"probably the most prolific anti frack website in the UK"
- Ken Wilkinson - prominent pro-fracking activist and industry supporter (Yes we know , he doesn't know what "prolific" means does he)

Private Eye

Defend Localism!

Take the advice of Greg Clark, ex-Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government

Greg Clark

"Those who are prepared to organise to be more effective and more efficient should be able to reap substantially the rewards of that boldness ...

Take power now. Don’t let yourself, any longer, be ruled by someone else"

How many wells?

Click the image from more information on Cuadrilla's plans for PEDL 165

Fracking Employment

From the Financial Times 16 October 2013

AMEC forecast just 15,900 to 24,300 nationwide - direct & indirect

Jobs would typically be short term, at between four and nine years

Only 17% of jobs so far have gone to local people


Looking for misinformation, scaremongering, lies or stupidity?

It's all on this website (but only on this one post ) featuring the Reverend Mike Roberts.

(Oops - there's more! )

Here though is our favourite Reverend Roberts quote of all time - published in the Lancashire Evening Post on 5th August 2015

"If you dare oppose fracking you will get nastiness and harassment whether on social media, or face-to-face"

Yes you!

"Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing's going to get better. It's not." - Dr Seuss

We are not for sale!

England is not for sale!


Join the ever growing number of households who have signed up to the Wrongmove campaign!

Tell Cuadrilla and the Government that your house is "Not for Shale"


Be a flea

"Many fleas make big dog move"
Japanese Proverb quoted by Jessica Ernst

No to Fracking

Love Lytham Say No to Fracking

Make sense?

The Precautionary Principle

When an activity or occurrence raises threats of serious or irreversible harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.

Contact Us

Click here to contact us by email
Private Eye

How can I help?

Find out here

Email updates

Subscribe to our mailing list

Follow us on Twitter

Our Tweets

PPS Group

Axed Johnston Press Editor Misleads For Cuadrilla

Some of Cuadrilla’s lies (like the one about the police asking them to move the barriers to the centre of the road at Preston New Road, or the one about fracking pads being the size of a single rugby pitch) seem to slide their way seamlessly into the local press with no questions being asked. Others are more insidious like the suggestion made by ex LSE editor Steve Singleton to a local councillor last week.

Mr Singleton (who now works for PPS group, one of Cuadrilla’s many PR agencies, but styles himself “Cuadrilla Local Community Advisor“) wrote to a local councillor stating of the protests : “Obviously there is a serious impact on traffic movement and inevitable delays for motorists. Most crucially ambulances will need to be diverted taking longer to reach destinations.”

We were particularly irritated by the claim that the protests might have affected emergency vehicles as, to our knowledge, the only delays to blue light vehicles have occurred as a result of Cuadrilla’s traffic management and their own blocking of the road.

We decided to find out the truth from a senior police officer. The “Bronze” commander at the site confirmed this morning what we already knew.

To his knowledge no emergency vehicles have so far been delayed by any action taken by protesters against the fracking development at Preston New Road.

We think Mr Singleton should refrain from making unsustainable claims like this in future and should write to those who he contacted earlier with this incorrect suggestion to put the record straight. We also hope that the local press will take his “alternative facts” with a few pinches of salt in future.

Fracking Furore Over Axed Johnston Press Editor’s Appeal

Axed LSE Editor Receives Invitation to Attend PNR Protest

Frack Free Lancashire have recently commented on emails sent out by Cuadrilla’s in house spin doctor, axed Johnstone press editor Steve Singleton.  (well we say “In House” , but we’re not sure how somebody employed by PR company PPS Solutions’ office in Greater Manchester is simultaneously able to describe themselves as “Cuadrilla Local Community Advisor” – maybe it’s just a Public relations industry thing? You know, Cuadrilla pretending to put “Lancashire First”, and all that sort of Trumpery)  They have brought to the press’s attention that Cuadrilla Resources, who have used at least seven different public relations agencies to push their corporate messages, are upset that the anti-fracking movement has finally received some positive coverage on the BBC.

FFL have learned that axed Johnston Press Editor on the Fylde Coast, now Cuadrilla’s “Local Community Advisor“, has pleaded with his local contacts to put forward pro-fracking programme suggestions to the BBC in an effort to negate the impact of what he suggests is favourable anti-fracking coverage on popular television programme, The One Show.

In two recently discovered emails, Steve Singleton, attempted to solicit pro-fracking supporters to contact The One Show to counter the impact of a feature on fracking protestors.

Mr Singleton stated:

“Cuadrilla now want to ensure the BBC provide some ‘balance’ and report that there is support in Lancs … This is not that supporters are the silent majority but simply a majority that doesn’t stand outside shouting and block roads needlessly.”

In a second email he also complained (contrary to information provided by the police themselves) that ambulances would have needed to be diverted, taking longer to reach destinations.


However, a local resident commented to FFL:

“Mr Singleton’s claims that ambulances might have needed to have been diverted has no more basis in fact than Cuadrilla’s recent claim that police asked them to move their barriers into the middle of the road. I spoke to a policeman at the scene as the slow walk was happening and he confirmed that emergency vehicles would have been allowed through. The only problems for emergency vehicles over the last 2 weeks have been caused by Cuadrilla’s insistence on erecting barriers which leave only a narrow strip of road available for travel in one direction at a time. “

Speaking on behalf of Frack Free Lancashire, Claire Stephenson explained further:

“It was actually the police who blocked the road and not the protestors. The stopping of the truck down the road was a response by people angry because police did not facilitate peaceful protest. We have video footage of an assault carried out by a security worker, which is now the subject of police investigation following a number of formal complaints. Cuadrilla’s unsuccessful traffic management efforts have blocked emergency vehicles three times in the last two weeks. On Friday campaigners spent two hours persuading workers to reduce their unnecessarily wide fencing space so as to allow emergency vehicles through safely. We have strong concerns for the health and safety of the public and residents.”

Reacting to the claims of unbalanced coverage she continued:

“Cuadrilla spend thousands of pounds on no less than seven PR companies and employing in-house spin doctors like Mr Singleton. They continually make false claims of being involved with the local community. Rather than making spurious claims of support and trying to stir up matters behind the scenes, shouldn’t Mr Singleton be focussing on setting up the Community Liaison Groups which we have been promised, but which Cuadrilla have so far failed to deliver?

“We would like to give him the chance to see the truth at first hand, so we’d like to invite him to come down and join us down at the rolling protest opposite the site entrance to witness both the lawful nature of the protest and also the incredible level of support being offered to the protestors by passing motorists.”

We will report here if Mr Singleton accepts the invitation, engages with the local community, and puts in an appearance at the roadside.

Putting Lancashire First

It was interesting to see the breakdown of costs provided by Cuadrilla in their claim against Tina Rothery, and how they tried their hardest to limit the amounts spent and used the opportunity to support business in Lancashire.

Along with the other costs making up the amazing £62,871 they tried to claim was a time cost from Eversheds’ office in Leeds (That’s in Yorkshire isn’t it? Don’t we have lawyers in Lancashire then?) for

So a trainee spent 2 hours and 12 minutes on drafting a legal notice to be inserted into newspapers.

Presumably (let us know if we are wrong Cuadrilla please and we’ll correct this ) this the same legal notice for which they then also engaged not one but two PR companies to deal with. Both of these are of course are based in Lancashire. Oh no! Hang on – sorry, the invoices were sent from their London offices.

We were gobsmacked! Does it really cost nearly £7,000 to insert a legal notice in each of 2 local newspapers and the on-line version of one of them? In fact the Lancashire Evening Post and the Blackpool Gazette are both Johnston Press publications and Blackpooltoday.co.uk is just the Blackpool Gazette online).  This does sound an awful lot doesn’t it? We made a brief enquiry with Johnstone Press as to how much a half page print advert in their regional titles might be and were given a ball-park figure of £700 – £1200 per title to play with. We didn’t see it but we doubt this notice needed to be bigger than a half page. We can’t imagine that the on-line version would cost more, but if anyone knows differently please let us know. On that basis a figure of £3,000 would seem more reasonable. After all the work  in preparing the notices for print had apparently been done by an Eversheds trainee.

And does it really cost nearly £7,000 to insert a legal notice in the Times? Goodness!

It does beg the question as to why a major legal firm couldn’t arrange for a legal notice to be inserted into a couple of newspapers and why two London based PR companies had to be involved doesn’t it? We are sure that they must have made every effort to ensure that only reasonable costs were presented as incurred. If Cuadrilla would like to shed any light on this we’ll gladly publish their response here.

And we wouldn’t want anyone to think that Cuadrilla’s  commitment to “Putting Lancashire first” was just a slogan, whilst they actually support businesses just about  everywhere else would we?


Cuadrilla’s Reaction to the ASA ruling on their newsletter

We thought the reaction from Cuadrilla was worthy of a post all on it’s own. Let’s take a look at how they reacted (and also how they didn’t)

Here is what their CEO Francis Egan had to say, as reported in the Blackpool Gazette.

We would love to be able to direct you to the on-line version, so that you could see it for yourself but, for reasons which we don’t fully understand, the Gazette seems to be the only newspaper which carried this story but which did not also include it in their on-line version.

Cuadrilla reaction

Cuadrilla reaction

First of all, let’s be absolutely clear that the ASA did NOT in any way confirm that hydraulic fracturing can be done safely, and to suggest that they did is totally misleading. You might think that having had his company caught out misleading the public Mr Egan might be have been a bit more careful with his comments, but it looks as though they can’t really help themselves from coming out with this sort of distortion of reality.

Bizarrely, having stated this, he then goes on to totally invalidate any worth that statement might have had, even if it were the truth, by saying “We do believe the ASA should have consulted scientific experts before reaching it’s conclusions”.

It’s interesting that Mr Egan seems to presuppose that they didn’t do so. I’m not sure what they did during the 9 months or so that this complaint has been under investigation, but it is reasonable to assume that they spent a fair amount of time investigating and comparing the scientific evidence in order to feel able to adjudicate here.

His final comment is also misleading as the ASA did not in fact “validate” any points. It merely didn’t accept our complaints. The two things are not the same by any stretch of the imagination, but it IS amusing to see that Mr Egan is prepared to claim “validation” from these people who he accused earlier of not knowing their science when it suits him.

In at least one case the ASA’s refusal to accept a complaint was rather perverse. Cuadrilla argued that the development wouldn’t be dense and unattractive on the basis that their licence area was 1200 Km2 and would only have 10 well pads on it. We provided evidence from Cuadrilla’s own website that a:) under their licence they had to return half of the licence area to the government and b:) Cuadrilla were in fact proposing up to 80 wells but the ASA told us

a) Yes, we are aware of the mandatory relinquishment of 50%. We are still minded to base our recommendation on CRL’s statement that the well pads would be spread across the entire 1200 km2 area.
b) Yes, we have based our recommendation on the information provided to us by CRL and not on the figures from their website which show the number of well pads to be 80 at the higher end.

We can’t pretend to understand their logic , but unlike Francis Egan we won’t be throwing a hissy fit about it.

Back to Cuadrilla’s responses…

In the Guardian
we read that

Cuadrilla strongly disputes many of the ASA’s criticisms, which will be subject to appeal. For instance, the ASA said that the company could not claim its “fracturing fluid does not contain hazardous or toxic components”, because although the company has used only water, sand and a non-toxic friction-reducing chemical to date, it could use other substances in future. Cuadrilla called this “absurd and pedantic”.

Appeal? Cuadrilla have already spent the last 9 months desperately trying to provide evidence to the ASA to neutralise our claims. We wish them good luck with their appeal. We can’t wait to see the results.

And “absurd and pedantic” ??? Oh dear – perhaps Mr Egan isn’t aware of the fact that his own company’s website states that

“Cuadrilla’s fracturing fluid, … along with fresh water and sand includes:

Polyacrylamide friction reducer
Hydrochloric acid
Sodium salt

Is it really “absurd and pedantic” to believe what they tell us? Really?

Mr Egan then says

we will be examining the adjudication carefully to see what communication lessons can be learned in future.

Perhaps the simplest lesson he could take from all this is that if you don’t deal honestly with people they will lose trust in you and then you won’t get the “social licence to operate” which you so desperately want.

And finally, rather unbelievably, he says

However, he said it was important that the ASA had ruled that fracking “can be done safely”.

Again – the ASA has done no such thing and to suggest that they have is pretty disrespectful of the role that this organisation plays in keeping communication between businesses and the public as honest as it can.

Having taken all this in we can’t help noticing that Cuadrilla really don’t seem to be taking this very seriously. The best illustration of this, perhaps is the fact that that 2 weeks after they were provided with a ruling that condemned their claim that “Cuadrilla’s fracturing fluid does not contain hazardous or toxic components”, and 2 days after that ruling was made public and reported worldwide, exactly that same claim is still made on their corporate website.

Do they really think this stuff doesn’t matter? Do they think the people of Lancashire are stupid? … or are they simply incompetent?

Strangely the News section of Cuadrilla’s site carried no mention of this latest accolade.

Press Reaction to the ASA ruling on Cuadrilla’s newsletter

It has been interesting to see how far the news of the ASA ruling, which effectively bans Cuadrilla from making certain claims about the safety of fracking, has travelled.

The Guardian was the first paper to publish an article
Curiously this article suggested (incorrectly) that the ASA had suggested changes to Cuadrilla’s claims

Cuadrilla was also criticised by the ASA for asserting that “we know that hydraulic fracturing does not lead to contamination of the underground aquifer”. That must be changed to: “To ensure that there can be no route for fluid or gas to leak from the shale rock up to the aquifer, we use multiple layers of steel casing sealed by cement.”

That was factually incorrect but the article was sympathetic, pointing out that

The censure by the Advertising Standards Authority will force a significant watering down of some of the company’s claims and is a further blow to Cuadrilla, which has halted fracking at all of its UK sites following a series of setbacks.

Locally the Lancashire Evening Post picked up very quickly on the story


The BBC picked up the article shortly afterwards


and Reuters


sent it worldwide so we ended up with coverage as far away as Africa!


We were also pleased to see that the Gasland Facebook page picked up on the story.

Here is a sample of the coverage we got elsewhere.


Lies, Damned Lies and Cuadrilla’s Community Newsletter

Cuadrilla’s community newsletter banned by the Advertising Standards Authority.

In July 2012 Cuadrilla and their PR agency, PPS Group, created a “community newsletter” which was posted to thousands of households in Lancashire.

It contained claims about the safety of fracking which were evidently not sustainable, so local group Refracktion (www.refracktion.com) wrote to the ASA with a list of claims which it believed required scrutiny.

The ASA ruling, released on Wednesday 24th April 2013, identifies 21 ways in which the 8 page leaflet breaches the ASA’s advertising code on grounds including being misleading, misleading by omitting material information, making subjective claims, making claims without adequate substantiation, and exaggeration. More detail of these breaches is provided at the end of this article.

The ASA’s adjudication means that Cuadrilla’s “newsletter” may not appear again in its present form.

A spokesman for Refracktion commented:

“Cuadrilla make great play of their commitment to a “fact-based conversation” about fracking and have even suggested that the case against fracking has been commandeered by extremists. What we can clearly see here is that the necessary “conversation” is not being distorted by extremists but by Cuadrilla themselves.

There are many people in Lancashire trying to make rational, fact-based decisions about the potential impact of fracking on their communities, and this misleading information that has been peddled by Cuadrilla has made this much more difficult than it needs to be.

It is unfortunate that Cuadrilla will not be made to publish any sort of apology and so very few of those who were exposed to the questionable information in this newsletter are likely to realise the extent to which they have been misled. However, we feel this ruling is a clear vindication of our efforts to maintain a truthful and constructive debate on the issues around fracking.

Now that the ASA have recognised that many of the claims made in this leaflet were misleading and were not capable of substantiation, we believe local people will realise that they need to look much more critically at the information put out in future by Cuadrilla and their PR machine.”

How do we think the people who have read and trusted the newsletters from Cuadrilla will react?
We are sure that local people who have read the newsletter will be very disappointed to find the extent to which it falls short of the standards of integrity that might reasonably be expected of a company which “sees itself as being part of the communities it operates within”. If Cuadrilla are seeking a social licence to operate this is not a good way of going about it.

What specifically were we objecting to in the content that made us involve the ASA?
We believed that the leaflet contained statements which were demonstrably untrue but which might still convince those who had not looked into the detail of the issues. We felt that by involving a neutral arbiter like the ASA we could highlight the discrepancies in an objective way. It is not those who Cuadrilla have dubbed “extremists” who are saying that they have mislead the public but a respected and impartial national organisation – The Advertising Standard Authority.

What response would we like to see from Cuadrilla?
Sadly, the damage has largely been done. Thousands of these leaflets have been distributed all over the Fylde. We feel that to show their integrity Cuadrilla should apologise to those who have been mislead and ensure that the information which they put out in future, whether on their website, or in publications like this, shows evidence of a much higher standard of accuracy and integrity.

Cuadrilla’s PR Management in Crisis?

And what of PPS Group, Cuadrilla’s PR advisers who work “in the tougher areas of communication“?

We asked PPS to confirm whether or not they were involved in preparing this “newsletter”, but they refused, point-blank, to answer.

We asked by email

“Can I ask you to clarify the level of involvement that PPS Group had in the preparation of Cuadrilla’s Summer 2012 newsletter?”

but all they would say was

“As you know, PPS works with Cuadrilla; beyond that, we are not minded to get involved in a detailed discussion on Cuadrilla’s processes for issuing newsletters.”

We even asked face to face at Pipers Height, but all we got was “no comment”.

However, according to the ASA , Cuadrilla did confirm in correspondence with them that PPS were the agency involved, and they are duly listed on the adjudication as “The Agency”.

We wonder why PPS were so keen to distance themselves from this particular publication when they are obviously so proud of other similar “newsletters” produced for Cuadrilla that they even feature on their promotional blurb about the PR Week award they won in 2011 for their “crisis management” work with Cuadrilla.

PPS Crisis

PPS Crisis

It is perhaps reassuring to learn that even the PR industry realise that Cuadrilla are facing a PR “crisis” of their own making, which needs management.

By the way, looking at PPS’s pictures there, isn’t that local MP Mark Menzies allowing his image to be used in pro-fracking PR yet again? That’s not very smart of him in our opinion, especially as the text of the PPS publicity here states that as a result of their efforts “Government ministers, civil servants and local MPs spoke positively about Cuadrilla and an attempt by opposition groups to stand against sitting councillors in seats close to the company’s two locations at local elections was defeated.” That does rather make it sound as though our local politicians are so weak that PR companies are able to successfully affect our democratic process doesn’t it?

Why is PPS’s involvement relevant? Well, it seems that Cuadrilla are not the first of PPS’s clients to have issued a Community Newsletter which incurred the displeasure of our friends at the ASA.

Back in 2006 Countryside Properties, who were developing an asbestos affected area in the Spodden Valley, issued a “newsletter” in an attempt to persuade rightly concerned local people of the safety of what they were doing (Now does that ring any bells?).

The ASA censured this “newsletter” for multiple transgressions in the areas of “substantiation”, “honesty” and “truthfulness”.

Private Eye reported this rather gleefully in issue 1192 as follows:

PPS Group

PPS Group

PPS have reacted strongly to any attempts to suggest that it was involved in the fake letter writing alleged in the Private Eye article. Their Managing Director, Stephen Byfield, allegedly told the Evening Standard “We were not involved in support letter generation, and if you even seek to imply that we were, we will sue your arse.” Given that they apparently employed Private Eye’s favourite lawyers, Messrs Carter Ruck, they obviously wished to guard their untarnished professional reputation very carefully.

Investigating the background to these allegations we did find this article quite interesting and note that it doesn’t seem to have attracted the attentions of Messrs Carter Ruck in spite of having been published nearly 6 years ago:


We are not going to comment further on the other allegations made by Private Eye about PPS Group’s ethics other than to say that if Francis Egan really wants to have a “fact-based conversation” about fracking, we think that he’d be well advised to get rid of his intermediaries and start to engage directly with the local people of Lancashire.

Maybe he could start by having his own staff rather than PPS employees answering the phone when people ring their “community helpline”, and maybe they could even set up their own email address instead of making people write to cuadrillaresources@ppsgroup.co.uk if they have questions.

The level of distrust in the community is growing daily, and Cuadrilla’s insistence on hiding behind the screen of a PR company to do their “crisis management” is one of the main reasons why.

The ASA code breaches in more detail:

Refracktion complained that the statement:

“Cuadrilla uses proven, safe technologies to explore for and recover natural gas”

could not be supported by evidence.

The ASA agreed that this statement breached their code on 3 counts : Misleading, Substantiation and Exaggeration.

Refracktion complained that the statement:

The Government’s own review, published in April 2012, also concluded that it was safe to resume hydraulic fracturing [in the Bowland Basin]

was not supported by the facts

The ASA agreed that this statement breached their code on 2 counts : Misleading and Exaggeration.

Refracktion complained that the statement:

“[The report] too set out safeguards to help ensure that there will be minimal seismic activity and no prospect of any resulting damage”

could not supported by the facts

The ASA agreed that this statement breached their code on 3 counts : Misleading, Substantiation and Exaggeration.

Refracktion complained that the statement:

“This data will allow us to adjust the injection volume and rate during the fracturing procedure, managing the process to ensure that no one should notice any disturbance or even be aware of the activity”;”

could not sustained.

The ASA agreed that this statement breached their code on 3 counts : Misleading, Substantiation and Exaggeration.

Refracktion complained that the statements:

“We also know that hydraulic fracturing does not lead to contamination of the underground aquifer” and “There is ‘no evidence of aquifer contamination from hydraulic fracturing””

were demonstrably not true.

The ASA agreed that this statement breached their code on 4 counts : Misleading, Substantiation, Subjective Claims and Exaggeration.

Refracktion complained that the statement:

“Cuadrilla’s fracturing fluid does not contain hazardous or toxic components”;””

was self-evidently not true.

The ASA agreed that this statement breached their code on 2 counts : Misleading and Misleading by Omitting Material Information.

Refracktion complained that the statement:

“Our permanent site at Elswick has been quietly producing natural gas since 1993. Located just off the main road in to Elswick … The Elswick well was hydraulically fractured in 1993 and extracts gas from the sandstone formation.”

was intended to provide a falsely reassuring comparison between what had happened on a vertically fracked well and what would happen in future using horizontal fracking.

The ASA agreed that this statement breached their code on 3 counts : Misleading, Misleading by Omitting Material Information and Exaggeration.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

We’re not Backing Fracking

Not Backing Fracking
... but we love their web site

Drill or Drop

Drill or Drop
Drill or Drop is a "must read" resource for those wanting to keep up to date on the issues.

Fracking here’s a bad idea!

Who's fault?

"What you have to be able to do when you decide you want to hydraulic fracture is make sure there are no faults in the area. That's really very very important"

Professor Mike Stephenson - Director of Science and Technology - British Geological Survey

Fracking the UK

Fracking The UK

Fracking the UK Volumes I and II now available free from this site

"Untrustworthy, unbalanced and potentially brain washing." - Amazon Review
Yes the industry hated the first volume that much :-)

Both volumes now available as free downloads from this site Click here to download

Fracking in the Media

Campaign Groups

Frack Free Lancashire
Frack Free Lancashire
Preston New Road Action Group
Preston New Road Action Group

Roseacre Awareness Group
Roseacre Awareness Group


Defend Lytham
Defend Lytham

RAFF Group
RAFF Group

REAF Group

Ribble Estuary Against Fracking

Fracking Free Ireland
Fracking Free Ireland

Fracking Digest
Fracking Digest – a summary of the week’s news

Frack Free Balcombe
Frack Free Balcombe Residents Association

Frack Free Sussex
Frack Free Sussex

Frack Free York
Frack Free York

Halsall Against Fracking
Halsall Against Fracking

If you would like your group to be added please contact us

Other Groups


May 2018
« Apr