Want to know more about 'fracking'?

(updated: March 2016)

In the UK the Government is favour of fracking for gas. Also, protection for National parks has been partially removed:

BBC News:  MPs have voted to allow fracking for shale gas 1,200m below national parks and other protected sites. The new regulations - which permit drilling from outside the protected areas - were approved by 298 to 261. Opposition parties and campaigners ... Fracking under national parks backed by MPs Labour demands moratorium on fracking after MP vote Herald Scotland Government accused of U-turn as MPs back fracking in National Parks Business Green MPs accused of u-turn after giving green light for fracking under UK national parks Express.co.uk

Follow Fracking for Gas for more updates. 

Fracking summary:

With the recent UK government decision on 'fracking' this a 'must read' and very informative article from the National Geographic Dec 2012 about the development and problems caused (& benefits to the US economy)  of this form of gas extraction over the last 10 years in the USA. See the maps, graphs and articles about the problems, technology used and economics. I was surprised to read how much this fuel has already replace coal fired power stations. Follow this link:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2012/12/methane/lavelle-text

Those who want to know more about ‘fracking’ should read the National Geographic article mentioned above. 

This is a good exposé on the matter. Should one be for or against? I am definitely for economic renewable energy and would like all countries to move away from coal, oil & nuclear. Natural gas or methane gas in the absence of 100% renewable is a good option. 

The issue is how to get hold of methane? Drilling for shale gas has its problems but is it worse than drilling for oil in the sea with all the risks that come with that? I would content that drilling for oil in the arctic could cause massive pollution of the sea. Also do we want more catastrophes like Deep Water Horizon? 

The jury is still out on hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking’ but in the UK we have to weigh the benefits of 'home' production against imported gas. The UK is currently importing vast quantities from Mr Putin’s Russia and other sources. Making us 100% self-sufficient in fuel is highly desirable for the UK. Making us self reliant in terms of renewable energy is an even better objective. 

The Daily Telegraph in Sept 2015 reported:

A record high of 25.3 per cent of the UK’s power came from wind, solar, biomass and hydro-electric sources in the three months to June, up from just 16.7% in the same period the year before: Click chart for DT article: 

Back to Fracking:  

Those who criticize this form of fuel extraction should firstly study the US situation where hydraulic fracturing has been in operation for at least the last 7 years on a large scale. The UK press will no doubt have a field day on the subject of ‘earthquakes’ which, I believe is a red herring. What we need is informative articles on this form of exploration. We in the UK can’t have our cake & eat it. There is a growing campaign against wind farms and will be against fracking. By what is the alternative? More global warming,  with reliance on coal, oil & nuclear?  

Along with renewables, methane (natural gas) is good for the UK. The vast reserves of methane below the surface cannot be ignore when weighed against our ferocious appetite for energy and against the use of oil, coal & nuclear. 

So why is methane good? And why fracking? Here are my notes: 

Firstly methane: 

Before exploring the pros & cons of ‘fracking’ it is important to understand the role of methane in our planet’s atmosphere. There are 6 points to consider:

What is the difference between natural gas and methane? The difference is methane is 99.99% C4H. Natural gas contains a mixture of hydrocarbons such as including Methane (usually about 95%), Ethane, Butane, Propane & other naturally occurring chemicals.  Natural gas will also have trace amounts of other compounds that naturally come from rock such as Sulphur Dioxide. 

What is it & how is it formed? Methane occurs naturally. As a result of the breakdown of vegetation millions of years ago that are vast reserves of methane trapped thousands of feet below the surface but it is still produced today – it is given off from swamps, marshes, rice fields, land fill, pumped out of coal mines, manure lagoons stomachs of cows & amazingly termites! Comparing natural action to human causes the estimate ratio is about 40% natural to 60% industrial. Also we have a new phenomenon – methane ‘bubbles’ which have been trapped in permafrost is now leaking up though ice covered lakes as the temperature rises, because of global warming, in place like Alaska & Siberia? 

So methane is being produced anyway, what shall we do? Every country should take action to prevent the natural escape & human production of methane into the atmosphere; but where it is found or produced by human causes, it should be converted to fuel. The by-product is less polluting than coal or gas. Currently atmospheric methane has increased 160% since pre industrial days! Trapping it a burning it is much preferable. One example is in Sweden where they have developed a new biogas reactor that processes offal. The methane produced fuels vehicles and replaces over a million gallons of petrol & diesel. 

Is it bad for us? Methane has a global warming potential of 25 compared to CO2

What happens when you burn it? The chemical energy stored in the methane is converted into heat and you are left with CO2 & H20. 

How does it compare with coal as a fuel? Methane burns very efficiently and without spewing out sulphur dioxide, mercury & ash particles, plus it produces half the CO2 that coal does.

Secondly ‘fracking’: 

There are 4 main negatives about the extraction of hydraulic fracturing:

‘Earthquakes’ or tremors : The evidence in the USA does not support this as a major problem but in the UK the ‘built environment’ is much more intense and will no doubt cause concern.  However, the earthquakes have been of a type that's common in the UK, and very much at the lower end of the scale. They haven't caused any damage. More evidence is needed to allay fears & a negative newspaper campaign. 

Leakage of methane during extraction:  Following the evidence in the USA this is clearly a problem. High standards must be applied to the industry. 

Leaking of methane into water courses:  Again, evidence in the USA shows this is clearly a problem. We need to learn from the American what the extent or level of the problem is and how it can be avoided and/or minimised. 

Drilling: A ‘shale gas’ drilling rig is roughly the same as for natural gas. Once the drilling is completed, the well head is reduces to a small set of valves, that would fit inside a truck. Even during drilling, the site is not that large: smaller than a decent sized wind farm. 

What Is Fracking?

Watch this video animation to learn how the process of hydraulic fracturing, known as fracking, forces oil from the ground in North Dakota, USA.  Click Image:

See also Wikipedia article about Hydraulic fracturing

Break up of the Lewes Constituency

Help stop some crazy changes to our local area! Can you send your views by 5th Dec?


Please would you urgently consider sending an e-mail to the UK government's Boundaries Commission regarding changes they are proposing which will dramatically alter the way in which our MP is elected and how the Lewes area and its villages are treated at national level. Every few years a review is carried out and quite often some ridiculous results emerge. Unless we speak out, they are likely to make a decision which will seriously affect Lewes and its villages.


Unless enough people  object to their proposals Lewes will be split up and absorbed into East Brighton AND THE LEWES AREA WILL LOSE ITS VOICE FOR EVER.  Although the Commission are calling it “Lewes & East Brighton” the truth of the matter is that East Brighton (Moulsecoomb, Whitehawk & Woodingdean etc) would dominate the voting with about 70% of the electorate. This would leave Lewes and a few villages like Kingston,  Barcombe & Plumpton etc unable to be properly represented.


At the same time the Commission proposes removing Ringmer, Glynde & Firle from the Lewes Constituency  which would be hived off and lumped into a very large constituency  stretching from Cuckmere Haven in the south to Forest Row in the north.  Ringmer, Glynde and Firle have very close links with Lewes. 


An alternative has been put forward by local campaigners to conform to the new requirements of enlarged constituencies.  It proposes that  the Lewes constituency be retained and  that small changes are made bringing Uckfield into the Lewes constituency and releasing Polegate to become part of the Wealden constituency. This would retain the nature of the area we live in and mean that our MP can clearly speak for the towns and villages that make up this semi-rural constituency.


Public consultation closes on the 5th Dec (next Monday) so we haven't got much time. Please would you support the retention of Lewes and its towns and villages as one constituency by giving your views to the commission directly on their website: 
http://consultation.boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk


To make things easier, I set out below my draft letter which can be cut and pasted and put on their web. Please feel free to modify and change and use this letter. You can submit your views at:
http://consultation.boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/have-your-say/step-1/
Whatever you say will be kept confidential  but it is important that they understand the weight of opinion there is from the Lewes area.


I hope you will have time to send something off in the next few days. Please also send this e-mail to your contacts in the area.


See the draft letter below


Thank you






DRAFT LETTER


Dear Southeast Commissioners.


I would like to object to the proposals put forward by the boundary commission to reorganise Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the south-east.


Your proposal would see many existing communities split apart, most notably it  will rip apart  Lewes constituency, dumping rural Lewes and neighbouring villages into urban East Brighton with Moulsecoomb & Whitehawk etc. This is unacceptable and breaches many of the guidelines  which the Commission claims to be working to. 


Not only does the proposed ‘Lewes and East Brighton Constituency’ completely disregard existing constituency boundaries, it also bridges the local authority boundary between East Sussex and the City of Brighton & Hove. It breaks up Lewes District and merges part of it with urban Brighton. At the same time the Commission proposes removing Ringmer, Glynde & Firle from the Lewes Constituency which completely disregards local ties that the Commission says it supports.  


Most importantly it shows no regard whatsoever for the natural community and cultural connections Lewes shares with local villages as mentioned above and with towns like Newhaven and  Seaford. By contrast, Lewes and its surrounding villages have very little in common with the urban city of Brighton. Nor does Seaford or Newhaven have anything in common with places like Forest Row on the Surrey borders. By any measure, the proposal to force together such clearly different areas makes no sense at all.


I support the alternatively proposal that would see Lewes constituency retain its natural community with existing transport, community & cultural links across Lewes constituency. That plan would see the nearby town of Uckfield joining Lewes constituency and Polegate moving into Wealden. That way there is no need for Brighton to swallow up other communities like Lewes. This plan respects the semi-rural nature of our area, and recognises the character of the Lewes area and avoids fusing together such incompatible areas. It also allows Brighton to spread west into places like Shoreham and Portslade that already have close links to Brighton and it continuous urban environment.


I hope you will give strong consideration to these views when making your final consideration.


Regards etc

Voting Reform - AV

Simply put - “AV” is designed to ensure whoever is elected has the broad support of the majority of people in the constituency.

All you do is to say who you would prefer to be your MP by writing 1 against the name. Then you say who you would have as your 2nd & 3rd choice etc. You don’t have to put down a 2nd or 3rd choice if you don’t want to.

This short video clearly explains AV: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FstA45lxgFs

Who uses AV now? -
• Leadership elections for Labour and Liberal Democrats
• Elections for UK parliamentary officials including Select Committee Chairs.
• Elections for the Academy Award for Best Picture
• Australian House of Representatives.
• Millions of people in membership organisations, such as my one – the British Computer Society.
• Most Student Union elections.
• Irish Presidential election.
• Numerous American City, Mayoral and district elections.

Australia has used AV for 80 years

If you want the view of the Electoral Reform Society click on this link; http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/article.php?id=55
Or go the yes vote web site: http://www.yestofairervotes.org/

The 2010 Coalition?

An open letter to the Liberal Democrats

We have more that binds us than divides us. In this country we have got used to adversarial politics but perhaps we should get used to the politics of co-operation. It is a big risk for the Liberals because any step the Conservatives make, which is not to the satisfaction of the Liberal supporters will cause problems with party activists. However, we have to steel ourselves. The stakes are too high for this country and the Liberals not to take up the challenge. The Conservatives have the most votes of any party and for the next parliament (say four years) we should endeavour to work with them.

I know this is a difficult pill to swallow and we will undoubtedly lose some members to the Greens, Labour and other parties but if we hold our integrity high and work in the best interests of the country we should be able to convince our members in time for the next election that we have done our best for the people of Great Britain.

We have a very difficult two or three years ahead and we need firm government to steer our way out of the financial mess which was not caused by Mr Brown but caused by our casino bankers and we, the people of the UK, are to pay the price.

Some say that whoever goes into power now will not be elected again at the next election because of all the stringent measures which will have to be imposed on the people of this country. However, the Liberal Democrats should not shy away from bringing together, albeit with the Conservatives, a program to steer the country to calmer waters and better times. In business one often has to work with people you don’t like – in fact, this is often the case most of the time, but you still have to do it and at the same time, succeed for the benefit of the company. In this case, the company is our country.

It could be said that the Cameron offer has just been put to us to force us to reject it. That may be the case, but it still doesn’t give the Liberal Democrats an excuse for not having the courage to do what is inevitable when there is no overall majority. In fact, I think Mr Cameron would be quite surprised to find that we say, ‘yes, let’s work together’. It will put them on the spot. Their supporters will have to swallow hard and allow the politicians in the coalition the time to restore this country to stability.

Personally, I would prefer a three party coalition, but perhaps that is a step too far for this country which has a political a voting system which hasn’t changed since Victorian times.

I support Mr Clegg and our team in Parliament and I will continue to support them in a coalition government, whatever the press may say or in future the Labour opposition. The Liberal light will not go out. We will hold firm to our beliefs and principles to guide us through these difficult waters.

Good luck to the Liberal team of MPs led by Nick Clegg.