Soil Constituents and Structure May 05 2015

Soil is a largely unrecognised wonder of the natural world. When dried it normally comprises about 70% minerals and 30% plant litter, humus, fungi and a variety of other animal life forms. To determine the mineral content of oven dried soil the organics are burnt off to form ash and the remaining mineral content is weighed.

Over billions of years the bare rocks of the earth were transformed to create an intricate microscopic landscape. Soil provides plants with accessible nutrients necessary for life by enabling the conversion of constantly replenished plant material.

The top horizon of a soil profile comprises coarse decomposing plant litter which becomes progressively finer with depth until invisible to the eye. This decomposition is started by various fungi which can release nutrients to the soil. Fungi release enzymes capable of breaking down even coarse organic material, like wood, to exude nutrient in the form of humus for the nourishment of both plant and animal life forms. 70-90% of land plants will form a partnership with fungi for nutrient exchange. Water and minerals are exchanged for photosynthesised sugars. Oyster mushrooms which are deficient in nitrogen are now being used effectively to remedy soils contaminated with petrochemicals in the USA.

Microorganisms such as:

Nematodes/Roundworms

Mites

Tardigrades (water bears/moss piglets)

and

Rotifers create the fertility of the soil.

The animal with the greatest impact is the earthworm – the eco-system engineer, which burrows into the earth to create a ventilation system. They forage above ground by night and eat and digest the dead vegetation underground supporting the work of the fungi. The material, which is digested by bacterial action in the earthworm’s gut, produces soil which is rich in nutrient.

So to keep nutrients flowing from dead plants to live plants we need to interpose the action of fungi, bacteria, animals and microorganisms to create a cycle of life.

The minerals need to eventually be arranged to create an open scaffold to enable the process to continue efficiently with the availability of air and water to supply the processes and to provide accessible routes and drainage for the various roots mycelium and microorganisms.

F1 boffin’s turbine is a thing of beauty – whatever the weather! May 05 2015

David Derbyshire – The Sunday Times (30/3/14)

A decade ago Michael Blaize was devising ways to make gas-guzzling Formula One cars go faster. Now the engineer is the brains behind a slimline wind turbine that could usher in a new era of low-carbon public transport.

His invention, an elegant structure in curved carbon fibre that resembles the double helix of DNA (see image below), is billed as the most advanced vertical axis turbine in the world. Revolutionary – excuse the pun!

“The design is smaller, quieter and easier to maintain and less offensive to the eye than traditional wind turbines” Blaize claims.

A full-sized prototype is being put into production soon and within two years five test turbines should be up and running. If all goes to plan then thousands of them could be installed alongside railways in an attempt to generate 70% of the network’s electricity needs!

Vertical-axis turbines, in contrast to regular conventional wind turbines, can spin no matter which way the wind blows making them ideal in places that wind is changeable. With a much smaller footprint they can be installed more densely and their simpler design makes repair and maintenance much cheaper.

It has two spiral blades, arranged in a double helix, and can generate electricity for 13 homes. It is 19 metres tall and sits on a 30 metre mast, making it as high as an electricity pylon. It spins at up to 60 revolutions a minute, starts with wind speeds of 8mph and stops at 56mph. Blaize’s prototype – XW-80, was created to bridge the gap between small-scale vertical axis turbines generating 10kW or so and the giant horizontal axis 10MW machines used in commercial wind farms. Tests on a smaller 6kW model installed on the Isle of Wight last year showed it performed comparably to traditional horizontal axis turbines but at lower wind speeds and closer to the ground.

Blaize claims that “The design could help to get around some of the objections of the anti-turbine lobby. It provides clean energy but with a much lower visual impact and its smaller scale is more appealing to look at.” This, along with it being quieter and easier to maintain makes it ideal for sites with restricted access or limited space.

His long term goal is to have 12,000 turbines installed along Britain’s railways. Network Rail are very interested in getting involved in the two year project to develop these turbines. An initial investment of £1.5bn could save them around £3.8bn in energy over 30 years. He is targeting the end of March 2015 as the date by which two turbines should be in operation.

Britain is in the middle of an extraordinary boom. During the month of February, wind farms generated a record 11% of the country’s electricity, 2.7GW - which is enough to power 6.5m homes. Concerns over the gas supply from Russia have focused our attentions on the instability of imports. We need a stable domestic energy sector. David Milborrow, technical adviser to Renewable UK and a wind-power expert stated “X-Wind Power have clearly solved some of the problems that have hampered previous designs and if they point to performance results from its 6kW turbine, it will be in a strong position.”

Note: Another company capatalising on Formula 1 technology, namely the scientists from the team that invented the Blown Diffuser on the Brawn Formula 1 car (now the Mercedes team) have also established a new technology company which claims to be able to generate increased output at low wind speeds - see Anakata Wind Power Resources for details.

Fracking explained: opportunity or danger? March 05 2015

Informative Links March 05 2015

Conserv Lime Mortar Suppliers & Stone Restoration Specialists

St Astier Natural Hydraulic Limes

Quikpoint Mortar Pointing Gun

The Myth in the mix - the 1:3 ratio of lime to sand

Wikipedia - Lime Mortar

Lime Stuff - Pointing with Lime Mortar

A Conservation Engineer's view on Lime Mortar

The use of Lime and Cement in Traditional Buildings

Roundtower - Mortar Mixing of Natural Hydraulic Lime

Dumfries & Galloway Council - Traditional Lime Mortar

Yahoo - Forum to promote and support Selfbuild

Aggregates' innovation: friend or foe? February 27 2015

Extracted from Aggregates Business Magazine : September/October 2014

“The aggregates’ industry typically has branded any crushed product that is less than 4 mesh (4.75mm) as ‘manufactured sand’. This of course is not the case. Manufactured sand should be a product that you have intentionally produced, not merely the waste fraction of a process that is targeting larger aggregate sizes.” ¹

The produce sands from crushed rock, whether to replace ever-dwindling supplies of naturally occurring sands, or simply to reduce the huge amounts of unsaleable crushed rock fines generated in many quarries, there are several key characteristics with which we should be concerned. Those related to the suitability of the source rock, perhaps best loosely described as chemical properties, may be addressed by using admixtures in the concrete-making process, but, apart from the elimination of certain specific size ranges in which deleterious material may be concentrated, there is little the crushing and sizing process can do. Other factors, however, are well within the influence of existing process technology, and chief among these are particle size distribution, shape and surface texture.

The particle size distribution of manufactured sand is controlled by screening or sometimes by other methods of classification, the latter usually involving water, which brings its own problems. Until recently, this grading was usually governed to a great extent by the output of the crusher(s), and the breaking characteristics of the rock, but in the last few years, more interest has been shown in means of modifying the natural pattern of breakage, in particular to increase the sub-1mm particle population at the expense of coarser sizes, in order to improve packing density in concrete mixes.

The classification process has no effect upon either particle shape (or indeed on surface texture, as this is a property of the parent rock), so it is necessary to impose improvement with the use of suitable processing. Traditional rock crushers, whether compression (cone) type, or impact (blow-bar or hammer) type, can be made to produce adequate shape in coarse aggregates, but typically product below about 6mm (¼ inch) contains a high proportion of flaky or elongated particles, resulting in many of the problems inherent in using such material as a sand substitute. Grain shape is a function of the crushing process (and, of course, the natural cleavage and fracture characteristics of the parent rock). Suitable shape is generally described, unhelpfully, as cubical, the ultimate expression of which would be a shape enclosed by six identical square faces. In contrast, we should try to produce a shape that has good volume to surface area ratio, and an easily-packed form, to minimise the amount of binder we need to stick it together in the form of concrete. Given these attributes, it will automatically tend to assist workability, unlike our cube! The ideal form can perhaps be described as equally dimensional, and without sharp corners or edges.

Manufactured sand need not mimic the natural product: in fact manufactured sand can have some advantageous properties entirely due to its dissimilarity to natural sands. For instance, natural sands must have nearly all of the microfines removed, because they might contain deleterious material, whereas crushed rock from a uniform homogeneous deposit without incursions may generally retain its microfines without detriment. Much successful research has been carried out on the inclusion of high levels of microfines in manufactured sand.

References:

¹ Hudson B P. “Crushers affect Product Quality”, Quarry magazine, April 1999

Fast Track Frack Licences November 12 2014

Tim Shipman: The Sunday Times – 27/7/14

The new Tory Energy Minister, Matthew Hancock, has revealed that fracking for shale gas is to be fast-tracked because it will give Britain greater energy security and protect it from Russian aggression.   He went on to say that the Government would make it ‘much quicker’ for companies to get approval to drill for shale gas.

At present firms that want to frack have to wait about six months for permission through a 15-stage process. Hancock hopes to slash that in half.

He said “Shale gas has the opportunity to increase our energy security, potentially to cut costs and also to reduce carbon emissions by reducing the amount of coal that we burn. Those three are the holy grail for energy policy. With what we’ve seen in Russia over recent weeks [the shooting-down of flight MH17], the importance of an indigenous energy supply can’t be overestimated.

He went on to say “Payments to villages and towns of £100,000 a well [described by some as bribes] have to come from the industry rather than the government”.

Hancock, a keen countryman, campaigned against windfarms in his West Suffolk constituency, saying “Climate change is an important consideration but so is local beauty… putting up windfarms in beautiful landscapes against the strong opposition of local people is not right”.

A fateful reminder... September 09 2014

...of why enforcement and oversight of a transparent design and operating system must be agreed to put fracking on the same safety footing as our Nuclear Power Industry?

Extracted and adapted from Sunday Times article by Danny Fortson – 7/9/14

One hundred feet, it turns out, made all the difference.

It was April 9, 2010. Drilling on the Macondo reservoir, 40 miles off the coast of Louisiana, was already 54 days behind schedule and $60m over budget. Each day BP spent trying to finish the troublesome well, some 18,000ft beneath the deck of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, lost it another $1m.

The walls at the bottom of the 2.5-mile well had failed just a few days before. BP had to stop drilling and pump in millions of gallons of drilling “mud” to prop it open. The “margin” – the measure of the pressure between the oil, the well bottom, and the drilling fluid being pumped in to keep it from spewing up uncontrollably – was virtually zero.

Yet the drill bit had, at long last, reached the first of two targeted reservoirs. BP would be able to plug the “well from hell” and move on.

All it needed was another 100ft to punch through the bottom of the reservoir, which would be vital to test how productive it could be. Having already pushed its luck, BP decided to push it 100ft more.

Alan Huffman, an expert witness of the US government, called the decision “one of the most dangerous things he had ever seen in his 20 years’ experience”. Eleven days later, a geyser of crude burst forth. The Deepwater Horizon exploded and sank. Eleven workers died; their bodies were never recovered. Crude spewed into the Gulf of Mexico for nearly three months.

BP has been struggling to rehabilitate itself ever since. Last week the FTSE 100 giant was hit with the worst possible outcome. An American court ruled that BP was “grossly negligent”, a legally extreme finding that opens up BP to $15bn (£9.2bn) in fines on top of the $43bn it had already paid to clean up beaches, settle lawsuits and pay for funerals.

In a damning 153-page decision, Carl Barbier, the 70 year old New Orleans judge overseeing the case, discarded BP’s argument that the tragedy was the result of multiple mistakes by multiple parties. He apportioned 67% of the blame – and eventual damages payments – to the company. Transocean, the owner of the Deepwater Horizon, and Halliburton, the company contracted to cement the well, were liable for 30% and 3%, respectively.

Both were negligent, in Barbier’s view, but only BP was deemed to have met the harsher standard of gross negligence and wilful misconduct. Analysts at Investec said: “This, we understand, is effectively a moral division.”

From the beginning BP was the villain in the public eye. Last week’s verdict means it now is legally too. Barbier accused it of “reckless” conduct. The decision to drill the final 100ft “was the initial link in a chain that concluded with the blowout, explosion and oil spill”.

Brian Gilvary, BP’s finance director, said the company “strongly disagreed” with the judge’s “erroneous” ruling. BP pledged to appeal, a process that will probably drag on for years.

From the earliest days of the crisis, when the underwater “spill-cam” of inky crude billowing into the sea was on an endless loop on America’s cable news channels, BP was adamant. The company would not, it claimed, be found grossly negligent. That would be a bridge too far.

Indeed, the term itself was a subject of great debate at the trial. Barbier devoted eight pages of his judgement to the duelling interpretations put forth by BP and the American government before siding with the latter. It classified gross negligence as “an extreme departure from the care required under the circumstances or a failure to exercise even slight care”.

BP claimed prosecutors would have had to prove intent; that BP proceeded “with conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or well being of others”.

Barbier’s dismissal of that argument was crucial. It made finding the company guilty that much easier, and in turn opened the door to much heavier fines. Under the Clean Water Act, BP is liable for $1,100 for every barrel spilt. The gross negligence ruling means that BP could be forced to pay up to $4,300 a barrel. The company has set aside $3.5bn for such penalties. If it loses the appeal that figure could rise to nearly $18bn.

The legal wrangling is far from over. Barbier must still hand down his ruling on the second phase of the trial, which was held to determine how much oil was spilled. The government claims 4.2m barrels were released. BP reckons just over half that figure (2.5m barrels) escaped. The final sum is critical, as it too will affect the amount of damages.

The final stage of the trail, set to determine an over damages sum, to be split among BP and its co-defendants, will not start until January. The judge is expected to take eight factors into account, including BP’s response to the spill, which could mitigate the severity of the penalty.

In the judgement, Barbier methodically catalogued the chain of errors and “profit-driven decisions” that led to the catastrophe. The well was drilled with fewer safety back-up measures than expected for such high-temperature, high-pressure wells.

Warning signs mounted. There were unexpected gas “kicks” – sharp releases of hydrocarbons into the well bore. At one point all the drilling mud BP had pumped underground disappeared, indicating a big breach – or several – in what was supposed to be a sealed hole. This took five days to repair.

Weeks behind schedule and millions over budget, the crew were under huge pressure to finish the job.

On the fateful night of April 20, Don Vidrine, the senior BP manager on the rig at the time, misread a key pressure test that should have raised alarm bells. Mark Hafle, an engineer who was monitoring the data in Houston, “told Vidrine essentially that the test could not be considered a success given the inconsistent pressure readings”, Barbier wrote.

Vidrine didn’t run another test. Hafle didn’t insist on one. Thirty six minutes later, the Deepwater Horizon exploded. There is little argument over the facts. BP’s best hope is that the appeal court will decide to evaluate them in a more favourable light.

AMAZING Liebherr Excavator Climbs To The Top September 02 2014

Check this out...

Fracking puts insurance cover on shaky ground August 20 2014

Based on an article in The Sunday Times - 3/8/14 ~ by Ian Cowie

Some American Insurers are excluding claims for fracking damage from household cover and, some British Insurers are considering followings suit. It’s a fact that dozens of local authorities in America have banned fracking, and litigation is under way between some of them and a few energy companies.

Martin Milliner, of the insurers LV, stated “Fracking is alleged to have caused earth tremors in Lancashire and environmental damage in America, where financial loss, suffered as a result of this risk, has been excluded from some insurers’ standard household cover. With an estimated 30% of the UK potentially suitable for fracking, insurers will have to debate their appetite for related risks. As with flooding, in the extreme case where a house becomes uninsurable, it could also become unmortgageable and unsellable.”

Nationwide, an American Insurer unrelated to the British Building Society of the same name, has apparently excluded fracking damage from a wide range of policies, after Texan drillers paid compensation to householders for methane gas found in their tap water.

Bricks and mortar are many Britons’ most valuable asset. Household insurance is meant to protect us from unlikely mishaps. Fracking risks must be properly assessed and evaluated.

Shale Gas in Europe; the balance between technology, policy and public support July 31 2014

Extracted from www.engineerlive.com

Helge Lund of Statoil believes that the lack of public and political support for shale gas, coupled with the population density in Europe, will hamper [development] efforts in the near future. And with BP ruling itself out of shale gas drilling in the UK (in February 2014), the Swede is in good company. In the Netherlands (which has traditionally been a big producer of natural gas), the government won't even decide whether or not to allow drilling until 2015. The gas pipeline network in the EU is a long way off being complete - in many cases the infrastructure between countries is almost non-existent.

Marcus Pepperell from Shale Gas Europe, a platform run by FTI Consulting is cautiously optimistic that things are not as bleak as Helge Lund and others may think. He states, "The European Commission estimates that Europe could see the start of commercial drilling as early as 2015 in member states where trials are most advanced. Exact reserves are unknown and further exploration needs to take place. However, current activity is well ahead in the UK, Poland and Romania. In many other parts of Europe, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, the authorities are undertaking extensive studies to estimate shale gas potential."

Indeed, the UK and Poland have gone so far as to join forces in this arena, declaring themselves 'natural allies' and agreeing to produce joint research to detail how "the potential of shale gas can be realised." (France, however, have a ban on hydraulic fracturing).

Pepperell does believe there is a compelling business case evident already. He explains: “Industry is an important part of the European economy but Europe has higher energy prices than in other parts of the world. The recent Commission study on energy costs shows that European gas prices are much higher than in Latin America or continental Asia and more than three times higher than in the USA. This has an impact on the competitiveness of European industry, especially for high-intensive energy industries such as the chemical, paper or metal sectors. It means European business is at a disadvantage when competing in the global market.”

Pepperell goes on to say “In Germany, for example, the phasing out of nuclear energy and support for renewables, energy taxation and carbon licenses, has led to much higher energy costs than elsewhere in Europe. Other member states, such as Poland and Bulgaria, are very dependent on a single external energy supplier that imposes high costs. Industry in these countries is therefore at a disadvantage. The development of new potential domestic energy sources, for example shale gas in the UK, is also dependent on the creation of a reliable regulatory and enforcement process to achieve policy support.”

Political clout

It's the politicians that could prove key to improving the situation with regard to energy costs. Pepperell and his colleagues at Shale Gas Europe recently issued a press release calling for political leaders to step up and address the future competitiveness of energy-intensive industries. Pepperell says simply: "Politicians are an important part of the policy-making process and energy policy has a direct impact on energy costs."

"A survey by FTI Consulting conducted in April 2014 shows that in the UK, 47% agree that in light of the crisis in Ukraine, the need for the UK to consider fracking for its own gas supplies increases, while only 21% disagree."

A big-name player that concurs with this is Cuadrilla Resources, which has recently gone one step further and put a - hesitant - starting date on it. The company has stated that by the end of 2015 it is hoping to fuel British homes with shale gas. They said, "For example, local communities will receive £100,000 for every exploration well site that is hydraulically fractured in addition to 1% of revenues from future shale gas production. This could equate to over £1 billion over a 20 to 30 year production timescale in Cuadrilla's Bowland Basin licence area alone."

Cuadrilla announced their intention to apply for planning permission to drill, hydraulically fracture and test the flow of gas from up to four exploration wells on two sites - one at Preston New Road and the other at Roseacre Wood.

UK's biggest shale gas explorer created

In May 2014 IGas acquired its rival Dart Energy to create the UK's largest shale gas explorer. The deal was worth almost £120m and the combined portfolio covers 1 million acres of potential fracking land.

IGas produces around 3,000 barrels of oil and gas a day from 110 sites in the UK while Dart holds licences to produce gas from coal seams in Scotland.

The new business will also harness the power of two joint venture partners in Total and GDF of France. The overall venture will be far larger than Cuadrilla Resources, which has been the most well-known name in the UK market thus far.

Go Ahead, Vladimir. We can’t use shale gas as a weapon! July 28 2014

Based on an article in The Sunday Times – 30 March 2014

Oil prices are still set in world markets. Fracking oil is too light and too sweet (low in sulphur) for use in American refineries. So America continues to be a big importer of heavier crude oil, dependent on unstable regimes for steady supplies at tolerable prices. Natural gas will not become a geopolitical tool until substantial political barriers to its export can be hurdled.

In America the current administration regards oil and natural gas, along with coal, as responsible for climate change, and to be phased out as the transition to renewables is completed. For them natural gas is at best a “bridge fuel” to take us to the day when the world relies completely on solar, wind and other non-fossil fuels to operate highly energy-efficient cars, factories and homes.

Just 6 of 37 applications to build the terminals needed to liquefy natural gas for export (at an estimated cost of $30bn each) have climbed the first step on the ladder to approval, and only one is under construction. Environmental groups fear the impact on areas in which these terminals would be built. America’s Energy Advantage, a lobby group led by Dow and Alcoa, want to keep these resources for domestic use at low prices; and the law requires special government review of any natural gas exports to nations with which the US does not have a free-trade agreement.

Add to all of this a 40-year-old statute that makes it virtually impossible for American companies to export crude oil, and it will be a long while before America becomes what it might become – the world’s largest exporter of crude oil.

LPG Fracturing July 23 2014

Extracted from the Letters Page of the Catholic Universe dated 08/09/2013 (unconfirmed claims)

LPG fracturing is a rare breakthrough in the oil and gas industry that can deliver both economic and environmental benefits.

Almost 80% of the water used to frack stays in the well.  The flowback water is potentially a radioactive waste, requiring treatment, due to occasional contamination by natural uranium present in the formation.

Using LPG allows operators to use abundant hydrocarbons already being produced to extract more hydrocarbons whilst eliminating the need for the addition of biocides to the fracking fluid.  LPG can be stored at ambient temperatures, and reduces the need to flare after production.

LPG provides a consistent viscosity, does not require the addition of CO2 or N2, nor does it require any special cool down or venting of equipment.

Propane LPG liquid is half the Specific Gravity of water reducing the haulage costs to site until it can be produced at the wellhead when trucking ceases.  Trucking can be reduced by 90% overall.  The yield of each well is improved by about 30%.

Sand Sculpture Festival July 19 2014

Based on an article by BBC News Somerset Online - 18 April 2014

About 5,000 tonnes of beach sand was scooped up and compacted for the Weston-super-Mare's annual sand sculpture festival.

2014's sculptures, created by 20 international artists, were on the theme 'Once Upon a Time' and included works from The Hunger Games and The Hobbit.

Co-organiser Nicola Wood said: "In just nine years, we have grown from 30 tonnes of sand to 5,000 [tonnes]"

Among the "maze of sand sculptures" was Max from children's book Where the Wild Things Are, Paddington Bear and the "tallest sand sculpture the festival has ever made", according to organisers.

"They're actually surprisingly robust: rain does affect them to a degree but we have sculptors on site all the time that help to repair them and tweak them and tidy them up when necessary."

Rachel Stubbs, who has created a work based on one of Aesop's Fables, The Lion and the Mouse, said the sand at Weston was "fantastic".

"As a sand sculptor you must work with all sorts of different types of sand," she said.

"Weston sand is the perfect shape, consistency and it is fine enough to make intricate details."

One of the largest sculptures on show is by Radovan Zivny, from the Czech Republic, who has created Gulliver from Swift's classic novel Gulliver's Travels.

"I've been working here for eight days," Mr Zivny said.

"Sand is one of the few materials I work with, and I like that it is ephemeral and the sand sculpture disappears."

If you would like to create sand art then click here for lots of step by step instructions.

Sand Dance July 18 2014

We highly recommended our Top Dressing Sand for this leisure pursuit...

This one can be done sitting down for the less energetic...

Invasion of the Killer Weed July 15 2014

by Matt Rudd - The Sunday Times Magazine : 13 July 2014

It's eating our gardens, destroying our houses and ruining our lives. Can anything free us from the insidious grip of Japanese knotweed?

An estimated 220,000 homes now have it and that figure is growing exponentially.  In a single Tuesday morning at the headquarters of Environet, a firm specialising in the eradication of Japanese knotweed, the phone rings 20 times.  The calls come in varying stages of hysteria.  "Our first job is to calm them down and do an identification," says Environet's Mark Thompson.  "If it is knotweed, we put a plan of action in place."

In 2011, a Hertfordshire couple came close to demolishing their £300,000 new-build home after knotweed from adjoining derelict land started coming up through their floorboards and in 2004, the plight of Boscastle residents (already struggling after half their village was swept away in floods) was exacerbated by a plague of knotweed washed downstream from an allotment.

The explorer, the man who would cost Europe hundreds of millions doing battle with knotweed, was Phillip von Siebold.  Appointed expedition doctor to the Dutch trading settlement in Japan, he had full access to the then closed country and used this privilege to harvest hundreds of exotic plants for sale in Holland.  On 9 August 1850, knotweed crossed the Channel.  The post room at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, received a specimen of the plant from Siebold, they added it to their collection.  That was it.  The triffid had arrived.

The British Nurseries of that time began selling it with enthusiasm, and the gardeners of the day advocated its use.  None of them had worked out that it was uncontainable.  It is tall and rapid spreading.  In early Summer, it will be growing 10 centimetres per day, and if you watch it closely enough, you can actually see it grow.  "This will spread several feet in every direction each year" says Mark Thompson.  Around its edges, tendrils are throttling native nettle and bramble.

This series of maps shows how knotweed has taken root in Britain over the past century:

When the 2014 map is compiled, apart from a couple of patches in the very remotest parts of Scotland, it will be a solid block of colour.  Even the Shetlands are infested.  Experts agree that, as of 2014, it is now... everywhere.  It is the year of the Triffids.

Remarkably, knotweed has never spread by pollination in Britain.  Every single plant in the country shares the same DNA as that first plant Siebold bottled.  It spreads purely by regeneration, from small pieces growing into whole new plants.  Every time a gardener attempts to dig it up and dump it, or strim it, or Flymo it, or compost it, or take it down to the dump, it spreads.  It relishes disturbance.

To make matters worse, knotweed is very hard to kill.  This is, after all, a monster that prospered where no other plant could, in the inhospitable lava fields of Japan.  You can't just use Weedol.  You can't just dig it out with a spade.  The root system is three metres deep.

The trick is to poison it slowly, subtly, so it won't notice.  The process can take up to five years.  Knotweed costs the country £165m a year, should we not have a more unified approach?  There is a plan.  An attempt to fight fire with fire, or more specifically, weed with a bug.  At the Centre of Agricultural Bioscience International (Cabi), Dr Richards Shaw is standing in a greenhouse surrounded by knotweed plants.  Each plant is covered in a white shroud.  There are 186 species of insect which feed on Japanese knotweed in Japan.  There are zero here.  Over the past decade, Dr Shaw and his colleagues have been whittling the 186 knotweed-eating bugs down to one that might work as an effective biocontrol here in Britain.  The winner is a psyllid which, to the point of starvation, only eats knotweed.

So here we have this one super-specialist bug that eats nothing else and is eaten by nothing else.  Four years ago, after extensive tests in quarantine, it was released at eight top secret sites around the country.  Next year is the final year of this field trial, after which Dr Shaw must make his case for a wider release.  Can he be certain there will be no unintended consequences?  "We are introducing an organism that wasn't present before and there will be some interaction," he says, "but you've got to look at the do-nothing option.  If we do nothing, the knotweed will continue to do what it's doing, which is displacing everything and reducing biodiversity.  Doing nothing is not a safe option."

Will it be successful? "It's too soon to say.  It took six years to establish the grey squirrel.  It took 10 for a rust that controlled black myrtle in South Africa to have any effect.  This sort of thing is a long-term project."

With knotweed, the early intervention option has long gone.  Outright elimination is not financially viable either.  If the psyllid works, Fallopia Japonica will finally have a natural control, as it does in Japan.  If it doesn't work, we're back to square one.

RHS Advice says:

Control Options for Japanese Knotweed -

1. Digging out Rhisomes is possible, but not recommended due to the depth they can penetrate, and the fact that even tiny fragments can regenerate. Digging out also creates disposal problems: Japanese Knotweed is classed as 'controlled waste' under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, so must be disposed of at licensed landfill sites (an alternative is to allow it to dry on site before burning every scrap).
2. By far the simplest control option for householders is to treat stems with glyphosate-based weedkiller such as Roundup Tree Stump & Root Killer. In late Summer cut all stems to 20cm (8in). Rupture the central stem tissue with a screwdriver and apply the herbicide according to the label instructions. Repeat the treatment in subsequent years as necessary.
3. You can also apply glyphosate-based herbicide to the foliage, ideally when the plant is in flower in Summer. Or allow stems to grow to 1m (39in) and spray in May, retreating later as needed. Repeat-spray until the plant is eradicated. Glyphosate-treated knotweed has small-leaved, bushy regrowth unlike the normal plant: it is essential this is also sprayed for good control.

Cuadrilla’s Allan Campbell – How he believes shale gas from fracking could transform Britain July 09 2014

Interview by Danny Fortson (The Sunday Times 08/12/13)

Allan Campbell’s company, Cuadrilla Resources, discovered the reservoir under northwest England.

A video on Cuadrilla's Fracking Procedure:

“This is the North Sea all over again”, Campbell says. “In America they are playing with 300ft of gas-bearing rock layers, we have 6,000ft, this is a game changer!”

Campbell claims the Bowland basin, an underground formation that stretches from the Isle of Man across northwest England and down to the Midlands, could do for Britain what shale has done for America, where a critical gas shortage has transformed to more than a century of supply thanks to ‘fracking’.

Campbell continues “At the moment there is a vacuum of information that is being filled with hyperbole with no foundation in facts”. His idea is to launch a “big conversation” in the form of 40 town hall meetings across Britain, ideally in partnership with non-governmental organisations that do not share Cuadrilla’s vested interest in shale. Cuadrilla has, like other drillers, agreed to hand 1% of revenues from each well to locals – two-thirds to parishes, the rest to councils.

In 1995, Allan Campbell took over a tiny engineering company called A J Lucas, which got into the booming business of tapping coal seams for gas. Following huge success in this area, he hired two experts to scout Western Europe. They homed in on the Bowland basin after studying publicly available geological data, including details from four wells drilled by British Gas in the 1980s.

In February 2008, Cuadrilla Resources, a 100%-owned subsidiary of A J Lucas, applied for licences to explore 450 square miles of Lancashire. Cuadrilla claims that the Bowland shale holds 200 trillion cubic feet of gas, enough to supply Britain for 57 years. However, the British Geological Survey estimated the Bowland could hold six times as much.

Campbell hugely underestimated the political aspect of the project and states that he regrets not relocating to Britain from the offset, but he did manage to bring on board Lord Browne, the former BP chief executive. His private equity firm, Riverstone, bought a 45% stake in Cuadrilla which is the same stake as A J Lucas holds with the staff sharing the remaining 10%.

This summer, British Gas bought a stake in the company’s acreage and agreed to cover some of the drilling costs. Campbell himself owns 20% of A J Lucas, which has kept a quarter stake in Bowland for itself – Cuadrilla owns the rest. Between the two companies, Campbell holds just under 9% of the Lancashire bounty.

Here is a video on Cuadrilla's well design:

Note:
Another company who are keen to extract gas responsibly are IGas. To read more click this link.

CSG Co would be happy to receive views on this subject for incorporation into a future article. We see the advantages of a national secure supply of gas/power whilst our complex Energy Policy is politically agreed and implemented with adequate safeguards. The quarry industry has, just like everybody else, experienced large increases in the cost of energy and fuel over the past decade. It has had a significant impact on our costs at a time of decreased demand for our products. Reduced or stabilised energy costs would be warmly welcomed. We recognise that having shale beds twenty times deeper than those being commercially exploited in America means that drilling pads in the UK can extract 20 times the volume of their American counterparts all things being geologically equal. This would offer the opportunities to do far more processing on site and to reprocess drilling fluids etc, to reduce traffic movements. Our gas mains infrastructure is also available to transport processed shale gas. Our chemical industries would welcome the availability of long-chain petrocarbons which can comprise up to 50% of the outputs by value from each well. Mothballed and abandoned quarry sites, collieries and industrial sites in the UK are abundant and are generally available for redevelopment as drilling pads and process areas.

Planning law and Environmental Oversight and Monitoring in the UK are already more stringent in their applicability to Oil and Gas than in the USA and can be developed further to impose strict conditions on Operators. Just as the Nuclear Industry is expected to design to safeguard against low probability occurrences so too can fracking licenses be subject to operational risk/hazard conditions to protect our aquifers and environment.

In order to distinguish between earthquakes and tremors the following table may assist:-

Richter Scale Chart

How to Calculate Geotextile Quantities July 03 2014

First, the easy way...

Table of cover with 1.2m overlap for 4.5m wide Geotextile:-

This works out the number of strips that you need.
Multiply the number of strips by the length of each strip to calculate the amount required!
Simple!

If you want to work it out the hard way... here's the algebra!

W = 3.3 n + P

Let:

W = Width of Arena to be covered

L = Length of Arena to be covered

n = Number of strips of Geotextile required

P = Overlap specified

w = Width of Geotextile Roll

l = Length of Geotextile Roll

3.3 is derived from 4.5m (w) – 1.2m (P)

Example (for a 40m Length x 20m Width arena):

          20 = 3.3n + 1.2

and    3.3n = 20 – 1.2

          n = (20 – 1.2) / 3.3 = 5.7 strips (use 6 no)

So:

l = (L + 0.5)6       (because we need length + 0.5m to dress up kicker)

l = (40 + 0.5)6     = 243m

or let 20m = L and 40m = W (laying the other way round)

n = (40-1.2)3.3    = 11.75 strips (use 12 no)

l = (20+0.5)12      = 246m

The rolls are 100m long so 3 rolls are required to complete the job.

Geotextile Joints June 23 2014

The geotextile should be laid such that any traffic on the site travels on the drainage stone layer not the fabric. Assuming a 20m x 40m Arena with the entrance gate in the 20m section the fabric, which is normally 4.5m wide, should be cut to a length of 20.5 metres. This should be laid at the furthest point from the entrance and stapled or glued or battened to the kicker rail along three sides to envelope the sand layer and provide a few centimetres of free board.

The next sheet to be laid will have an overlap of 1.2m (4 feet), so concertina the first sheet back this distance and reverse the lorry to its edge to top onto the sheet. Spread the sand to the required depth.

Lay the next sheet lapping under the first by 1.2m and using silicone sealer to gun a zig-zag seal down the middle of the join. The seal should be approximately 200mm (8”) from zig to zag and also 200mm (8”) from zig to zig.

Fix the edges of the sheet to the kicker board, concertina the end and proceed again as above.

As long as the system of a 1.2m overlap and a sealed joint is used the geotextile can, as required, be laid in any convenient direction. Similarly a join can be constructed when two lengths of geotextile are needed to incorporate a new roll.

Grangemouth boss proposes to offer 6% of gross revenues from fracked wells to landowners and the local communities May 20 2014

Extracted from Dominic O'Connell (17/5/14) and Danny Fortson (28/9/14) - The Sunday Times

Jim Ratcliffe, of Ineos, will import 1.6bn tonnes of cheap American shale gas per year for ten years from terminals on America’s Atlantic coast and the Gulf of Mexico. The gas will be sent to a facility in Norway owned by Ineos, Ratcliffe’s giant chemicals company, and to Grangemouth in Scotland.

The imported gas will be used to make ethylene, a vital chemical in the manufacture of plastic. About half the gas will come from the Marcus Hook terminal in Pennsylvania, and the rest from Houston Bay in Texas. A huge surge in gas production in America – almost all of which comes from the hydraulic fracturing (fracking) of underground shale – has pushed down prices to between one third and one half of European levels.

In North America, 55 shale gas wells are currently drilled every day.  The cheaper energy produced has given the American manufacturing and chemicals industries a boost, with thousands of jobs being created in new factories and refineries. In contrast, the pace in Britain has been sluggish: just one well has been partially drilled since the first license was granted in 2008. The government, prudently invoking the precautionary principle, issued an eighteen month fracking ban in 2011 after drilling caused tremors, apparently equivalent to those typically created by a bus or lorry passing by the front door of an urban terraced house, to be recorded near Blackpool.

Ineos has said it will now also consider pursuing shale gas exploration licenses in Britain.  In October the Government closes the bidding for hundreds of six mile (ten kilometer) by six mile exploration blocks, and the auction winners will be revealed by June - after the General Election.  Each block might comprise ten pads each with a (stacked) cluster of twenty wells which are scheduled to produce over a twenty year life.  To this end Ratcliffe has hired the team credited with starting the shale gas revolution at Texas explorer Mitchell Energy. Drilling expert Nick Steinsberger, and geologists Kent Bowker and Dan Steward, have signed up to five year contracts with Ineos.

The Coalition Government is now attempting to stimulate shale drilling by changing the laws of trespass on underground exploration and by promising windfalls for locals. The proposal seems to exempt access at more than 300m (1000ft) below a property from the law of trespass.  The Government is very positive about shale, but they need more positive feedback from people in the UK to go out and really push it.

Cardigan Sand would like to add: Some business tax on shale gas will be allocated to the Local Authority and some explorers, notably Cuadrilla, are also offering to remit 1% of revenues specifically to fund Community or Environmental projects local to the exploration sites.  We understand that the Minerals (Oil, Petrochemical and Gas in this case) are owned by the Crown Estates who remit the majority of its income to the State coffers, and there is therefore little incentive for locals to allow fracking.  Jim Ratcliffe has offered to up this to 2% from UK wells developed by his company and give an additional 4% to the landowners.  The Lancastrian hopes this "game-changer" will spark the industry into life.  By his reckoning each 100 square kilometre block will generate 20 million pounds per annum for twenty years for the community,  all paid for by the six percent allocation of revenues suggested.   Most of the Shale in the UK is in the old industrial heartland, which is still largely depressed.  Shale gas, he contends, has the potential to re-vitalise manufacturing in these areas.

New CAT966K XE Arrives for duty at the Quarry! April 04 2014

Machine Features & Specifications

Milk & Money March 27 2014

Article about Cattle Bedding Stalls & Sands by Paul Watkins from The Dairy Farmer
(extract from article written in the 80s! - more emails required please to update us on current practices)

In his article, Paul Watkins said:

My ideas regarding cubicle beds are gaining clarity but the objectives have been clear enough for some time – to keep the cows clean and comfortable while using the minimum quantity of litter.

Many people have found an answer to the first and third of these three requirements by using a flat bed – by which I mean a flat concrete bed without any kerb to retain litter. This type of bed is in use on many farms. The farmers who use it are, in general, very satisfied with it.

I am now quite clear in my own mind. They are exceptionally easy to clean, they require very little litter, and farmers love them. But cows loathe them.

I have not reached this conclusion quickly or lightly, but my observation of cows on this and many other farms leaves me in no doubt. I described last spring how my own cows had shown their overwhelming preference for a lipped cubicle with sand, over a flat bed with a sprinkling of chopped straw.

Then last month in Herefordshire I was in a large cubicle house with lipped, sanded beds in which a trial row of eight cubicles has been concreted with flat beds. All the flat beds were empty, while nearly all the sand beds were occupied. Later the same day, in Shropshire, I saw cows lying in slatted passages rather than lie in flat beds which were thinly sprinkled with shavings, and in my experience a cow will lie on a bed of nails before she will lie on slats.

Finally, a friend in Wales, whose cows were reluctant to use flat concrete beds in a new bank of kennels, tried screwing a hardwood batten on to the timber kerb and bedding with sand and his refuser problem immediately disappeared. All this has been enough to convince me that, while flat beds are clean, clinical and efficient, they are not comfortable for the cows; those worries about swollen hocks were justified after all.

There will be much muttering in the flat bed strongholds, and I am well aware than many highly successful herds use them. I don’t dispute that they can be made to work. All I am saying is that, given the choice, most cows will prefer a bed with a reasonable depth of litter on it. It is not impossible to achieve this with a flat bed, but the absence of a lip obviously makes it much more difficult and much more extravagant in litter.

So what do we do? Do we go back to the old, lipped design with a 3” lip or upstand from a concrete bed? Only, I believe, where the slurry disposal system allows soft sand to be used as litter. Long straw on a lipped bed has to be very well managed to avoid the build-up of dung which gave the design a bad name and which led to the development of the flat bed.

But there are many farms on which sand cannot conveniently be used – for example, where the slurry has to flow along a channel or be pumped up into a tower – and where other considerations make it essential to use as little bedding as possible. In these circumstances, lipped beds would almost inevitably lead to dirty cows and mastitis; in fact, until we started using sand, it was very much what was happening on this farm.

So there does seem to be a need for a compromise design which is easy to keep clean but which retains enough litter to keep the cows comfortable.

 

Figure 3 shows one solution, which was worked out in collaboration with a farm manager friend in South Wales, and which has been working well on his farm for the past two winters.

Its basis is a wide step on which the cow can comfortably stand and off which dungpats can easily be scraped, but in front of which is a 2” deep depression which holds sufficient litter to make the cows comfortable. The bed is of no-fines concrete topped with a screed, and it has a very slight (1”) slope back towards the kerb.

Cardigan Sand & Gravel would like to add:

Cattle Bedding Sand comprises sub-rounded sand grains smaller than half a millimetre in diameter (to avoid abrasion) and contain less than 10% (normally about 5% by mass) of silt and clay particles smaller than one sixteenth of a millimetre in diameter.

The sand drains quite well and is frequently used as bedding for those cattle being dried off from milking.

Cubicare is essentially the same as Cattle Bedding Sand but with a higher silt/clay content (normally 7-10% by mass). This binds better into the cubicle causing less spillage into the passage. This is our most popular cattle bedding sand, and is for general use..

Cubicare Plus is similar to Cubicare but with an even higher silt/clay content (normally 15-25% by mass) and a small precentage of gravel particles. This bedding was produced in response to demand from those farmers demanding even less spillage from the cubicles in dry managed housing where the beds are kept bone dry and it works well in correctly designed cattle cubicles, subject to weather. When wetted the clay element in Cubicare Plus retains moisture and becomes like porridge. Therefore, this material should ideally be stored under cover before being placed in the cubicles. Belt-feeders and similar dispensing tools have difficulty dealing with damp cohesive materials as they need a free flowing medium to operate efficiently.

Sports Turf Research Institute - Rootzones, Sands & Top Dressing Materials for Sports Turf March 20 2014

INTRODUCTION

Sports turf is a dynamic system with the properties of the turf varying according to the amount of play and level of compaction to which it is subjected. A build up of compaction will tend to reduce the permeability of the surface layer and this will be exacerbated if finer particles of mineral matter migrate to the surface as a result of wear and fine organic residues accumulate from the breakdown of grass material. On fine turf constructions, the accumulation of a thatchy layer of organic material will have an important effect on the impact and roll of golf balls and the speed of bowls running across a green. Maintenance operations are essential to control the potential deterioration of turf resulting from compaction and organic matter production and sand has a vital function in any maintenance programme.

WINTER GAMES PITCHES

The main uses of sand in the maintenance programme for a winter games pitch is to dilute accumulations of fine mineral and organic matter at the surface to retain the permeability of a pitch and to provide a firmer surface in wet weather. In these circumstances pure sand, with no soil amendment, is the preferred top dressing material. Sand or a sandy compost is also important to repair divots kicked out by the players, thus restoring the levels of the surface.

The advantages of sand are clearly seen in Fig. 13 which shows the effects of different rates of sand on a pipe drained sandy loam soil, the same soil with slit drains at 600 mm centres and a sand carpet construction. The sand rates of 0, 4, 8 and 16 kg/m² per year correspond to annual applications of 0, 25, 50 and 100 tonnes of sand per year to a pitch of 6,250 m². The advantages of higher grades of construction are evident with the sand carpet pitch retaining more cover during wear than the slit drained and particularly the pipe drained pitch. The sand carpet pitch also has a dry, firm surface where ball bounce, for example, is good. However, players find ball rebound values less than 15% unacceptable and the wet, muddy surface on some of the pipe drained and slit drained plots gave very low values indeed.

Sand application is important on all types of construction: where topsoil is present sand makes the surface layer less plastic in wet conditions giving a firmer and drier surface and on sand constructions it can be important in maintaining surface permeability and diluting organic material which can accumulate in the areas of lower wear, e.g. on the wings. On a slit drained construction the absence of protective sand dressings causes the slits to be sealed by play preventing rainfall from entering the slit system and causing waterlogged surfaces. In the example shown in Fig. 13 the grass cover on the sub-plots with no sand was zero compared to 43% where the equivalent of 100 tonnes per year was used and the wet, muddy surface on the slit drained plots with no sand gave ball rebound only 1% compared with 30% on the area with the highest rate of sand.

The results for the slit drained plots with no sand are similar to those of the pipe drained area, in other words the advantages of a £20,000 slit drainage scheme can disappear in less than 1 ½ seasons of wear because of the lack of adequate sand dressing. Indeed this trial and observations on actual pitches show that even a few months of play on a slit drained pitch with no sand dressing can negate the value of the drainage work.

Fig. 13: The effect of sand top dressing rate on ground cover and ball rebound on pipe drained, slit drained and sand carpet constructions receiving simulated football-type wear. (Adapted from Baker & Canaway [1989, 1990] – data for December 1988.)

GOLF AND BOWLING GREENS

On areas of fine turf the main purpose of top dressing is to preserve a true and level surface and to dilute the build up of thatch. Ideally an annual application of 5-6 kg/m² of top dressing material will be used, with this quantity being divided into perhaps three applications to avoid excessive amounts of material on the surface at any one time. If the playing surface is on a heavy soil with poor drainage or has excess thatch, larger quantities should be applied in conjunction with a programme of hollow tinning so that the drainage and aeration of the surface layer can be improved.

The composition of the top dressing material may vary depending on the type of construction and the availability of topsoil materials or composts for the top dressing. Where a green has been constructed with a special rootzone mix it is important to use a top dressing material which matches the mix in terms of the quantity of sand and the sand type. This will preserve a continuity in the profile of the green. In the extreme case of a pure sand construction the size and uniformity of the sand should match that of the rootzone sand.

Where a golf green has been developed from a native soil which may have a relatively high silt and clay content, it is sensible to use a relatively light top dressing material in which the clay content has been diluted by sand to below 5% and the total silt and clay content should not exceed 10%. The use of a sand dominated by the medium sand size fraction (0.25-0.5 mm diameter) is preferred for the preparation of this type of top dressing mix.

Sands with a high content of fine material should be avoided as these can clog the surface and excessively coarse sands are not popular as it is difficult to work sand grains above 2 mm in diameter into the turf and coarse particles such as these will damage mowers and are unpopular with golfers and bowlers.

Consistency in the use of top dressing materials on fine turf is important and for instance, use of pure sand for perhaps a year followed by reversion to a sand-soil mix can form a root break. This thin layer of sand can have significant effects on the vertical movement of soil moisture and the penetration of grass roots will tend to reflect the moisture distribution within the soil.

In fine turf areas, the free lime content of the top dressing material can be critical. If the sand contains large quantities of shell or other calcareous material the pH of the surface layer will increase. This can have important effects on weed invasion, earthworm activity, turfgrass disease and the composition of grass species within the turf. In particular annual meadow-grass (Poa annua) will tend to invade the turf at the expense of the fescue (Festuca) and bent (Agrostis) species.

With regard to the build up of lime in a soil in relation to acidification by fertilisers it has been concluded that, to introduce a safety margin, the top dressing mix should contain no more than 0.5% calcium carbonates. If the soil component of the top dressing mix were lime-free a slightly higher lime content in the sand could be tolerated, e.g. a mix of 1 part soil:2 parts sand would still have a total lime content of <0.5% if the lime content of the sand were no more than 0.75%. There are, however, constraints on the ratio of soil to sand in a top dressing mix as the final blend of material must satisfy the physical requirements as well as those of lime content. If the total lime content will exceed 0.5% an alternative source of sand must be considered.

The Battle of the Aggregates Levy! March 20 2014

Ever since its introduction, the Aggregates Levy has been controversial within the UK. Sarah-Jane Williams, of Stephens Scown LLP, explains why the controversy is still raging

The Aggregates Levy was intro­duced in the UK as part of the Finance Act 2001 and came into force in April 2002 and is a tax imposed upon the commercial exploitation of rock, sand and gravel in the UK. The intention of the levy was to improve the environmental impact of the mining industry; encouraging use of secondary or recycled aggregates and to incorporate the environmental cost into the market price. The current rate of the levy is £2 per tonne and has been frozen at this rate since 2009.

As with any tax, Aggregates Levy was unpopular from the outset with the reliefs and exemptions being particu­larly controversial. The British Aggregates Association (BAA) has been fighting against the levy for over 11 years and contends that it has had a detrimental impact on some sections of the industry with a number of opera­tors going into liquidation. It is its belief that the levy constitutes State Aid as it penalises some UK operators financially but not others, which distorts competi­tion and is contrary to Article 107(1) Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (ex Article 87(1) of the EC Treaty).

Brief Background

In 2002 the BAA submitted its views to the European Commission believing the levy contained State Aid due to the exemption for exported aggre­gates, the exclusion of certain materials and the differing appli­cation of the levy in Northern Ireland.

At this stage the European Commission concluded the levy did not comprise State Aid. The BAA appealed to the General Court of the EU in 2006 seeking an annulment of the Commission's decision but the appeal was dismissed.

The BAA subsequently appealed to the European Court of Justice where the 2006 deci­sion was set aside and referred back to the General Court. In March 2012 the General Court annulled the Commission's origi­nal 2002 decision and referred it back for further consideration.

Following this success, the BAA requested the stay on its appeal be lifted and on 10 April, 2013 the Court of Appeal gave BAA permission to proceed to a full hearing (scheduled for 7-10 October 2013).

Recent Developments

The 2002 decision was annulled on the basis that the Commission had not sufficiently scrutinised whether the levy contained any State Aid in coming to its original decision. As a result of this the European Commission recently announced a Phase 11 investigation into the levy, full details of which have yet to be made public.

The UK Government issued Business Brief 24/13 on 16 August 2013 confirming that a formal investigation into the exemptions and release has commenced. The investigation is considering whether State Aid is contained in the exemptions and relief for the following materials:

Ball clay and china clay: Ball clay and china clay and spoil, waste and by-products resulting from their extraction or separation from any quantity of aggregate.

Other industrial materials: Anhydrite; barytes feldspar; fireclay; fluorspar; fuller's earth; gems and semi-precious stones; gypsum; any metal or the ore of any metal; muscovite; perlite;potash; pumice; rock phos­phates; sodium chloride; talc and vermiculite that are used as aggregate, and spoil from the separation of any of these indus­trial minerals from other rock with which it was won.

Coal, lignite, slate and shale: Material that is wholly coal, lignite, slate or shale and that is used as aggregate; mate­rial that is mainly but not wholly coal, lignite, slate or shale, and spoil from the extraction of or separation from any aggregate of coal, lignite, slate or shale.

Clay: Clay that is used as aggregate.

Spoil from industrial processes: Material that is mainly but not wholly spoil, waste or other by-products of any industrial combustion process or the smelting or refin­ing of metal.

Whether or not the levy constitutes State Aid requires an assessment of the relevant tax exemptions and whether or not they place the recipient in a more favourable position than competitors who pay the tax. It is generally defined as aid granted by a Member State to businesses which is generally incompat­ible with the common market because it has the potential to distort competition and affect trade between EU Member States. The EU Commission regulates the actions of Member States for actions which may inhibit competition and intra­community trade.

What Now?

The UK Government will have to answer a series of questions and provide evidence to the Commission supporting their view that the exemptions do not constitute State Aid. Whilst the investigations are ongoing there has been no request for the suspension of payments and HMRC stipulate in their 24/13 brief that those commercially exploiting aggregate in the UK have a continuing legal obliga­tion to pay the levy.

Should the European Commission and/or the Court of Appeal conclude the exemp­tions are State Aid, and therefore unlawful, there is fear in the industry that the businesses that have benefitted from the exemp­tions will have to repay that aid. This would have a detrimental impact and may make other operators insolvent.

The BAA has concluded in its press release dated 23 August, 2013 that it is deeply concerned by HMRC's IBM Revenue and Customs] flagrant disregard for EU State Aid law and by the potential risk posed to those companies which are being encouraged to continue with exemptions that are now subject to the investigation.

At a time when the UK Government is trying to promote growth in the business sector and to get the UK building again, it is clear that some of the exemptions imposed under the levy are hitting operators hard. Some businesses are withhold­ing payment of the levy pending the outcome of the Phase II investigation and operators may face enforcement action from the Treasury.

Those involved in the aggre­gates industry avidly await the outcome of the litigation currently going through the Court of Appeal and the subse­quent result of the Commission's investigations. The battle of the Aggregates Levy is set to continue and it is hoped that any decisions made will not maim the industry any further.

The Construction Products Regulation (CPR) applies from 1 July 2013 March 18 2014

The CPR aims at clarification of the basic concepts and of the use of CE marking; simplifica­tion of the procedures, so as to reduce the costs incurred by enterprises, in particular SMEs, and increased credibility for the whole system.

The key concept of the CPR is the declaration of performance (DoP), which is replacing the declaration of conformity (DoC) from the previous CPD. For every construction product covered by a harmonised standard or a European Technical Assessment, the manufacturer will draw up a declaration of performance with the intended use of the construc­tion product. Since 1 July 2013, all construction products placed on the EU market have to be CE marked.

The Commission's Delegated Act (adopted September 2013) will be transmitted to the European Parliament and the Council for their reaction. At the end of the procedure the Delegated Act (most probably a Regulation) will be published in the Official Journal of the EU.

Meanwhile, manufacturers can continue their practice to provide information about the performance of their products on a website. It is noted that a batch of the same product supplied to a single user can be covered by a single DoP and that a paper copy of the DoP should be supplied if the recipient of the product requests it.

What is a delegated act?

The Treaty of Lisbon creates a new category of legal act: delegated acts. The legislator delegates the power to adopt acts amending non-essential elements of a legislative act to the European Commission.

For example, delegated acts may specify certain technical details or they may consist of a subsequent amendment to certain elements of a legislative act. However, this delegation of power has strict limits. In effect, only the Commission can be authorised to adopt delegated acts. Furthermore, the legislator sets the conditions (Article 290 of the Treaty) under which this delegation may be implemented.

Delegated Act in CPR

Article 60 of the CPR, for the purposes of achieving the objectives of the Regulation, in particular removing and avoid­ing restrictions on making construction products available on the market, the following matters shall be delegated to the Commission, (...) inter alia:

(b) the conditions on which a declaration of performance may be electronically processed, in order to make it available on a website in accordance with Article 7;

(e) the adaptation of Annex III, table 1 of Annex IV, and Annex V in response to technical progress.

Delegated acts on DoP on a website, on Annex III (Declara­tion of Performance) and Annex V (Assessment and Verification of Constancy of Performance) meetings over July and September, the European Commission organised meetings on the Delegated Act (DA) on DoP on a website, on Annex III and Annex V.

The UEPG participated in the meetings. Following comments received, the European Commission should make an inter-service consultation. The documents should then pass through the Council and Parliament to approve or reject the Delegated Act, as no amend­ment is possible.

The Delegated Acts on DoP on a website should be published in early November. The European Commission will draft the conditions to use a website but will not address technical solutions available to fulfil those conditions, as a DA should not obstruct any technological development. A DA may not modify the responsibilities of the market surveillance authorities.

Following comments, the DA on Annex III and Annex V should be published by the beginning of 2014.

Next Steps -

UEPG Technical Committee (under the active chairmanship of Jean-Marc Vanbelle (FEDIEX), in cooperation with Construction Products Europe, is monitoring the issue. In September/October, UEPG will report on challenges encountered over the first phase of the implementation of the CPR, and send comments on Delegated Acts proposed.