The threat of oil and gas wells across the Weald is growing. There are new applications to drill, others pending. New laws and planning rules are in place to make life easier for oil and gas companies, and harder for ‘revolting’ local communities. In Lancashire we’ve had the first case of a local planning decision against fracking being overturned by central government. This has become UK-wide fight to keep the drills out of the ground. The first wells drilled will put ‘feet’ in a door in front of which many drillers are eagerly jostling. Even if little seems to be happening on the oil front right now near you, there are two things that you can do this week – and somewhat urgently, as deadlines are looming! 1) The Treasury’s consultation on its proposed ‘bribes’ to residents or councils near fracked wells: The government’s consultation on the Shale Wealth Fund closes next Wednesday, 26th October. We think it’s vital that as many people as possible respond and tell them ever so politely where they can put their bribes. This consultation is really quick to do if you are of the opinion that there should be no fracking, and therefore no wealth fund given to anyone, and that communities will not put financial gain before the health of local residents, animals, environment and climate. The fund would come from taxes paid by the oil and gas companies – if they ever make any profit, that is. There are 18 questions but don’t let that put you off, because you can answer the same to all. So this is another consultation that can take you 10 minutes – or longer if you want to weave in some anti-fracking arguments to your responses. Click here to respond: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/shale-wealth-fund 2) Respond to the Markwells Wood planning consultation: Markwells Wood is in West Sussex, north of Havant, south of Petersfield, within the South Downs National Park (so planning is determined not at West Sussex County Council but by the South Downs National Park Authority). The wells will pass through a chalk aquifer that supplies thousands of people with drinking water, including the city of Portsmouth The consultation was due to close next Friday, October 28th, but has just been extended to Thursday November 17th. The sooner the better, however! An objection can be really short or really long. Click here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/markwells-wood-watch/guidance-on-commenting-on-the-ukog-application/1176817405735202 or here: www.markwellswoodwatch.orgfor a briefing from the local group about how best to object. UKOG (the company who drilled the well at Horse Hill near Gatwick) have applied to drill a 1km side-arm to the well they drilled at Markwells Wood in 2011, plus three more production wells and a water injection well (for waste). They want permission to produce oil at the site for 20 years. This next bit is complicated but important – important because it’s what we all might face right across the Weald (including Balcombe), and important so that we understand, or try to understand, what they are really up to. UKOG are playing with vocabulary – just like the government (inspired by the industry) played with the definition of fracking last year in the Infrastructure Bill. See our previous updates for info on this. UKOG claim that these oil wells at Markwells Wood will be ‘conventional’. But we, and the community around Markwells Wood disagree. Conventional wells are defined as free-flowing, whereas unconventional wells are ones where the oil is trapped in tiny gobs (it’s known as ‘tight oil’), needing ‘stimulation’ before it will flow. Stimulation can mean high-volume hydraulic fracturing, but at Markwells Wood, UKOG have applied to use a ‘new non-massive fracking-based reservoir simulation technology that does not involve massive hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”). Clear as mud! What is clear in the application is that they want to use a technique known as ‘acidisation’ or ‘acidising’ – dissolving calcium carbonate and perhaps other constituents of the rock using acid. We believe that what they intend would not so long ago have been called ‘acid fracking’. It’s a question of how much pressure they would use, and that’s not clear. But nowadays companies will avoid the ‘f’ word whenever they can. In addition, it is possible but unclear, that they may also intend to use new technology involving injection of gels. So, acidising is what we are facing in the first instance right across the Weald – companies first targeting the ‘easy pickings’ - calcium carbonate, lime-rich strata in which trapped oil can be made to flow using acids. Only when these strata are exhausted will they move on to the shale, and to the high-volume fracking around which all the new government laws and rules are based. The main acid used to acidise calcium carbonate is hydrochloric acid. To acidise sand the main acid is hydrofluoric acid, which is so toxic that one splash on your arm washed off immediately would lead to organ failure and death. Often a mix of acids is used because a mix is more effective and in any case, the target rocks are usually a mix. UKOG CEO Stephen Sanderson has explained to shareholders that acidised wells would, like high-volume hydraulically fracked wells, need to be ‘back to back’ at regular intervals across the Weald to access the oil. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zBAD-EJHyk This proliferation is one of the main reasons to oppose unconventional drilling – but the national park planning authority will only be allowed to consider these particular wells in isolation. So, whether our interests are NIMBY or wider-ranging, we need to oppose each and every well! In your response to the Markwells Wood application, please follow the local community’s advice here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/markwells-wood-watch/guidance-on-commenting-on-the-ukog-application/1176817405735202 or here: www.markwellswoodwatch.org. These things get decided on the narrow terms of planning law. You can object to acidising, but mention of ‘fracking’ in your objection might mean that your whole objection just gets binned. Even all this detail is too much to get stuck into, we all know that fossil fuels should stay in the ground, and there is compelling evidence that unconventional oil and gas extraction is a serious contributor to climate change through the increased leakage of methane (a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide) into the atmosphere. Bottom line, we should be pushing renewable alternatives over this. See our previous updates for more information. Whether short or long, any response is better than none. Make your voice heard!