a community led website
Report: All about Acidising
APPG Meeting Summary 26/10/2015
DEFRA Shale Gas Rural Economy Impacts paper
FFBRA EA Proposal response 15 08 2015
FFBRA EAC Submission 31 12 2014
FoE Gold Standard Critigue August 2014
Comments regarding Radio4's 'Agree to differ'.
CIEH - Shale gas and fracking, examining the evidence.
FFBRA Objection
FFBRA Objection appendices
FFBRA Objection press release 24 3 14
Balcombe Poll Results 24th February 2014
ERS Poll Results
FFBRA Evidence to the House of Lords Committee
FFBRA response to the PHE Report
FFBRA Press release 23rd January 2014
Review of the potential public health imapcts
30 year lease extension to Lower Stumble site
Confirmation of 30 year lease extension
Letter of complaint to Public Health England
Letter to WSCC requesting an extension to the approval period.
Comments regarding Radio4's 'Agree to differ'.

Radio 4’s new Agree to Differ is a good concept, seeking points of concensus between two sides of a contentious debate. But the first programme in the series, on fracking, was (in our view) under-researched and misleading.

- The programme claimed irrelevantly that 200 wells have already been fracked around the UK, that 'fracking has been used for decades', without pointing out that these were mini-fracks in conventional wells, tiny in comparison with the fracking currently in contention which is more accureately described as high volume slick-water hydraulic fracturing in long, lateral wells. A comparison has been made between corner shops and hypermarkets.

- George Monbiot claimed that UK regulation of oil and gas wells is strong. It is not. It was developed after the Piper Alpha disaster for off-shore. Already inadequate for on-shore exploration, it is being slimmed and weakened. Visits by regulatory agencies are few, and generally pre-announced. The industry is allowed to self-monitor. George Monbiot might usefully read Friends of the Earth on poor regulation:, or he might consult oil and gas engineer and consultant

- The programme minimised or ignored all risks apart from climate change. It failed to address air pollution, including pollution from flares associated with fracking for oil. It failed to address health issues associated with fracking - both for workers and for local communities.Water pollution is indeed a risk.

- George Monbiot failed to address the strong and growing scientific evidence that fugitive methane right along the process from well to flame can be argued to make shale gas a worse option than coal in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

- The programme failed to point out how densely oil and gas wells will have to be sited across our countryside if ongoing commercial quantities are to be extracted, and failed to address the cumulative effect of all these wells and infrastructure.

- It failed to consider the large quantities of water that will be used (much of it lost to the water cycle for ever).

- It failed to express concern about how industry and government will dispose of the flowback waste - polluted with heavy metals and radioactive substances leached out from down under, as well as the original fracking chemicals. The Environment Agency is still scratching its head over this dilemma.

- It failed to recognise that the anti-fracking movement is a joined-up, nation-wide, Europe-wide, world-wide campaign, and that it is peaceful.

- James Wouhhuysen repeated the discredited suggestion that fracking is likely to reduce energy prices in the UK.

- James Woudhuysen said the audience at the Lewes fracking debate at which he spoke was threatening and violent, and that he was lucky to get out without harm. I was there. This is not true. The meeting was predominantly anti-fracking, but was peaceful. We have this meeting on film!  


LATEST NEWSResidents Association details and newslettersDefinition of acid fracturingGovt, Council and NGO responsesUseful informationHow you can helpContacts & mapUseful linksArchives