As with most things involving Welsh Labour, even when they make their position crystal clear, the end result remains as clear as mud!!

The Environment and Sustainability Committee met last Wednesday with the number one item on the agenda designed to establish the actual position regarding whether or not a moratorium exists in Wales on fracking. You can watch it for yourself below (click on image). Thankfully, you just need to watch the first 13 minutes.

To summarise:

AJ = Chair Alun Jones (PC Arfon)
WP = William Powell (LD Mid & West Wales)
CS = Carl Sargeant (Lab Minister for Natural Resources, Alyn & Deeside)
LG = Llyr Gruffyydd (PC North Wales)
SM = Sandy Mewies (Lab Delyn)

N.B. I may be paraphrasing to an extent, so check the video for precise words

WP – Do you think a moratorium is in fact in place in Wales?

CS – Yes, I do.

WP – Do you not see any legal difficulties with this?

CS – The directions to the 25 welsh planning authorities are clear that we do not hold the same position as the UK government in wanting to move ahead quickly with fracking and that we continue to hold to the moratorium position.

WP – Do you think extending this include UCG is appropriate given the different technology and licensing arrangements, and given the decision taken in Scotland [to ban it too]?

CS – We are considering this and will make a decision shortly

SM – Do we not need much more publicity to highlight the different position here in Wales compared to Engalnd as there is a lot of confusion about these differing technologies and the WG position?

CS – Lobby groups on both sides have produced lots of information and I believe a lot of the science behind it is not well founded and this is why we are taking the precautionary approach whereby positive outcomes cannot be made for applications to local [planning authorities – they have to be referred to WG.

CS – Everything is open to legal challenge in planning, but it is clear they cannot make the decision local level and that the application would be called in by WG.

LG – So unless you are telling us that you will reject that application, which presumably you can’t, you cannot tell us that the application will not go ahead.

CS – That particular line of questioning is unlawful. I cannot presume any decision and you are therefore playing politics as you know my legal position on this. I can’t understand your argument as we are actually on the same side here. The fact is that you are trying to create a loophole when in fact we have been very clear on the moratorium and I think you are trying to undermine the system.

LG – I am quite taken aback by that attitude. My job is to make sure the decisions you take are robust and scrutinised and I have had a great deal of correspondence from organisations and individuals who are concerned that word moratorium is being bandied about when, in fact, really it is not a moratorium.

CS – I disagree with you.

AJ – If you are not prejudging an application coming to you, you cannot say you would not approve it.

CS – Absolutely Chair, I am not allowed to prejudge any application, therefore the line of questioning led by the member is unreasonable.

AJ – But if you are not prejudging it, how can you say it is a moratorium?

CS – I am saying that the local planning authority are not allowed to pass an application.

LG – So we can agree that it is a moratorium on local planning authorities making the decision.

CS – Absolutely

LG – But that we cannot go further than that because of legal reasons.

CS – I cannot prejudge any application.

LG – I understand that.

There follows a two-three minute discussion as to why CS considers it impractical to extend whatever ‘moratorium’ exists to test drilling applications.

Labour are playing games here, if we look at what a moratorium actually is:

This all adds up to exactly what I and others, like Gareth Clubb at FoTEC, have long been saying. Clearly the only moratorium actually in place is on local authorities making decisions on fracking applications.

There are is no legally enforceable way of WG turning down fracking decisions brought before it on anything other than planning grounds. There are plenty of such grounds and there may well be the intention by Carl Sergeant and co. to do what they can to prevent it happening, BUT ……..

By his own admission, as things stand (and they may well change with the next devolution bill), he simply cannot say that there will be no fracking approvals granted. By any reasonable understanding of the word moratorium, I therefore (and regrettably) have no hesitation in declaring:

THERE IS NO MORATORIUM ON FRACKING
IN PLACE IN WALES

P.S. Carwyn Jones made it clear today (20/10/15) that even though the new Wales Bill will, finally, give Welsh Government the powers to put a proper moratorium or ban in place, it would still need ratifying by Westminster, and could easily be vetoed at the stroke of a pen, rendering it meaningless all the time we have a Westminster government intent on feathering its sponsors and donors nests with fracked gas when the time is right for profits to be made – the only criteria they live by.

Beyond Mitigation – Beating the Crisis

 (Written by Jamie Insole)

Introduction

Cardiff & South Wales Against the Bedroom Tax (C&SWABT) is a tenant led, grassroots campaign committed to fighting the ‘bedroom tax’.

Our experience indicates that the financial burden of the bedroom tax continues to fall predominantly upon the sick, disabled and most financially vulnerable members of our community.

Currently, approximately 33,000 households face the impossible choice of finding extra-money they do not have or ‘downsizing’ to smaller homes that do not exist.

C&SWABT has previously called for the Welsh Government to follow Scotland and Northern Ireland’s lead by providing the additional £17 million necessary to effectively cover the cost of the bedroom tax in Wales.

On July 24th, the Welsh Assembly’s own Public Accounts Committee recommended “a cost/benefit analysis of mitigating the full impact of the removal of the spare room subsidy through discretionary housing payments, as the Scottish Government chose to do.”

Following publication, a coalition of sector agencies and high-profile individuals, including, the Archbishop of Wales called upon Welsh Government to find the funds to take tenants out of this charge.

 Achievements to date:

1. Over 1000 tenants taken out of the bedroom tax

2. Established local authority exemptions for overnight care

3. Made law at tribunal – over 300 cases taken forward

4. Partnering with social landlords to take forward pilots and brokering agreements in Cardiff, Merthyr, Bridgend and Caerphilly.

5. Working with Welsh Government to secure an additional £1.3 million DHP

6. Successful press and media campaigns targeting Westminster, poor practise and highlighting social impacts

7. Nine local groups established. Skilling and education through campaigning activity. Tenants brought closer to the process of power!

 

Bridgend Against the Bedroom Tax Steering Committee (bottom right(

“The cost of not intervening will

be measured both in terms of

thousands of evictions and the

irreversible toxification of

the Welsh social housing sector.”

Core argument

Approximately 33,000 households face the impossible choice of finding extra-money they do not have or ‘downsizing’ to smaller homes that do not exist.

Over the course of 2013 and 2014, social tenants in wales were made subject to 5136 suspended possession orders. Dramatic cuts in discretionary housing payment, combined with the perfect storm of further welfare reform can only see more people facing insurmountable debt and eviction threats.

Currently, discretionary housing payments constitute the single means whereby many tenants who cannot objectively downsize cover the cost of remaining in their homes. Perversely, the Local Authority Duty of Care introduced by the Housing Act will mean that a decreasing pot will need to be spread across a wider catchment.

Meanwhile, following the outcome of the May General election, there are strong indications that some social landlords are adopting a more aggressive approach to arrears. This is swiftly giving rise to a postcode lottery in which some seek to transfer the risk to tenants whilst others despair of settling a unified approach.

 A tree is best measured when it’s down – a warning!

Following on from work with the WLGA, our campaign is stunned by the lack of disaggregated data covering; 1: the number and profile of bedroom tax affected tenants in receipt of DHP and, 2: the number of bedroom tax tenants subject either to suspended possession orders or pre-action protocol.

Traditionally, arrears have been cited as the best means of measuring risk. However, and in combination with hidden debt, there is convincing evidence to indicate that ‘tenant resilience’ has been degraded beyond endurance. Welsh Tenants have carried out important work around the growth of local food bank usage. Similarly, Oxfam Cymru, in partnership with the Trussel Trust, sought to map the immediate factors driving the rise of extreme poverty.

C&SWABT suggests the existence of a developing crisis not unlike that experienced in 2007. In essence, whilst Welsh Government, agencies and the sector are measuring the wrong thing, true indicators (to the best of our knowledge) have neither been captured nor collated. Consequently, when the tree falls, it will do so both abruptly and in such a manner as to inflict maximum pressure on overstretched support services.

The backlog at law will be measured in months, if not years. Social landlords will be forced to transform their business models doing irrevocable vandalism to the sectors ethos. Homelessness will spike beyond the capacity of the private rented sectors local ability to accommodate. Estates will fight back. The majority of evictions will be bitterly contested and communities, faith groups and other constituencies will be brought into direct conflict with bailiffs and local decision makers. In short, we will see a pattern currently emerging in London replicated throughout Wales.

Beyond Mitigation

We are fully aware of the budgetary challenges posed by central government underfunding. However, in our view the cost of not intervening will be measured both in terms of thousands of evictions and the irreversible toxification of the Welsh social housing sector.

Welsh Government spends a lower percentage of its expenditure on housing than either Scotland or Northern Ireland. It is essential that the housing budget is expanded so that the DHP top-up does not come at the expense of other vital housing services. In Scotland, no tenant pay’s the Bedroom Tax. We call upon Welsh Government to show the same leadership, act upon the Committees recommendation and take tens of thousands of Welsh tenants out of poverty and misery.

Costings

In total it is costing Scotland £50.2m annually to offset the tax, including £15.2m from the DWP and the rest (£35m) coming from Scottish Gov.

If Welsh Government topped up at the same ratio, this would make the whole cost of ending the Bedroom Tax in Wales £26,071,644 (based on 2014/15 figs). BUT this is the total cost of ending the tax, including the money that DWP allocates to Wales via DHP, (£7,984,203 in 2014/15.)

So, the additional contribution from Welsh Government would be in the region of £18/17m. In budgetary terms this is in no way unachievable.

Next Steps

1. Bi-monthly briefings and regular info updates covering trends, case studies, best practise and further options

2. National Assembly of Wales petition launch

3. Sector-wide event – Cardiff – Transport House – December or January

4. National partnership to develop Upper Tribunal appeals strategy

5. Key note demonstrations and pilot ‘citadel neighbourhoods’ (a community-wide support and ‘no eviction’ net)

6. Developing engagement with RSL’s, CHC and the WLGA. Robust press campaigns designed to address bad practise and highlight Central Government failures.

7. Collaboration and support around Welsh Tenant and Shelter Cymru initiatives.

C&SWABT is eager to engage. We work to empower hundreds of bedroom tax affected tenants across South Wales. For further information, please contact cardiffagainstthebedroomtax@gmail.com or call Jamie on 07717779819, or for Bridgend enquiries, you can call Andy on 078 1066 3241.

It was the Ogmore and Bridgend Constituency Labour Party annual dinner this week. Their very own Carwyn Jones turned up and members were keen to share on Facebook his declaration thus:

“we will have a manifesto that is radical, fresh and shaped by Party members”

I have to admit that this was like a red flag to a bull (apologies for the kinda mixed metaphor!).

Having been steadily sipping away at a bottle of Johnnie Walker all evening, I responded like this:

It will be radical and fresh if shaped by the new Corbynite members. It is great news that Carwyn’s stale old blairite, red Tory drivel is being binned at last. Bring it on!!

I guess this deserved the following riposte:

Love the comradely language that Jeremy requests of us. Suppose a real pity we have a Welsh Labour GOVERNMENT. dear me….

Nonetheless, the following conversation that followed, I think, is very telling:

• ME: I am not on board yet, as I don’t believe a word of the radical and fresh claims. Proof will be in the pudding. Labour’s legacy in government is hardly cause for pride, being the product if years of complacency. Interesting times are upon us. It will be interesting to see if Welsh Labour can rise to the challenge. I sincerely hope so, but I really do think a change of leadership is vital to presentating a fresh, new, radical face with any credibility at all.
• Reply: We will get out to fight and beat the Welsh Tories. Over and out.
• ME: Hardly ambitious, let alone fresh and radical. I think I can rest my case too!
• Reply: Not sure what greater ambition we should have than defeating Tories. They are the enemy after all!
• ME: Seriously? That says it all and pretty much confirms all my worst fears.

So there you have it. Beating the Tories is their sole ambition. No challenge to the charge of complacency. No interest in being fresh or radical so long as the Tories are not in charge. Tory-lite will presumably continue to be acceptable enough and continue to meet Carwyn’s understanding of radical and fresh. No view on whether Carwyn is the right person to take them forward.

Of course, I may be proved wrong. The Labour Manifesto for next year’s Assembly elections may well prove ‘fresh and radical’. The influence of the massive influx of new Corbynite members, and the presumably renewed confidence of the long-quiet lefties that always hid away within the party during the Blairite years (with one or two exceptions), will surely have a profound impact if Carwyn is right about policy and the manifesto being ‘shaped by members’. But that is, of course, only half the battle with Carwyn’s administration. They blatantly lie, even in the Senedd itself, and their promises are worthless. One straightforward but huge example emphasises this point – the NHS hospital downgrading.

Here are some actual quotes from Labour ministers in the Senedd:

No-one is suggesting the downgrading of any district general hospital (Labour First Minister, National Assembly, November 29th 2011)

No hospital is under threat, and no hospital was ever under threat in Wales (Labour First Minister, National Assembly, May 1st 2012).

I do not want to see any downgrading. We want to see improved services. To talk about downgrading is absolute nonsense. (Labour Health Minister, November 1st 2011)

We have no plans to downgrade any district general hospital (Labour Health Minister, December 7th 2011)

I do not want to hear any talk about downgrading. No services will be downgraded (Labour Health Minister, May 23rd 2012)

Tally these pledges with the reality of what has happened in terms of hospital downgrades:

• Closure of at least five community hospitals: Blaenau Ffestiniog, Flint, Llangollen, Prestatyn and Mynydd Mawr
• Closure of the special care baby unit at Withybush hospital
• Level 3 neonatal care scheduled to move from Ysbyty Glan Clwyd and Wrexham’s Maelor Hospital to Arrowe Park Hospital on the Wirral (i.e. out of Wales)
• X-ray services to cease in Tywyn, Ruthin and Blaenau Ffestiniog
• Closure of Minor Injuries Units at Flint, Ruthin, Llangollen, Chirk, Colwyn Bay, Blaenau Ffestiniog, Tenby and South Pembrokeshire
• Permanent closure of inpatient beds at Hafan Ward (Bryn Beryl Hospital) and Uned Meirion (Dolgellau Hospital)
• A and E downgrading at Prince Philip Hospital in Llanelli
• A and E downgrading at the Royal Glamorgan in Llantrisant

And this is not necessarily a complete list, and certainly not the end of the issues with NHS service provision in Wales.

So perhaps when Carwyn says he has some radical and fresh ideas lined up, perhaps this simply means he has some actual intention to deliver on his promises. That really would be fresh and radical for him!!

P.S. This picture from the Annual Dinner is doing the rounds on Facebook, and is begging for a caption competition re Carwyn Jones as a Tom Jones tribute act!

It’s not unusual to break promises in politics

What’s new pussycat? Is it really fresh and radical?

Burning down the house when Labour lose their grip on the Senedd

Mama told me not to come and get photographed standing in front of that damn sign!

A Review and Synopsis of the Scientific and Technical Evidence Against Hydraulic Fracturing (or ‘Fracking’).

Andy Chyba B.Sc. (Hons)

Revised edition, September 2015. On behalf of Frack Free Wales

Preface

This paper seeks to present a summary of the key scientific and technical evidence against hydraulic fracturing. In this sense it does not pretend to be balanced in terms of looking at evidence supporting the industry. It is incumbent on the industry and its supporters to produce any such evidence and to combat the evidence I present here. I have, however, done my best to use credible and respected sources throughout. This is also not exhaustive in terms of issues related to hydraulic fracturing. Issues such as noise, HGV traffic, property values, loss of amenity, and impacts on biodiversity, agriculture and tourism are outside the remit of this paper, but also far from insignificant.

CONTENTS:

1.     INTRODUCTION                                                                                                                         

2.     BOREHOLE CASINGS                                                               

3.     SEISMICITY                                                                                   

4.     EXPLOSIVE FRACTURING                                                     

5.     HYDRAULIC FRACTURING (fracking)                             

6.     HEALTH IMPACTS OF FRACK CHEMICALS                 

7.     DISCLOSURE OF CHEMICALS                                             

8.     HANDLING FLOWBACK WATER                                       

9.     SILICA SAND                                                                                

10.  AIRBORNE POLLUTION                                                          

11.  WATER RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS                                 

12.  CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS                                             

13.  IN CONCLUSION                                                                        

1. INTRODUCTION

1. The technical and scientific problems/issues with the new generation of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) methods span the spectrum from the molecular to the global scales. The key differences between traditional ‘conventional’ fracking and the recent so-called ‘unconventional’ innovations of the last 15 years or so are summarised in Table 1[1]:

Table 1

2. The unconventional process is shown schematically in Figure 2 [2]. Note the 7 question marks, which highlight just some of the problem areas.

Fig 2

? = (Left to right, top to bottom): frack fluid spills; blow-outs and pressure release vapourisation; safe handling and disposal of produced wastewater; poor fitting casements and leaks into soil/regolith near the surface; contamination of deep aquifers through cement faults; pre-existing faults through aquiclude exacerbated by fracking itself; seismic activity creating new faults, extending existing ones; destroying integrity of casings.

2. BOREHOLE CASINGS

1. Once the drilling has taken place, the process of casing the borehole is undertaken. This is the process that is supposed to ensure there are no subterranean water contamination issues.  “It’s an engineering process that is too hard to do perfectly,” said Tony Ingraffea, a professor in Cornell’s School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, “even with the best personnel, cements and equipment.” [3]  He has found that some leaking (of gas and fluid) is inevitable due to failures in the metal casing or cement, contaminating underground sources of drinking water and damaging air quality. In fact, statistics show that even new wells fail and that a higher percentage fails with age. The gas industry has been studying the ongoing problem for decades, and knows these statistics full well.

2. In a report entitled “Well Integrity Failure Presentation“, drilling service company Archer reports that nearly 20 percent of all oil and gas wells are leaking worldwide. A 2003 joint industry publication from Schlumberger, the world’s No. 1 fracking company, and oil and gas giant ConocoPhillips, cites astronomical failure rates of 60 percent over a 30-year span. [4]

3. The casings fail for many reasons: failure to ensure gas tight fitting of the metal components; the technical difficulties of ensuring consistent flows and quality in the cement (just about impossible with such long and non-straight boreholes); ground shrinkage around the boreholes; poor mud displacement; and seismicity (natural or induced) destroying the integrity of the cement and distorting the fit of the metal casings.

4. Rumours of self-healing concrete have abounded for quite a few years, but commercially useable versions are only just coming to market. It has been proven effective on buildings, but remains unproven in borehole casings. Predictably, it is also very expensive, currently costing twice the price of conventional concrete. [5]

3. SEISMICITY

1. With reference to seismicity, not only is fracking highly likely to induce it[6], but the sorts of area that are being explored in the UK are amongst the most seismically active parts of the country. The January 2015 quake in Leicestershire, while not fracking related, would have been more than enough to threaten the integrity of borehole casings for many miles around. Parts of Leicestershire are in the frackers sights. The lies and deceit of people in the industry are demonstrated by Cuadrilla’s CEO stating on BBC television that: “There are procedures we can put in place to practise earthquake prevention” [7]. The fact of the matter is that, to quote the US Geological Survey, “People can’t stop earthquakes from happening. People can significantly mitigate their effects by identifying hazards, building safer structures, and learning about earthquake safety” [8]. Fracking is, patently, the absolute antithesis of earthquake mitigation.

4. EXPLOSIVE FRACTURING

1. Once they have drilled into the gas bearing rocks (e.g. shale) the next stage is the triggering of explosions at regular intervals along the horizontal section of the borehole within the target strata.  Predicting the extent of the resultant cracks is hard enough in a theoretical model, but in absolute terms is impossible due to the vagaries of deep subterranean geology. Pre-existing faults can be very difficult to identify by current survey techniques and continues to be an area of intense research efforts[9]. Very minor ones can also be accentuated by the fracking explosions. Fractures can extend for 2500 ft and are frequently up to 1000ft. They can spread to neighbouring strata and through the target strata to neighbouring wells [10]. This means that there is no assurance that the aquiclude layer is secure above the target strata, either before or, especially, after fracking operations.

 5. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING (fracking)

1. Once the explosive fracturing has happened, the hydraulic fracturing is undertaken to extend the fractures still further and prop them open with sand. With the old conventional methods, there was rarely any need to use more than water and sand (the sand acts as the proppant in the cracks).  But the newer unconventional methods (because of the length of boreholes, the drilling technology, the high pressures being used and the nature of the geology) require a whole cocktail of chemical additives to facilitate the processes.

The industry itself admits to the frequent need for the following ingredients [11]:

·                Strong acids to dissolve minerals

·                Numerous poisonous biocides to eliminate bacteria and algae

·                Friction reducers such as acrylamides and mineral oils

·                Corrosion inhibitors to protect drills and well casings (cont.>)

·                Scale inhibitors to prevent furring

·                Surfactants and cross-linkers to adjust fluid viscosity

·                Acidity regulators

·                Breakers

·                Iron control agents [12]

6. HEALTH IMPACTS OF FRACK CHEMICALS

1. The leading authority on the health impacts of the chemicals used in fracking is Dr Theo Colborn, of the world renowned TEDX (The Endocrine Disruption Exchange) [13].  Doctor Colborn has identified a wide range of compounds in frack fluids and discerned a staggering array of serious health consequences that range from the immediate to the slow developing. In many cases only minute concentrations can cause devastating consequences (parts per billion)[14].  Over 78% of the chemicals are associated with skin, eye or sensory organ effects, respiratory effects and gastrointestinal or liver effects. The brain and nervous system can be harmed by 55% of the chemicals. Other affects, including cancer, organ damage, and harm to the endocrine system, may not appear for months or years later. Between 22% and 47% of the chemicals were associated with these possibly longer-term health effects.

7. DISCLOSURE OF CHEMICALS

1. There are well-documented issues with disclosure of the chemicals used in the USA (the infamous ‘Halliburton loophole’) [15] and frequent misconceptions that we are assured of full disclosure of chemicals in the UK. This is a dangerous myth. Assurances about the EA requiring full disclosure of chemicals used in fracking are undermined by a few inconvenient truths. There is no such thing as proprietary frack fluid. You do not buy it off the shelf, with a nice contents label and a MSDS. It varies at every fracking stage and with variations in local geology. You would need a presence at every single ‘frack job’, at every single site, to sample the fluid used every time. This is a practical impossibility. So the EA asks the industry to declare what it is using. The deceits that UK frackers, Cuadrilla and their friends, tell about the chemicals they use are well established [16].

2. The EA undertook some analysis of the flowback waters from the fracking operations in Lancashire [17]. Despite the high profile of this, the first fracking in the UK, the analysis only looked for one of the declared frack fluid ingredients, polyacrylamide, in one solitary sample (and found it). They acknowledged that this is known to break down into the nerve toxin acrylamide (see pg3). They also conclude that the levels of various radioactive isotopes (radium-226, potassium-40, radium-228, plutonium-241) now necessitate a permit if Cuadrilla want to continue disposing of these fluids to the nearest waste water treatment works (c.40 miles away), because the levels measured, combined with the expected quantities of flowback fluid, exceed new (but arguably still inadequate) limits.

3. What the analysis did not mention was the particularly toxic BTEX compounds (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes) found in petroleum derivatives. Cuadrilla never publicly mentions using such things, but it is admitted on a data sheet [18], under the guise of ‘hydrocarbon oil’. It would appear that the EA did not even attempt looking for this – or the non-specific biocides Cuadrilla also own up to using, without ever being specific.

8. HANDLING FLOWBACK WATER

1. It is believed by local campaigners that some flowback water was discharged into the Manchester Ship Canal, after treatment at the Daveyhulme Water Treatment plant, but before the EA analysis was able to be done. The reality is that the treatment plants would have nowhere near enough capacity to handle the massive quantities of flowback that full-scale production would generate, and it would be difficult and costly to eliminate all the toxins. Currently the flowback fluid is being stored in double skinned tanks on site pending a permit application.

To be fair, Cuadrilla is not taking any chances. In their own words: “Upon returning to the surface, they [frack fluids] are stored in steel tanks and at no point come in contact with the ground. In the unlikely event that any liquid was spilt on the surface, seepage at ground level is prevented by the installation of an impermeable membrane on land at and surrounding the well site.” [19] Extraordinary precautions, I would suggest, for fluids we are told we should not worry about.  Storage is one thing, but avoiding spills while transferring fluids to tanker trucks, for example, is another [20].

9. SILICA SAND

1. Over and above the issues with chemicals, the sand used in unconventional fracking has serious health issues too. The best sand to use as a proppant in frack jobs is 99% silica sand, because of its hardness and grain shape. However, there is now well established research that handling such sand, and breathing in the dust from it, is a very serious health risk. The medical journal, the Lancet, cited research (no longer online) that shale gas workers around the world are experiencing unacceptable risks of silicosis – which is debilitating, irreversible and has no cure.  It is also leading to big surge of claims for damages by workers in the industry[21]

10. OTHER AIRBORNE POLLUTION

1. Airborne pollution is not confined to silica dust, and is increasingly seen as a major issue with fracking activities. A major study by the Colorado School of Public Health, entitled “Human Health Risk Assessment of Air Emissions from Development of Unconventional Natural Gas Resources”  [22],  has shown that air pollution caused by fracking may contribute to acute and chronic health problems for those living near natural gas drilling sites.  There was considerable anecdotal evidence of aggravated breathing/lung problems in the aftermath of the Lancashire fracking incidents. “The health science community is now looking at why health complaints are rising in fracking areas, particularly among children,” says Nadia Steinzor of Earthworks [23]. She says that some people who live near fracking areas have been complaining of headaches, nausea, bloody noses and nerve problems.

2. The sources of the air pollution are considered to be from two main sources. One is the large amount of very heavy diesel powered machinery used in the drilling and fracking operations. Typically the pumping equipment would amount to “a maximum pressure rating of 20,000 pounds per square inch, and a power rating of 2000 hydraulic horsepower each, with all twelve pumps totalling 24,000 horsepower”  [24].

3. The second serious source of air pollution is from methane leaks and fugitive emissions[25]. With the methane comes a variety of other volatile organic compounds (VOCs) which can contribute to the formation of smog. Even where these gases are flared, the gas flare can also lead to the formation of secondary pollutants, such as sulphur compounds, and of nitrogen oxides which also increase air pollution. The health effects of these compounds are well documented [26].

4. Even if there were no issues with pollution whatsoever, there are 2 massive issues to consider; namely water resource implications and impacts on global warming.

11. WATER RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS

1. The scale of water usage in both drilling and fracking is hard to fully appreciate and difficult to ascertain exactly. An independent review of the subject by the Pacific Institute, one of the world’s leading non-profit research and policy organisations focussing on creating a healthier planet and sustainable communities, highlighted the confusion and obfuscation of the facts created by the industry. Entitled “Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Resources: Separating the Frack from the Fiction”  [27], and published in June 2012, it is probably the definitive study on the subject.

2. It establishes six key water resource issues: (1) water withdrawals; (2) groundwater contamination associated with well drilling and production; (3) wastewater management; (4) truck traffic and its impacts on water quality; (5) surface spills and leaks; and (6) stormwater management.

3. ‘Water withdrawals’ refers to the water that needs to be withdrawn from existing resources for fracking activities. The report highlights the huge variability in amounts used, but broadly supports established estimates that it takes about 500,000 gallons to drill the average well, and takes an average of about 4 million gallons for each frack job. These figures are huge enough if you are talking about one frack job, in one well, on one well pad. Once you begin to appreciate the potential scale of the industry in the UK, the figures soon become astronomical.

4. Using industry estimates throughout (probably conservative, at the very least), each well can expect to be fracked about 6 times in its lifetime (range observed in the literature = 3-20). Each well pad will have about 10 wells radiating out from it (range 6 -16). This gives an estimate of 4x6x10 million gallons per well pad = 240 million gallons. Cuadrilla have explicit plans for 80 sites in Lancashire = 19,200 million gallons. This would only be a fraction of the sites needed to exploit the full potential of the Bowland Shale in that part of the country. Current technology would put the optimum spacing of sites at something like 2km apart. Pedl licences cover 10km squares. So that is 25 sites per 10 km square. There are currently about 210 of these 10km squares under licence onshore (as of 18/08/2015) and all are potential targets of the frackers [28].  A further 130+ are planned and under consultation, making 340 in total.

5. Continuing the mathematics, this makes an estimated 240x25x340 = a staggering 2,040,000 million gallons of water used for fracking. Add on the water used in drilling (0.5x10x25x340=42,500 million gallons) for a (conservative) estimate of 2,082,500 million gallons of water. This represents well in excess of 3.5 billion Olympic swimming pools, or approximately 30 Lake Windermeres!!

6. To put this into a fuller context, only about 30% of the water used in fracking is ever recovered. It is often as low as 10% [29]. If the industry is to be believed, it is putting this water safely below deep aquicludes. We have examined reasons to doubt this, but if they are right we are talking about putting water outside the water cycle. It will become (highly contaminated) fossil water that may not see the light of day for many millions of years. In an era of ever increasing pressure on water supplies, for a huge range of reasons [30], it is completely irresponsible to be putting 12 Lake Windermeres worth of precious water supply beyond reach.

7. (Western Resource Advocates report shows that fracking in Colorado uses enough water to supply 166,000 to 296,000 people for a year for household use[31].  As for gas being a ‘bridge fuel’, this is considered below.)

 12. CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS

1. This brings me to the last major issue – one that can only exacerbate water resource issues – the impact of exploiting shale gas on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The definitive work on this subject has been done by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, at Manchester University. Its report, “Shale gas: an updated assessment of environmental and climate change impacts” [32] is compelling. The report concludes that in an energy hungry world, any new fossil fuel resource will only lead to additional carbon emissions, thereby wrecking claims that shale gas can be seen as a transitional (or bridge) fuel as we move towards a low carbon energy future. Its use can only delay the introduction of renewable energy alternatives by putting off the imperative. “Consequently, if we are serious in our commitment to avoid dangerous climate change, the only safe place for shale gas remains in the ground” says Professor Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre.

(A thoughtful and useful comment has been added on this particular topic)

2. In addition to concerns about groundwater and GHG emissions, the Tyndall Report also points out how important it is, in considering possible shale gas extraction in the UK, to recognise that high population density is likely to amplify many of the issues that have been faced in the US. Those that claim that the US experience cannot happen here are in complete denial of the distinct possibility that the environmental and health consequences could be significantly worse on these relatively crowded little islands of ours.

 13. IN CONCLUSION

In conclusion, allow me to point out that most people’s concern over fracking tends to start in a NIMBYist fashion, with concern over related planning applications in their local areas. Witness the ever increasing plethora of local opposition groups across the country, indeed across the world. What invariably happens, however, is that people very quickly learn about and recognise the full range and scale of the issues involved – the issues in this review, and many more such as noise, HGV traffic, property values, loss of amenity, and impacts on biodiversity, agriculture and tourism and so on. We have seen local opposition groups thereby morph into national and international campaigns, seeking to be mutually supportive towards a common goal. This is an issue that therefore stretches far beyond the scientific and technical. It has to become a political issue, and even a human rights issue, in which choices about our relationship with the planet we depend on are central and fundamental.

REFERENCES:

[1] Paleontological Research Institute paper:  http://www.museumoftheearth.org/files/marcellus/Marcellus_issue6.pdf 

[2] MJ Whiticar, Biogeochemistry Dept., University of Victoria, British Columbia:  http://www.energybc.ca/profiles/naturalgas/fracking.html#frackingdiagram

[3] http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/June12/DCfracking.html

[4] http://www.timesunion.com/opinion/article/Fracking-is-hardly-leakproof-3646458.php

[5] http://www.iflscience.com/chemistry/self-healing-concrete-repairs-its-own-cracks

[6] http://science.time.com/2011/12/12/fracking-sizing-up-the-quakes-that-come-from-hydraulic-fracturing

[7] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-15550458

[8] http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/megaquakes.php

[9] From Feb 2015 http://www.researchgate.net/publication/272381884_Linear_Pattern_Detection_of_Geological_Faults_via_a_Topology_and_Shape_Optimization_Method

[10] static.ewg.org/reports/2011/fracking/cracks_in_the_facade.pdf

[11] http://www.worldoil.com/Marcellus-groundwater-claims-A-case-for-scientifically-informed-decisions.html

[12] See the Congressional Committee sequence near the end of the Gasland film. (from 5:00 of this clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWYCxY9dx5w )

[13] http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/chemicals.introduction.php

[14] http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/files/Multistatesummary1-27-11Final.pdf

[15] https://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/inadequate_regulation_of_hydraulic_fracturing

[16] See the second half of: https://greenleftie.uk/2011/06/15/collated-fracking-notes-on-earthquakes-frack-fluid-and-wellhead-density/

[17] http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/6th_Dec_-_Shale_gas_-_North_West_-_Monitoring_of_flowback_water_-_update_%283%29.pdf   Not available as at Sept. 2015, and unable to locate elsewhere.

[18] http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Chemical-Disclosure-PH-1.jpg     Also withdrawn and no longer available.

[19] http://www.cuadrillaresources.com/what-we-do/technology/fracturing-fluid/  No longer available either!

[20] http://www.minutemanspill.com/hydraulic-fracturing-fluid-services/

[21] http://www.law360.com/articles/383752/another-wave-of-silicosis-claims-may-be-on-the-horizon

[22] http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120319095008.htm

[23] https://student.societyforscience.org/article/fracking-fuels-energy-debate

[24] http://www.oilandgastechnology.net/upstream/halliburton-technology-used-gas-power-fracking-rigs

[25] http://stop-csg-illawarra.org/csg-risks/leaking-methane/

[26] http://www.endocrinedisruption.com/assets/media/images/Supplemental%20material%2020131209.pdf

[27] http://pacinst.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2014/04/fracking-water-sources.pdf

[28] As of 01/09/2015 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/457662/Landfields_Lics.pdf

[29] https://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/hydraulic_fracturing_101

[30] http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140328084622/http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/geho1208bpas-e-e.pdf

[31] http://frackfreesprings.org/resources/fracking-our-water/

[32] http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/sites/default/files/coop_shale_gas_report_update_v3.10.pdf

Energy Fileshttp://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2015/07/01/energy-files-defra-report-reveals-extent-of-impacts-on-people-living-near-fracking-wells/

July 1, 2015 – 6:07 pm
by Christine Ottery

People that live near fracking sites could be affected by health problems and financial hardships – and fracking might not even help climate change – a government report has revealed.
The report – which was initially heavily redacted but has now been fully published after the Information Commissioner ordered the government to do so – includes striking passages that were previously blacked out on the risks of living near a fracking well, most dramatically that:
“Properties located within a 1 – 5 mile radius of the fracking operation may also incur an additional cost of insurance to cover losses in case of explosion on the site.”
“Such an event would clearly have social impacts,” some genius notes.
There are also several other health impacts and financial impacts on local rural communities that have been detailed — and are now revealed.
On climate change, the report says that fracking in the UK could cause a gross increase in global CO2 emissions if the LNG or other fossil fuels that would otherwise be burnt in the UK are burnt elsewhere — and we are still emitting from burning fracking gas.

Energydesk put in the Freedom of Information request for the report last summer, and repeatedly asked Defra to fill in the blacked-out blanks in the back-end last year.

We’ve finally been able to properly scour the report — and here’s what’s come to light:

Health: Water, noise, light and air pollution

People could experience the consequences of surface water contamination from fracking — not from drinking water but “it can affect human health indirectly through consumption of contaminated wildlife, livestock, or agricultural products”.

Noise and light pollution from rigs could also lead to problems, the internal Defra report acknowledges. It says: “Some residents may experience deafening noise; light pollution that affects sleeping patterns.”

“Noxious odours from venting gases can also impact on air quality for local residents,” it adds.

Truck movements to and from the site – about 14 to 51 journeys a day over a period of weeks – could also impact air pollution and noise.

And if you have resulting health problems you might find your local services stretched with the additional demand from the influx of fracking workers.

The report says that it’s unclear whether the extra funding given to communities “will be sufficient to meet the additional demand if new schools or hospitals are needed to ensure service provision for existing rural communities is maintained”.

Money: Housing and jobs

So, your house might be worth up to 7% less if you live within a mile of a fracking site (though other estimates say 10% or even up to 70% of the value could be wiped off) — and you might have to pay more for your house insurance in case of an explosion on site.

And if you rent, rent prices are expected to rise as new workers come into the area.

Fracking is also a mixed bag for local economies — short term benefits belie costs in terms of industries including “agriculture, tourism, organic farming, hunting, fishing, and outdoor recreation.”

The report also highlights concerns about what happens to local economies after the frackers leave.

In case local people were thinking of working in the fracking industry, there is also uncertainty over “how sustainable the shale gas investments will be in the future and whether rural communities have the right mix of skills to take advantage of the new jobs and wider benefits on offer”.

Regulatory uncertainty

And at a time of deep cuts to DECC, the Environment Agency and HSE – the people responsible for regulating the fracking industry – it is tricky that the report recommends that “regulatory capacity may need to be increased”.

A Defra statement said: “This document was drawn up as a draft internal discussion paper – it is not analytically robust, has not been peer-reviewed and remains incomplete.

“It does not contain any new data or evidence, and many of the conclusions amount to unsubstantiated conjecture, which do not represent the views of officials or ministers.”

Read the UNREDACTED Defra report in its entirety here.

Quote attributed to New York muralist James De La Vega

Why is anyone remotely surprised that car makers (Volkswagen will not be alone) have sought to deceive everybody over the fuel emissions?

Adverts like this try to pretend 136g CO2/km is ‘clean’. When a sparrow shits on your head instead of a seagull, you don’t feel pleased about it and pretend it has made you in some way cleaner!

And when we get reviews like this, we don’t see too many people getting incredulous. Cleaner than my tiny light IQ no less! Wow! How do they do that? Now we know! I like the way that they have dodged using the word Green, instead calling it BlueMotion, which could so easily translate as Tory Shit.

The drive for this particular capitalist con has been the Vehicle Excise Duty framework in this and many other countries that has rated cars on their purported emissions. It has looked like this for the last few years:

Thus the incentive to get new cars below the 130 g/km threshold and the further drive to get cars for the cost conscious motorist below the 100g/km threshold. This would be all well and good if the system to assess these cars emissions ever had any credibility. Running the tests in laboratories was only ever going to yield unrealistic figures compared to real life driving conditions, but also opened up the process to easy manipulation, as now uncovered with Volkswagen.

But this is nothing new at all. The same has been going on for donkey’s years with fuel consumption figures. We expect them to be ridiculously over optimistic, but they give us some sort of benchmark for relative comparisons. And this is the potential real scandal of the VW story. Have they pulled a stunt that their competitors have missed out on? The industry will be up in arms if that is the case and will seek retribution and vengeance on behalf of their shareholders, not their consumers! But I suspect this not to be the case at all. I suspect that many will have been at it. We shall see.

In any case, as far as this country is concerned, our ‘Greenest Government’ has largely resolved this issue with his recent budget scrapping any green incentive in the Vehicle Excise Duty scheme. This is how it will look from April 2017:

The first year rate is a pathetic gesture to greenwash the gullible, but the reality is that apart from zero emissions full-electric cars, all cars will pay a flat rate £140 per year. For some bizarre reason cars that retail over £40,000 will have a kind of ‘wealth tax’ imposed for 5 years – but this is irrespective of emissions, and once they get older and begin to get more inefficient this surcharge goes. Well done George!

There is, in fact, so much in this story that simply underlines all the established criticisms of capitalism that I could go on and on. Instead, just keep this story in mind as you read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_capitalism

Also, please read the attached reply/comment from Doug Rouxel which develops some of these points.

But for those who want a glimpse of what green cars can look like in a capitalist world, if all we did was eradicate the now ancient technology of the internal combustion engine, if only our ‘green’ Tory bullshitters were brave enough, this should keep you satisfied:

A good read

As we start the build up to the Welsh Assembly elections next year, I find myself in the political wilderness, and pleased to be so.

Wildernesses are generally beautiful places, populated by few people, but those you come across there are invariably fascinating characters with tremendous survival instincts. There is peace and time to think clearly. Survival is built upon respect for your surroundings and your companions.

I am defining the political wilderness as that space on the political landscape outside of the political conurbations of the political parties, inhabited by self-sufficient political activists working to their own political agenda. I have stumbled across more truly impressive, comradely people here than in any party I have ever been associated with.

For the sake of clarity, I recently completely cancelled my membership of the Green Party of England & Wales. I am no longer attached to any political party, and it feels great.

Many have long suspected that I might be tempted to join Plaid Cymru. I have indeed been tempted, I will admit. But on close inspection, I saw nothing significantly different to the Green Party that I had become so disillusioned with. The differences are there, but they are are largely subtle.

Neither party is an ecosocialist panacea, although both are much nearer to it than anything else on offer. For example, both have (contrasting) problems with nuclear policy. Both have integrity issues brought about by casting aside avowed policy for political expediency at the merest whiff of (short-term) electoral success – making longer-term progress nigh on impossible. Both allow sectarianism to go unchallenged and thereby destroy any prospect of pulling together, to mutual and wider benefit. In other words, they are both pretty much like any other political party, when push comes to shove.

Politics does, however, have too much influence on our lives to be ignored completely. But I increasingly find that focussed single-issue apolitical campaigns can have more success in influencing policy and outcomes than direct involvement in politics. It achieves tangible results for people and is thereby a much more satisfying use of my time and money. For example, I will continue to focus energy on the anti-fracking and bedroom tax campaigns until these issues are successfully resolved.

I will also vote in elections – but not out of blind party loyalty. I will look at who is placed before me and make strategic decisions as to how best to vote to get an outcome that represents at least some sort of step in the right direction. In the absence of a credible electoral system and the lack of any tactical nous by parties, in terms of managing to work together to counter the democratic deficit, it is incumbent on voters to vote tactically as best they can. In our current sham democracy tactical voting is the only option left to us. It should not be frowned upon, but encouraged – and you can’t do that easily when you are in a political party (although I tried!).

In most cases, the choice in Wales ought to be between a Green candidate and Plaid Cymru candidate. But there are individuals (very few, but some) in other parties that I would happily endorse if they were on the ballot paper in front of me (one Labour candidate, two Lib Dems and a Pirate come to mind straight away). There are also a small number of individuals in both the Green Party and Plaid Cymru that I find objectionable enough to not be able to vote for or endorse.

For those interested enough, I may well share my views on who I would vote for around Wales nearer the time. In the meantime, I am going to relax and enjoy the tranquility of the wilderness for a while.

Gerwyn Williams’ stable of largely valueless companies, including Coastal Oil & Gas and UK Methane, have found themselves a new home.

Given the apparently parlous state of his finances, I suppose that paying out rent for an office on Bridgend Industrial Estate, that he barely ever used for anything but a glorified mailing address, was a luxury that had to go in these austere times. Luckily, he appears to have been offered a helping hand from a company with a vested interest in fracking worldwide – Guardian Global Technology Ltd of Village Farm Industrial Estate in Pyle.

The registered address of all Gerwyn’s companies has recently been changed to match that of Guardian’s site. According to their website their mission statement is:
“To use our intrinsic culture of innovative thinking to deliver leading edge technology to our clients in the global oil and gas industry, enabling them to capitalise on increasingly challenging opportunities.”

Those clients include some of the major players in the fracking industry worldwide, including Halliburton and Schlumberger. Curiously, their website makes no direct reference to fracking and hydraulic fracturing. Perhaps they don’t want the association and/or search engines connecting them. But we know that frackers are a core part of their target market because one of their executive and board members, Chief Technology Officer Iain Maxted, was kind enough to make this clear when he appeared at a Sustainable Wick public meeting in Wick a few months ago, where Frack Free Wales were doing a presentation..

Iain Maxted – looked smarter at the Wick meeting with his queen blue linen jacket and neatly ironed kerchief jutting from his top pocket.

Iain Maxted is a Wick resident, so I suppose he just could not stay away when he heard of our public meeting. It turns out that he is a quite a colourful character of some local notoriety.

I wouldn’t dream of questioning his credentials as a mining engineer. I wouldn’t be surprised if crude oil courses through his veins, so steeped in the industry he evidently is from his CV. But not untypically, when talking about other aspects of the industry, including his knowledge of the markets, there was a unmistakeable whiff of you-know-what (or perhaps the cows had been grazing too close to the Community Centre that day).

His disregard for the countryside is also beyond question too, and one reason for his local notoriety. I don’t suppose anyone would be surprised that a guy like this would drive a big 4×4, but this guy owns a fleet of them that he parks on the pavements outside his house to the perpetual annoyance of many of his neighbours. This picture is a screenshot from Google maps – taken in 2013 apparently.

When we drove past recently we saw two of the fleet on the pavement and we got another indication of this guy’s mentality when we clocked the number plates:

A quick online check suggests these plates are worth about £1500 each. I wouldn’t mind betting he’s got another one at least. For just £15 he could have bought one of these t-shirts and achieved much the same affect, but hey!

That yellow beast, by the way, is a phenomenally powerful V8 Dakar 4×4 pure off-roader. In his current job, Iain doesn’t get to tear up the countryside directly. He just supplies the kit to let the frackers do it. But with this big boy’s Tonka toy, he can go ripping and roaring his way around the countryside to his cold heart’s content.

I digress, but there is irony here. Not everyone in the oil and gas industry is as patently obnoxious as Iain Maxted. I actually have come to quite like Gerwyn Williams. He is a pretty straight guy just trying to rustle up enough to retire peacefully to his luxury home, currently being constructed for him next to the gorgeous Newton Beach on the outskirts of Porthcawl.

Gerwyn’s luxury retirement home looking like a multi-storey car park a year ago, and with the only visible addition this year of some glazing, looking like a small supermarket at the moment.

But things just aren’t working out as planned for Gerwyn. His home is progressing at a snail’s pace, as he clearly cannot afford to finish what he has started. The same is true with his PEDL licences. He may well have got Environment permits sorted for a couple of sites recently, but I seriously doubt he has the resources to do the test drilling. Having lost the backing of people like Eden Energy, I can’t see Guardian’s magnanimity extending to a 7 or 8 figure loan!!

Things have not exactly been going as planned for Guardian either. Only last year, they extended their Pyle plant (extension opened by none other than Carwyn Jones) and took on extra workers. But now they too are struggling, having already made 29 of their 80 employees redundant earlier this year. 

With the next devolution bill coming soon, we will get towards the end game of all this and see an outright fracking ban in place across Wales. Any significant investment at this stage has surely got to be throwing good money after bad. Iain Maxted and Guardian might not be too bothered – their business does not rely on Wales – but given their own current woes, it easy to see why they may dream of a fracking boom in Wales. But such are the vagaries of this industry,  it is clearly impossible to build a reliable future on it.

Gerwyn Williams.
Plans in ruins?

Overall, I think, Gerwyn, you should choose your friends more carefully. Cut your losses, pal, and finish off that house. You have blotted the landscape at Newton with what you have there at the moment. You must realise by now that your plans to blot and blight across South Wales are doomed to fail. Wouldn’t it be nicer to just be able to sit and reminisce about all this over a pint in the Jolly Sailor, than have to continue to put up with working with arses like Maxted? Life really is too short.

From Jeff Hurford:

(Pictures added by me)

2.00 SUNDAY 6 SEPTEMBER – CITY HALL CARDIFF

March to Cardiff City Stadium

Protesters are set to descend on Cardiff City Stadium when Wales play Israel in scenes that will be reminiscent of the sporting boycott of apartheid South Africa.
On 6 September, when Israel play Wales, thousands of people are expected to protest in a call for UEFA and FIFA to expel Israel and for action to be taken against its apartheid state. Organisers hope the protest, labelled Fair Play for Palestine, Don’t Play Israeli Apartheid, could spark a movement reminiscent of the 1980s that saw South Africa banished from the sporting world and led to international pressure help end apartheid and free Nelson Mandela.

The boycott saw South African teams in sports such as rugby union and cricket expelled from playing international matches after boycotts, pitch invasions and protests.

The match could be one of the biggest in Welsh football history with the potential of Wales qualifying for their first major competition since 1858 if they win their next two games.

Former South African minister and ANC leader Ronnie Kasrils is supporting the campaign and organisers were given a boost when a vocal supporter of Israel and Zionism admitted Israel is an apartheid state for its treatment and separation of Palestinians.

Bradley Burston, a convinced Zionist and senior editor of the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz, has joined those who now regard Israel as an apartheid state.

Writing in Haaretz he says: “I used to be one of those people who took issue with the label of apartheid as applied to Israel. I was one of those people who could be counted on to argue that, while the country’s settlement and occupation policies were anti-democratic and brutal and slow-dose suicidal, the word apartheid did not apply.

“I’m not one of those people any more. Not after the last few weeks.

Not after terrorists firebombed a West Bank Palestinian home, annihilating a family, murdering an 18-month-old boy and his father, burning his mother over 90 percent of her body – only to have Israel’s government rule the family ineligible for the financial support and compensation automatically granted Israeli victims of terrorism, settlers included.

“Not after Israel’s Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked, explicitly declaring stone-throwing to be terrorism, drove the passage of a bill holding stone-throwers liable to up to 20 years in prison.

“The law did not specify that it targeted only Palestinian stone-throwers. It didn’t have to.

“Just one week later, pro-settlement Jews hurled rocks, furniture, and bottles of urine at Israeli soldiers and police at a West Bank settlement, and in response, Benjamin Netanyahu immediately rewarded the Jewish stone-throwers with a pledge to build hundreds of new settlement homes.

“This is what has become of the rule of law. Two sets of books. One for Us, and one to throw at Them. Apartheid.”

John Rose, a Jewish campaigner and author of ‘The Myths of Zionism’ will be speaking at the demonstration on 6 September.

He said: “In Britain the best way to achieve solidarity with the Palestinians fighting the Apartheid state is to become active in the Boycott Disinvestment & Sanctions campaign, BDS.

“The Israeli government is so panicked by BDS that it has established a special unit to try and combat it.

As a member of the UCU, the University & College Lecturers Union, I helped introduce BDS onto campuses. Resolutions supporting BDS have been carried by our union’s annual congress.”

Apartheid does not exclude football and Palestinian players have been prevented from playing at international tournaments, while stadiums have been demolished, players shot at checkpoints, while Arab players and fans face vile abuse from many Israeli terraces.

The demonstration has been called by the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), with support from PCS Wales, Red Card Israeli Racism, Friends of Al Aqsa and others in a bid to extend the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Campaign (BDS) into sport.

Jeff Hurford of PSC said: “This the first mass demonstration calling for a sporting boycott of apartheid since the defeat of South African apartheid.

“All sporting links should be broken with the apartheid Israeli state that oppresses the Palestinians. Fair play means siding with the Palestinians who face constant violence, harassment and murderous attacks -most recently last summer in Gaza.

“Israel has launched a war on football in Palestine: footballers have been killed, stadiums bombed and players have been refused permission to travel to matches.

“We are near a “tipping point” where Israel faces its “South Africa moment” and becomes very broadly isolated and vilified, and 6 September will bring that movement to Wales to act as a catalyst for the rest of the UK and world.

“Israel has launched a war on football in Palestine: footballers have been killed, stadiums bombed and players have been refused permission to travel to matches.

“There can be no normal sport in the abnormal situation that exists between Israel and Palestine. We stand for a free Palestine and an end to Israel apartheid.”

Buses have already been booked from across the country for the demonstration and activists have had a warm response leafleting Cardiff City matches, mosques and Cardiff city centre.

I have just been looking for opinion poll information since the General Election to see how the supposed progressive left parties have managed to build on their unprecedented media exposure.

The short answer is that neither Wales Green Party, nor Plaid Cymru have anything to boast about, sad to say, but Plaid Cymru would seem to at least be heading in the right direction, be it painfully slowly.

Looking at these polls from April 2014, from just before the ‘Green Surge’ in members kicked in and before the Greens, PC and the SNP announced their potential alliance in December 2014, the Greens initially saw a rise from their Regional Vote level in 2011 of around 5% to the dizzy heights of 7-8%, before plummeting back down to a disappointing 3% between the Welsh leaders debates and polling day. The latest figure of 4% is exactly where they were 18 months ago.

It is barely much better for Plaid Cymru. Their low point of 15% coincided with the Greens high point of 8% just after the ‘three party alliance’ was floated, but bounced upwards well from here to hover around 20-21% for the last 6 months. But again, this is no real advance on where the were 18 months ago (19%). In relative terms though, the PC:WGP ratio has gone from 2:1 in January 2015 to 5:1 in June 2015. This must reflect their growing strength within the progressive left of Welsh politics, even if the progressive left as a whole not really seen any advance at all.

The June 2015 poll also includes ratings of the party leaders in Wales. These are quite revealing too:

Perhaps most disappointing for Pippa is that despite two televised debates and considerable other media coverage 61% of the sample still don’t know her (at least enough to have an opinion on her).This means the scores of 0 – 10 for those that had an opinion on her are actually out of just 39. Putting these into % terms reveals the following:

• 0 = 18%
• 1 = 8%
• 2 = 10%
• 3 = 10%
• 4 = 10%
• 5 = 24%
• 6 = 8%
• 7 = 8%
• 8 = 2%
• 9 = 0%
• 10= 2%

With a score of 5 representing a neutral (neither like of dislike) score, Pippa has 56% of varying degrees of dislike, 26% giving her the lowest scores of 0 or 1 out of 10. Just 20% give her any sort of positive like score, with only 2% giving her on of the top scores of 9 or 10 out of 10. With figures like this, it is probably just as well that 60% don’t know her!

Leanne’s scores have to be recalculated out 78 meanwhile, giving the following:

• 0 = 12%
• 1 = 5%
• 2 = 7%
• 3 = 7%
• 4 = 6%
• 5 = 17%
• 6 = 12%
• 7 = 14%
• 8 = 10%
• 9 = 4%
• 10= 6%

With a score of 5 representing a neutral (neither like of dislike) score, Leanne has 37% of varying degrees of dislike, 17% giving her the lowest scores of 0 or 1 out of 10. A pretty good 46% give her a positive like score of some kind, with 10% giving her on of the top scores of 9 or 10 out of 10.

So we see that of those people that know them enough to have an opinion on them, more than twice as many people dislike Pippa than like her; whereas significantly more people like Leanne than dislike her. Her figures were comfortably the best of all the Welsh leaders. Only Carwyn Jones, of the others managed a small net ‘like’ score. Pippa’s were almost identical to UKIP’s Nathan Gill (all the way down in fact). Kirsty Williams scored a small net ‘dislike’ and Andrew Davies scored a significant net ‘dislike’, but not as bad as PB or NG.

It may be a bit too simplistic to conclude that Leanne is an asset to her party, whereas Pippa is a liability to hers, even though many may have suspected this for a long time, but as both parties strive for elusive breakthroughs at the polls that count, it something they probably both need to reflect long and hard about.