When is a lie not a lie – Take two
Apparently when it’s on a press release or it’s on a website!
Back in 2012 we raised a series of issues with the Advertising Standards Authority regarding a leaflet sent out to local residents by Cuadrilla. Several of our complaints were upheld in the ruling of 2013 including one which stated
Cuadrilla uses proven, safe technologies to explore for and recover natural gas
The ASA duly adjudicated that
On this point, the claim “Cuadrilla uses proven, safe technologies to explore for and recover natural gas” breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules 3.1 (Misleading advertising), 3.7 (Substantiation) and 3.11 (Exaggeration).
We were disappointed a couple of months later to have to report that Cuadrilla used almost exactly the same phrase in a Press Release.
Cuadrilla Resources uses proven, safe technologies to explore for and recover natural gas reserves
We did raise this with the ASA but they wriggled out of having to take any politically awkward action by saying:
“as it’s a press release (which is not considered advertising) we can’t take action”
It was disappointing that Cuadrilla took such a cynical attitude to the censure that they received from the ASA, but we supposed that readers would draw their own conclusions about what this says about the company, and perhaps the industry as a whole.
Imagine out surprise though when last night it was pointed out to us that Cuadrilla are making exactly the same claim on a website called http://www.shalegaslancashire.co.uk/
We think this is taking cynicism to a totally unacceptable level and would ask Francis Egan to explain why he feel able to throw the ASA’s ruling back in its face in this way. If he responds we will be happy to publish his answer here. There can be no doubt that these words are Cuadrilla’s own as the footer on the page states:
What is more concerning perhaps though is the involvement of two other bodies in making this claim – the logos of the East Lancs Chamber of Commerce and the North West Lancs Chamber of Commerce are clearly visible on the page, and although Cuadrilla claim the copyright on all of the page content, the web site is actually registered by these two bodies.
Backing Fracking (more on them later) pointed out to us that this link between the Chambers and Cuadrilla was made public last year at http://www.lancashirebusinessview.co.uk/lancashire-chambers-join-forces-create-shale-gas-portal-50922/
This doesn’t change the fact that these Chambers will not be able to claim to offer any form of independent opinion at the enquiry which opens on 9th February.
Given the fact that local Chambers of Commerce are frequently in receipt of tax payer funding, it might seem reasonable to assume that you and I are, directly or indirectly, funding the promotion of Cuadrilla Resources’ interests by Chambers of Commerce who appear quite happy to put their names to questionable statements that have previously been censured by the ASA.
If this is not the case maybe someone from one of the Chambers can clarify the situation for us?
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.
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
Biocide
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
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/apr/24/caudrilla-censured-fracking-safety-claims
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
http://www.lep.co.uk/news/business/watchdog-censures-cuadrilla-over-fracking-leaflet-1-5608726
The BBC picked up the article shortly afterwards
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-22284340
and Reuters
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/04/24/uk-cuadrilla-fracking-advertising-idUKBRE93N0PZ20130424
sent it worldwide so we ended up with coverage as far away as Africa!
http://africanoilandgasnews.com/news/uk-cuadrilla-must-tone-down-fracking-safety-claims-uk-watchdog
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.
http://www.utilityweek.co.uk/news/news_story.asp?id=198447&title=ASA+orders+shale+gas+fracker+Cuadrilla+to+mind+its+language
http://www.naturalgaseurope.com/cuadrilla-warned-about-exaggerating-safety-claims
http://www.lse.co.uk/FinanceNews.asp?code=pcpscd9v&headline=Cuadrilla_must_tone_down_fracking_safety_claims_UK_watchdog
http://stopfyldefracking.org.uk/latest-news/the-claim-that-cuadrilla-used-proven-safe-technologies-has-not-been-substantiated-asa/
http://www.frackingdigest.co.uk/