fuel claims, page-18

The thing about that article that frustrated me was the claim in the opening paragraph that "it just seemed to good to be true", referencing the production cost of a barrel of fuel from UCG-GTL.

The last paragraph of the article makes the statement "it WAS a claim that was too good to be true", referencing the $20 trillion SAPEX Adelaide Advertiser debacle from last week. This is meant to be the king hit to the headline "Linc Energy fuel claims under question" [by who I might add?]

Sorry, but does this fool not realise he's comparing two completely unrelated things in his facetious claims? This is the third time in two weeks a journo has got it completely wrong.

People say any publicity is good publicity, and I guess on that note we should be happy. I just expect more from the Age.