I did warn you a while ago you should request a new script. The one you are regurgitating is obsolete and shown by current events to be so. But thanks for joining in and showing from the comment section on this piece how the antis are the ones where fact checking is so needed. Even recorded wanting to change the definition of fact to attempt it. Rather ironic really they are so willing to undermine DoD.

        But, if you want a bit more fact checking then in 2014 when Brent averaged over $100/barrel, petrol was around £1.30/litre. I await with interest to see how that is explained-it is not the fault of the oil companies, as being suggested. Robbing Peter to pay Paul may just about sum it up. Looks as if many are starting to question whether Paul should get so much of their hard earned cash, and I don’t expect your smoke screen will stop that question being raised. They are an intelligent lot, Jack, and have their own radar that can see through smoke.

        • HAHA MARTIN ,

          OH dear , having difficulty with your numbers again…. Remember, JACK is always willing to help.

          BRENT OIL , did not , I repeat did NOT average at over $100 a barrel in 2014 . Once again you are wrong MARTIN

          The average price for Brent Oil in 2014 was under $100 a barrel.

          Just thought I would HELP you out by correcting you on that one MARTIN

          • HAHA Jack

            Having problems reading your own links now!?

            Good job fact checking is all the rage now. Seems some like plonking out fake news and don’t think anyone will check it. What a can of worms this exercise has produced.

            Just a helpful hint Jack. If you place a 10 year link on DoD and then refer to only part of the period intelligent people may be inclined to check why you did that-especially when you have recent form of similar activity.

            Are you sure you are not a Trojan Horse?

            • On the question of fact checking, Martin asked me in an earlier posting, (I think it was on the 28th but can’t be bothered checking): “ Do you not know that Rishi was one of the first to resign, forcing Boris to resign,…?” Notice the lack of qualification other than, if I’m feeling generous, the third clause. Let’s suggest that Martin check again, this time checking the entire record of ministerial resignations under this regime, all of which might, arguably, have contributed to the resignation, and many of which display an element of integrity perhaps lacking in those who fled at the end.

              • Goodness, 1720, you are really down to the bottom of that barrel!

                Once again wanting to delve into politics. Okay then:

                “I attended (note no “we” for a good reason that will become evident) the second vote Brexit demonstrations at Westminster and elsewhere last year travelling “significant distances.” This legislation would make me a criminal because I believed HMG had engineered the result by lying and I was anxious to test the result.”

                1720 quote, 11/3/21 6.47pm. (I can be bothered.)

                Fact check: HMG actually campaigned very hard for UK to STAY in the EU. That was agreed when the referendum was launched. They lost. The PM resigned and another PM (a Remainer) was elected and set up her own HMG. No result engineered by either HMG. They just had to deal with the result from losing. The outcome from losing had been declared at the start of the referendum and during it.

                So, looking at my quote above referenced by 1720, it is correct. A statement of fact- (a correction had to be made by a certain poster who had inaccurately defined “fact” previously.) Remember who that was 1720? Even by your previous definition, I would still be correct, as that was in the past!

                Perhaps wait until September, and you might see how such facts come back to haunt? Rishi attended a good school, where I am sure Roman history was on the curriculum. Perhaps he was ill at the time?

                Looking at the quote from 1720, it is not factually correct. Looking at the single definition applied to “fact” that was not correct either. So, more recently there is “interpretation”, which was inevitable, as not much else left.

                There is a reason DoD dislike past posts being referenced 1720 and perhaps you, of all people, should respect that. But, then it was DoD who decided fact checking would be a good exercise, so what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander-and there do seem to be a lot of ganders drawn to this topic and wanting to strut their stuff in a pretty careless manner, even whilst previous ganders are seen to have been sauced.

                The Sun must be rejoicing. As with most journalism, to have the opportunity of two stories from one, is a cheap bonus. Not sure that they would connect 1720 with a quote regarding irrational exuberance, from someone who was supposed to have been very intelligent but had to find an excuse for being very silly, (not you,1720-DYOR to find out who) but they might observe a Bubble bursting as a good “story”.

                • Is any of this even remotely relevant? Or is it just more diversionary gobbledygook? The Sun, Winchester, Brexit, South Sea adventures, facts, interpretations: just surprising you couldn’t get your veg, your Thursday carry-out, and a bit of football in, not to mention a few figures and costs. Perhaps you’re saving them for the next decisive posting which will have those opposed to your ideas and favouring the continuing existence of humanity cowering in corners, looking silly.
                  Diversion, deviation, distraction and denial are tools intended to misinform and mislead favoured by your polluters, Martin. I would have thought now was the time to eschew them. We don’t look the other way any more. Do you really want history to class you with Exxon Mobil machinations?

                  What has my intelligence or lack of it got to do with anything: it’s your own you should be worrying about.

                  Meanwhile….the post you were responding to……Did you bother checking the resignations?
                  And while you check, or don’t, the planet burns. And the responsibility for that……..?

            • Ahh, so no-one will notice how average price has now been replaced by average CLOSING price-whatever that is!

              I suggest you understand an average price and a closing price, Jack, otherwise you may suggest to those that look at the data and check facts what a large impact those US frackers had upon their cost of living-until recently.

              • MARTIN

                It’s jolly decent of you old chap , giving the readers a laugh at your expense..

                I say that , because surely your not that naive when it comes to understanding the basic meaning of WORDS.

                Let JACK say it again the ” average ” closing price for the year 2014 ( that means a complete year ) for Brent oil was $98.97 a barrel.

                This really is children’s playground stuff MARTIN and trying to put your own spin on the matter in order to try alter the indisputable facts, will only bring mild amusement and laughter to the readers.

                $98.97 a barrel is not , I repeat is NOT over $100 , surely even in your world , you have to accept that .

          • Why should self sufficiency maintain low prices, Jack?? That would take Government intervention. Perhaps Government intervention in USA is just wanting those high prices to produce the revenue to plonk into renewables, as they have just done. The voters will decide during the Mid Terms whether they agree with that. Signs are, they will not.

            Let me help Jack understand USA. They are a capitalist society where money is made when demand is sky high. Those making money will pay some high taxes but they will still make a “fortune”, as you stated Jack. Take a look at WW2 history in that respect, Jack, and compare to 1930s USA.

            You should have bought some shares in Chesapeake Energy Jack, rather than trying to create more fake news from them.

            Interesting to note though that inflation is showing signs of falling back a little in USA as energy prices weaken slightly, and Wall Street rallies a little on the data. Biden can carry on begging for more output from OPEC and get a tiny 100k barrels concession. Meanwhile, Texas will get on with the job of drilling away to take advantage of the situation. With winter around the corner in the northern hemisphere, China still in temporary economic slumber, Russian energy sanctioned and the Democrats about to be emasculated it would seem to be quite a good policy. Certainly should keep the Jacks in business for a while, together with those involved in making their fortunes.

            • MARTIN ,

              Let JACK spell this out for you, because it seems that you are having difficulty understanding what JACK said .

              Regarding Fracking , the ” self sufficiency ” of the USA is not, I repeat is NOT equating to lower Gas prices for American citizens .

              American citizens currently have the HIGHEST gas prices in HISTORY .

              So much fir the benefits of Fracking .

              People in the UK need to take note of this FACT


            • MARTIN ,

              Yes I will agree with you on one thing ,

              You say quote , ” with those involved in making their fortunes.”

              As far as Fracking and the American citizen goes . Yes a few will be making their fortunes, whilst ripping off and putting millions of Americans in to extreme fuel poverty.

              So much for good old American Fracking and ” self sufficiency “

  4. Not as extreme as UK, Jack, or many other countries. US gas and oil prices lower than UK. Good old American Fracking and self sufficiency, for the American people and now for others across the globe who are not self sufficient but thought their energy was secure.

    Winter fuel bill for US homes using natural gas last year averaged $598. In Japan over the same period, same amount of gas cost $2500. One self sufficient, one not. Facts again, Jack. Inconvenient to you, but once you embrace them they may be helpful rather than a painful reminder of what is reality.

    Whether millions of Americans are in fuel poverty, extreme or otherwise, is whether US Government makes the right interventions. Not much chance of that, they were fast off the blocks to try and denounce Buffett when he warned of inflationary pressures back in 2021. They got it wrong. Whether they catch up and get it right, time will tell. Meanwhile, after gracing COP26, Biden now threatens US drillers if they do not increase activity, action will be taken against them, so at least there is recognition that increased output is the way to reduce prices, but make money until it does. Drilling numbers indicate that is happening. How the revenue is channeled will be down to Government intervention, but with a potentially lame duck Government after Mid Terms, don’t expect too much. If you want a better example of how a Government can help to avoid fuel poverty, Jack, then look to Norway. Wonder where the revenue comes from to do that, Jack?

    • MARTIN

      Let JACK help you again , by correcting your mistakes

      The average Gas bill in the USA for the year 2021 was $721.

      It was not $598


      The average annual Gas bill for 2 people living in Japan for the year 2021 was $ 389.37 US dollars

      It was not $ 2500


      Your OPINION which is backed up with the usual sweet nothing has been shown to be WRONG .

      JACK has shown you the evidence which proves you are wrong.

      I’m sure if you would like to apologize for your error , I’m certain the readers will accept it.

      • Nope, Jack, once again you misquote.

        You are not comparing apples with apples. The figures I provided were winter fuel bills.

        So, you have wasted your time searching for data, not found it so use a different period.

        No change there, then. No one would notice? But, they do.

        • HAHA MARTIN

          OH dear , Oh dear

          What I have shown you above is the average ANNUAL BILL …. That’s the bill for a complete YEAR .

          What don’t YOU understand about that ??????

    • MARTIN ,

      For all the Fracking in the USA , American consumers are now experiencing the highest GAS bills in history …

      It clearly demonstrates that while a select few individuals get extremely rich, ordinary people in the USA suffer …. Not only with high energy costs , but also with the toxic proven health risks that are associated with Fracking

      • Nope, Jack, it clearly demonstrates that USA consumers still pay less for gas, and oil, than most other consumers around the world. Their prices have risen but they are still much better off than most other countries in respect of their prices. And, that includes Japan. Whether some ordinary people suffer is down to the politicians. High energy prices, in comparison with what? Lower than most other countries, but higher than they were. Ordinary people in USA Jack do have a clue as to what is happening elsewhere. They expect their swimming pools to be heated, if required.

        Looking at Paul’s contribution below, I am sure that many USA consumers long for the good old days where Saudi and Russia could dictate the world oil price, via a cartel, and USA as the largest importer could “benefit” from that!! LOL.
        Interesting to see that profit being exported over the horizon and where it ends up. Obviously good for Saudi and maybe some will be invested in increased production but from recent indications not going to lower world prices and no revenue for the user to assist the politicians in other countries to help the suffering of their ordinary people. Other than spending more of their money watching their football -funded by Saudi. Sorry Jack, your nonsense about the ordinary people will not get you off the hook. The ordinary people without secure local energy supplies are the ones who suffer the most. The ordinary people with secure energy supplies suffer less. They might suffer even less if the politicians do their job correctly. Not sure that waffling about cheap renewables that require subsidies to make them look cheap, and then a “small” bill of £214B confirmed coming down the track to make them look secure, is doing the job correctly.

        Only a few people who want that cartel to be empowered again, Jack. As far as the USA is concerned, it will not happen. You are doomed to failure there. OPEC+ threw $billions at it. Didn’t work, Jack. Your strange and disconnected ramblings will not do any better. Will it happen for other countries? Probably for some who have no choice. Others, who have the choice but refuse to take it, may find it does not sit too well with their consumers.

        As far as the UK is concerned, in a few weeks time it may be observed what consumers really think.

        • MARTIN ,

          Please explain what you don’t understand with these words

          Americans are paying the HIGHEST GAS BILLS IN ” HISTORY “

          • Because they were very low before and the world price rises so now they are low but not as low as they were. Inflation still happens, Jack, even in USA. Inflation is for Biden and the Fed to manage.

            If you chose the name of a con artist hidden pretty well within British folklore, you may find people still understand that is the remit. Doesn’t mean they will be conned though, especially when they have such a clue provided. “Same amount of gas” re Japan-what do you expect anyone doesn’t understand about that, Jack-apart from yourself?

            Maybe the ordinary people who invested in Chesapeake Energy are not to be conned either. Or, the ordinary people who invested in Igas, whilst you were waffling on about the past, or the ordinary people who invested in Egdon whilst you were waffling on about pigeons.

            Looks as if some ordinary people are expectant regarding September. Some may still remain poor(ish), some will have already adjusted that and may do some more going forward. The one’s who do the best will be those who avoid being conned, Jack.

            • NO , NO , NO MARTIN

              You talked about how America was ” self sufficient ” because of Fracking.

              I replied , with evidence of course , how even with Fracking , America still has the HIGHEST GAS bills in history.

              You were WRONG concerning the average annual Gas bills in Japan and the USA .

              You have been shown to have a lack of understanding with the word ” ANNUAL ”

              You were wrong about the average price of Brent Oil being over $100 a barrel

              You were WRONG regarding the average price of Brent Oil since 2015

              MARTIN , I’ve shown you the FACTS . Now if you want to try and defend your incorrect posts on here , I’m happy to prove you wrong , time and time again..

              • Nope, not wrong, Jack.

                But if you want something extra, and more recent, to show how nonsensical your nonsense is:

                July 15th:

                US Henry Hub gas price was $7 per MMBtu.

                Dutch TTF was $47 per MMBtu.

                Rystad comment:

                “Although RELATIVELY elevated for the (US) domestic market, US and European price differences are so wide (that) producing and shipping US gas across the Atlantic, even allowing for the pricey liquefaction process, is still economically advantageous.”

                OMG Jack, that must account for the many ships doing exactly that! And, guess what, that can be done across the Pacific. And is.

                So, Jack, do carry on with the nonsense about how US fracking has made no difference to US prices, or world prices. It is quite interesting how far you will attempt denial when the evidence is there for everyone to see. Maybe one day the US will get more control of gas distribution and stop wasting so much if they want to achieve less elevated domestic prices. Although, there are still huge reserves to bring on stream, so which they go for may be more interesting. Perhaps they will just want to supply more exports whilst it is economically advantageous and leave it to the politicians to determine whether they wish to adjust the relatively elevated bit.

                Same old script from you Jack, but it is so obviously out of date. Meanwhile, those in UK are aware of the cost of energy, and about to become more aware.

                • HAHA MARTIN ,

                  What on earth is all that diversionary, mega waffle above about ???????

                  JACKS message is very SIMPLE .

                  Taking in to account ALL the extensive Fracking in the USA .

                  Americans are paying the HIGHEST GAS BILLS in HISTORY


                  To put it simple , whilst a select few are getting very rich …….. The general American public are paying record breaking , high energy costs whilst also having to endure the highly toxic risks associated with Fracking .

                  MARTIN would you like JACK to show you the evidence , regarding the dangers of Fracking on human health and the environment ????????

                • Hmm, $7 V $47, Jack.

                  One has self sufficiency and is exporting, the other does not and is importing. Oh, I really feel sorry for those Americans. LOL. Especially, with their inflation starting to ease. LOL again.

                  Meanwhile, the double whammy in Holland. They lost Shell!

                  I am sure they might be grateful for your attempt to distort Jack, but most of the Dutch people I have worked with are a pretty sensible lot, and will have assessed it a bit more logically. Hopefully, one or two might have invested in Chesapeake Energy and can now afford those imaginary costs that are not imaginary.

                • BUT MARTIN ,

                  However you try and spin the figures . The FACTS still remain the same .

                  Regardless of the intensive Fracking in the USA …..

                  The American public are still paying the HIGHEST gas bills in HISTORY.

                  Whilst still having to stomach the highly toxic effects and environmental damage associated with Fracking.


                • Ermm, ever heard of inflation, Jack?

                  Prices rise-to $7!! Wages also rise. Maybe that dishwasher is now getting more than $60k/year?

                  Ermm, what would the US price be without home production Jack? Maybe there is a clue shown by the TTF?

                  Nothing to do with frackers whether those, other than their employees, shareholders, up stream suppliers or downstream agents, get some of the benefit of those “fortunes”, that is up to the politicians. No arithmetic required, Jack, $47 is a much larger figure than $7. Even your fingers and toes should help you with that. Not sure your apparent confusion with the capitalist system is genuine, but if it is, I can’t help you with that as you would not be allowed to clear your confusion. Having previous of claiming that members of an organization would be supporting decisions within that organization may explain more than I thought. Jack, I have a letter next to my keyboard that I need to get into the post before 4.30pm complaining about the way an organization is being managed where I am a member!

                  But, keep it going. You are doing a good service demonstrating something. Shame it is just about the opposite that your anti buddies would like demonstrated, but if it wasn’t it would not be so entertaining.

            • MARTIN ,

              Chesapeake Energy, were a debt ridden huge white elephant.

              This war in Ukraine and the subsequent impacts on global oil/gas prices has been fantastic news for them.

              Like I’ve said , I could go through the laborious task of extracting Oil from discarded human toenails and make a fortune

              In the present climate, any white elephant company like Chesapeake Energy couldn’t help but make money .

              • Nope, Jack.

                YOUR link was from 2020, the depths of the pandemic. Since then demand for oil and gas increased and therefore price. Investment in oil and gas was curtailed in 2020 due to the impact upon demand from the pandemic.
                Oil and gas prices were rising steadily before Ukraine war due to the above ie. getting back to “normal” as someone once stated-although confused regarding normal. As you tried to fool people with false claims, many analysts were tipping same Chesapeake Energy as one of the stocks that was likely to give best growth. They were correct, Jack, you just try and claim the opposite as correct, whilst the evidence proves otherwise.
                Reference your other fable, let me provide you with another one to help you out. (Some names changed to protect the guilty.)

                This guy was looking to purchase a product, and contacted someone who claimed to be an expert. Introduced himself, and asked “what is your name?” “Oh, I am Con Artiste”, came the reply.

                “Is that your real name?” was the next question
                “Oh no, in this walk of life you can just be who you want to be, so I chose this one.”

                “Hmm, bit disturbing you chose that one, but about this product, what can you tell me?”

                Answer (lol): “Don’t go for the one at $7 because it is higher than it was.”

                “Hmm, but the other one, maybe from the same supplier, is $47, and is much higher than it was.”

                Answer (lol): “Not relevant, the $7 one is more expensive than it was.”

                “Hmm, but everything is more expensive than it was, and demand for the $7 one is so high it would be very odd if increased demand had not caused an increase in price, whilst the supplier builds extra capacity-which they are in the process of doing.”

                Answer (lol): “Not relevant. Let’s chat about carnivorous pigeons.”

                “Hmm, thank you Con. I think I may need a second opinion”.

                • OH DEAR MARTIN, it’s a good job Jack’s here to help ..

                  What I don’t understand is why I keep having to repeat the same things over and over again.. I show you the indisputable evidence and you still keep on giving your same OPINIONS , I say OPINIONS as that’s all they ever are .

                  Never once have you backed up one of your OPINIONS with any evidence.

                  Let’s start breaking down your above , off-the-cuff comment.

                  OIL prices were not, I repeat NOT steadily rising before the Ukraine War

                  Here is the data


                • MARTIN

                  Next you go on to about Chesapeake Energy.

                  Chesapeake Energy is a huge white elephant of the company that until a recent amazing lucky break , the war in Ukraine , was saddled with over $9 billion of debt . Let’s also not forget it shed 15% of its workforce in 2021 .

                  The fact that Chesapeake Energy can hold its head above the water at this moment in time, is nothing to put up the Bunting for .

                  At this moment in time a entrepreneur could set up a labour intensive company , extracting oil/gas from the discarded Toenail Clippings of Greenfly and make pots of cash .

                  If an oil and gas company can’t make money during this current world climate, then they are complete and utter fools .

                • MARTIN ,

                  If you think that having a pop at my online forum name, Jackthelad will in some way gain you a little ground , your sadly mistaken..

                  You see old chap, I wanted to be certain that forum members were in no doubt at all, that the name I used online was not my real name … As I let my evidence do the talking.

                  Whilst some others who are completely lacking in all credibility may try and hide behind a real male name that isn’t theirs … Just with the laughable thought that it would in some way give their unproven comments some credibility.

                  Like I’ve said before , we can ALL choose to have any name we like on here

                • Now MARTIN ,

                  UK citizens also have to take note that Fracking is a highly toxic , environmentally damaging, climate changing process that is dangerous to human and animal health …. In Fracking areas it devalues house prices and causes homeowners to have difficulty obtaining insurance

                  It also leaves a costly, toxic legacy for future generations, maintaining the abandoned wells.

                  If theres anything you dispute in the above , please say . I will be delighted to fill the page with evidence.

  5. The last sentence in this quote from the Guardian today is interesting:

    Oil giant Saudi Aramco on Sunday unveiled record profits of $48.4bn in the second quarter of 2022, after Russia’s war in Ukraine and a post-pandemic surge in demand caused crude prices to skyrocket.

    The world’s biggest oil producer saw its net profits surge by 90% year-on-year, and posted its second straight quarterly record in “strong market conditions” – a rise of 22.7% from from the first quarter of 2022, for which the company had announced a net income of $39.5bn.

    Almost entirely state-owned Aramco is just the latest oil giant to rake in eye-watering sums after ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell, TotalEnergies and Eni also revealed multi-billion-dollar profits in the second quarter, Reuters reports.

    “While global market volatility and economic uncertainty remain, events during the first half of this year support our view that ongoing investment in our industry is essential,” said Aramco president and CEO Amin H Nasser.

    “In fact, we expect oil demand to continue to grow for the rest of the decade,” he added.

    Anyone for a windfall tax? Please call Saudi Aramco:


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 )

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