EcoRadio

Category: News

Add your news
You can add news from your networks or groups through the website by becoming an author. Simply register as a member of the Generator, and then email Giovanni asking to become an author. He will then work with you to integrate your content into the site as effectively as possible.
Listen to the Generator News online

 
The Generator news service publishes articles on sustainable development, agriculture and energy as well as observations on current affairs. The news service is used on the weekly radio show, The Generator, as well as by a number of monthly and quarterly magazines. A podcast of the Generator news is also available.
As well as Giovanni’s articles it picks up the most pertinent articles from a range of other news services. You can publish the news feed on your website using RSS, free of charge.
 

  • Did Deepwater methane hydrates cause the BP Gulf explosion?

     

    Even a solid steel pipe has little chance against a 164-fold expansion of volume — something that would render a man six feet six inches tall suddenly the height of the Eiffel Tower.

    Scientists are well aware of the awesome power of these strange hydrocarbons. A sudden large scale release of methane hydrates is believed to have caused a mass extinction 55 million years ago. Among planners concerned with mega-disasters, their sudden escape is considered to be a threat comparable to an asteroid strike or nuclear war. The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, a Livermore, Ca.-based weapons design center, reports that when released on a large scale, methane hydrates can even cause tsunamis.

    So it is not surprising to anyone who knows about the physics of these compounds that the Deepwater Horizon rig was lost like a waterfly crumpled by a force of nature scientists are still just getting to know.

    Number One Deepwater Drilling Issue

    SolveClimate contacted scientists at the Colorado School of Mines, Center for Hydrate Research, who focus on the fundamental science and engineering of methane hydrates to gain further insight. They did not want to speculate on the role that methane hydrates could have played in the BP disaster, but they were willing to provide a basic understanding of the nature and behavior of these familiar but little understood substances.

    “Gas hydrates are the number one flow assurance issue in deepwater drilling,” Carolyn Koh, an associate professor and co-director of the Hydrate Center, told us in an exclusive interview.

    She explained that the oil and gas industry has a lot of experience with methane hydrates, because they have to be kept from forming in pipes or they will clog the lines, stop the flow of oil, and pose a danger. Drillers use inhibitors such as methanol to keep the hydrates from crystallizing inside drill rigs operating at great depth, where conditions for methane hydrate formation are ideal.

    This film clip of an experiment conducted on the ocean floor near the Deepwater Horizon drilling site demonstrates how quickly and easily methane hydrates can form. It was conducted by the Gulf of Mexico Hydrates Research Consortium aboard the Seward Johnson in September 2006. The voices of the scientists conducting the experiment are clearly audible.

    The clip shows with remarkable clarity a robotic arm maneuvering a clear tube over a stream of hydrate bubbles emanating from a crater on the sea floor. Within minutes, gas trapped in the tube begins to form a visible solid — a white ice matrix — thanks to the extreme cold and pressure of the ocean depth. When the tube is inverted, the hydrate, less dense than seawater, floats out of the tube, dissociating into its components, gas and water.

    Oil and gas drillers encounter far greater volumes of methane hydrate than the gentle stream of bubbles escaping from a small fissure that are shown in the film.

    Amadeu Sum, an assistant professor at the Colorado School of Mines and also a co-director of the Hydrate Center, explained that methane hydrates can be encountered by drillers in the deep ocean where methane hydrates are trapped in sediments beneath the ocean floor.

    Vast Deposits in Ocean Sediments

    Professor Sum explained gas and oil flow up the pipe together in normal drilling operations. These hydrocarbons occur naturally together in conventional drilling operations. The deepwater of the Gulf of Mexico, and other places where methane hydrates exist, present drillers with special safety challenges.

    For one thing, methane hydrates are believed to exist in vast deposits underneath the ocean floor, trapped by nature in ocean sediments. Deepwater drillers could find themselves drilling through these natural hydrate deposits.

    Professor Sum said geologists know much less about these hydrate-bearing sediments than conventional ocean sediments, and that there is “little knowledge of the risks” of drilling into them.

    The Deepwater Horizon rig was drilling in Block 252 of an area known as the Mississippi Canyon of the Gulf, thought to contain methane hydrate-bearing sediments, according to government maps. The platform was operating less than 20 miles from a methane hydrate research site located in the same canyon at Block 118.

    From the sea floor a mile down, the Deepwater Horizon rig had penetrated another 18,000 feet — almost another five miles down — into the earth’s crust with pipe.

    According to the National Academy of Sciences, which published a bullish report on the energy potential of methane hydrates,

    “Industry practice is to avoid methane-bearing areas during drilling for conventional oil and gas resources for safety reasons.”

    Professor Sum explained that because “with oil there is usually gas present,” it is possible for methane hydrates to form in the pipe even when not drilling through hydrate-bearing sediments. The pressure and cold of the deepwater create conditions that encourage gas flowing into the pipe to form hydrates, and if the rate of crystallization is rapid enough, the hydrates can clog the pipe.

    The cofferdam that BP lowered over the broken pipe gushing oil to contain the spill was almost immediately clogged by methane hydrates, which formed spontaneously. Gas escaping with the oil from the well, when trapped in the steel structure with cold water under great pressure, rapidly accumulated into an ice-like matrix.

    Documented Explosive Hazard

    In a book about methane hydrates, which Professor Koh co-authored, brief mention is made of a case in which methane hydrates caused a gas pipe to rupture on land, leading to loss of life.

    Two workers were attempting to clear a line in which a hydrate plug had formed. The authors say that “the impact of a moving hydrate mass” caused the pipe to fail. The explosion caused a large piece of pipe to strike the foreman, killing him. The book then quotes from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Hydrate Guidelines to describe proper procedures for safely removing a hydrate plug in a pipe on land.

    SolveClimate was not able to find more detailed public documentation of this incident in Alberta, but mention is made in an article in a publication of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, a federal research center associated with the Department of Energy, of a different unspecified incident on a drilling rig.

    “Forces from methane hydrate dissociation have been blamed for a damaging shift in a drilling rig’s foundation, causing a loss of $100 million,” the article reports.

    Although public discussion of damage from methane hydrate accidents appears to be minimal, the danger is well-recognized within the industry. Last November, one Halliburton executive gave a presentation before a meeting of the American Association of Drilling Engineers in Houston, titled “Deepwater Cementing Consideration to Prevent Hydrate Destabilization.”

    It recognizes that the cementing process releases heat which can destabilize methane hydrates, and presents something called Cement System 2 as a solution to the problem. One of the graphs shows that the system doesn’t achieve gel strength for four hours.

    Yet according to an eyewitness report broadcast on Sunday on 60 Minutes, BP managers made the decision to decrease pressure in the well column by removing drilling mud before the cement had solidified in three plugs Halliburton had poured.

    When a surge of gas started shooting up the well, a crucial seal on the blowout preventer at the well head on the ocean floor failed. It had been damaged weeks before and neglected as inconsequential by Transocean managers, according to the CBS news broadcast, even after chunks of rubber emerged from the drilling column on the surface.

    According to the Associated Press, the victims of the Deepwater Horizon explosion said the blast occurred right after workers “introduced heat to set the cement seal around the wellhead.” It is not known if Halliburton was employing Cement System 2, and testifying before the Senate last week, a Halliburton executive made no mention of methane hydrate hazards associated with cementing in deepwater.

    A Promising Substance

    Professors Koh and Sum are concerned that a focus on the dangers of methane hydrates in deepwater drilling will obscure their promise as an energy solution of the future. They are conducting research in the laboratory to create methane hydrates synthetically in order to take advantage of their peculiar properties. With their potential to store gas (both natural gas and hydrogen) efficiently within a crystalline structure, hydrogen hydrates could one day offer a potential solution for making fuel cells operate economically. Still at the fundamental stage, their work on storage is not yet complete enough to apply to commercial systems.

    At the same time, there is an international competition underway to develop technology to harvest the vast deposits of methane hydrates in the world’s oceans. Japan has joined the US and Canada in pursuit of this energy bonanza, motivated by the $23 billion it spends annually to import liquefied natural gas.

    According to a Bloomberg News article called “Japan Mines Flammable Ice, Flirts with Environmental Disaster,” the Japanese trade ministry is targeting 2016 to start commercial production, even as a Tokyo University scientist warned against causing a massive undersea landslide that could suddenly trigger a massive methane hydrate release.

    The U.S. has a research program underway in collaboration with the oil industry, authorized by the Methane Hydrate Research and Development Act of 1999. The National Methane Hydrates R&D Program is housed at the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) of the Department of Energy.

    The National Academy of Sciences provided a briefing for Congress last January on the energy potential of methane hydrates based on its report which asserts that “no technical challenges have been identified as insurmountable” in the pursuit of commercial production of methane hydrates.

    In the wake of the BP oil disaster, SolveClimate attempted to contact Dr. Charles Paull of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute, the lead author of the report. He was unavailable for comment, attending an international workshop on methane hydrates research in New Zealand from May 10-12, and according to his assistant, out of email contact.

  • Carbon Graveyard

     

    According to the government’s provisional figures for 2009, the UK has cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 198MtCO2e since 1990. But the Carnegie Institution for Science estimates that we have outsourced 253Mt. The sad and shocking truth is that the apparent success of the UK’s carbon-cutting programme, on which the government bases its boast that we’re a world leader in reducing pollution, results from the collapse of our manufacturing base and its re-establishment overseas.

    So throw in 253Mt for outsourced emissions, 7Mt for the international shipping we use, 67Mt for international aviation plus the 2Mt the government has failed to include for extra greenhouse warming (not CO2) caused by domestic flights, and you discover that the UK has left 329Mt of carbon off its national accounts, or very nearly 50% of the 2007 total (636Mt). The figure would have been even higher had the team included the net 40Mt of emissions which Professor Dieter Helm calculates is caused by UK citizens holidaying abroad (net means that the emissions from foreign tourists holidaying here have been subtracted).

    Even if the calculator achieves nothing else, highlighting this massive discrepancy should shake up the debate and change our view of what the UK has achieved.

    Just as striking are the figures for manufacturing and consumption. When I started playing with the calculator, at first I skipped over the top category. This is because, like many environmentalists, most of my work has been focused on efforts to tackle our direct consumption of energy: the heat and electricity we use at home and in offices, and the fuel we use for transport. I immediately ran into trouble. However many wind turbines and nuclear power plants I commissioned, however many drivers I shoved on to the railways and businessmen I dragged kicking and screaming out of aeroplanes, I couldn’t get the totals down by anything like the required amount. Only then did I notice how great a proportion of our emissions come from manufacturing and consumption.

    Consulting my book Heat, first published in 2006, I now realise that I used to be half-aware of the scale of this issue, but somehow, in the midst of all the excited debates about how our electricity should be generated, our homes improved and our transport networks run, I had managed to forget it. So it was a shock to discover that manufacturing and consumption (if you include the construction industry) accounts for 541Mt of our emissions, or 57% of the true total. This is a good bit higher than I thought in 2006, because the sector’s impact is massively boosted by the outsourced emissions the official figures don’t count. The great majority of the UK’s offshore total results from our consumption of foreign goods. The exclusion of these figures from official accounts is one of the reasons why we have neglected this sector.

    Of the 541Mt caused by manufacturing and consumption, 223Mt is embodied in the imported goods (minus food) we consume; 141Mt arises from the energy used by UK industries; 87Mt from all food production and consumption (onshore and offshore); 19Mt from industrial process emissions (the CO2 released by chemical processes like cement manufacture); 23Mt from the waste we create and 48Mt from the freight vehicles (some of them excluded from official figures) required to move our stuff around.

    Like most people in the environment movement, I spend my time talking vaguely about the need to reduce the consumption of goods, but specifically – with figures attached – about the need to reduce the direct consumption of energy. But however well we insulate our homes, change our travel habits, alter the electricity supply and switch to more efficient appliances, however much the public sector cleans up its act and the efficiency of commercial buildings is improved, we’ll still be only scratching the surface of the problem. The real issue is not our direct consumption of energy but the greenhouse gases embodied in the goods we buy. It strikes me that in focusing on direct consumption I’ve helped to give both the government and business an unduly easy ride.

    So here we bump into the second probable reason why Labour and the Conservatives have chosen not to try out the calculator (Simon Hughes of the Lib Dems did run the calculator and shared the result). It highlights the glaring contradiction in the manifestos of all three main parties: they all seek to boost economic growth by raising consumption, but consumption has already pushed greenhouse gas levels way beyond the point that they consider sustainable. You can pursue a policy of economic growth and reduced carbon emissions only by engineering a fudge of the kind the calculator exposes: offshoring one third of our emissions, most of which arise from the goods we consume. The impacts of rising consumption are hidden by excluding them from national accounts.

    Only the Green party has approached this issue honestly, by accepting upfront that economic growth is the problem and that current levels of consumption cannot be sustained. It’s time we called out the other parties on their failure to acknowledge, let alone tackle, this contradiction. And it’s time we all recognised that consumption is the big issue.

    monbiot.com

  • BP swamped by criticism

    BP swamped by criticism

    Anna Driver and Matthew Bigg, Reuters May 22, 2010, 6:40 am

     

    HOUSTON/VENICE, Louisiana (Reuters) – Anger, scepticism and accusations of lying washed over energy giant BP Plc on Friday as it desperately pursued efforts to contain a month-old seabed well leak billowing crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico.

    U.S. lawmakers and scientists have accused BP of trying to conceal what many believe is already the worst U.S. oil spill, eclipsing the 1989 Exxon Valdez accident in Alaska. It represents a potentially environmental and economic catastrophe for the U.S. Gulf coast.

    The London-based energy giant, facing growing federal government and public frustration and allegations of a coverup, said its engineers were working with U.S. government scientists to determine the real size of the leak, even as they fought to control the still-gushing spill with uncertain solutions.

    President Barack Obama’s administration was keeping up the pressure on BP to do everything possible to stop the leak.

    “We are facing a disaster, the magnitude of which we likely have never seen before, in terms of a blowout in the Gulf of Mexico,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters. “And we’re doing everything humanly possible and technologically possible to deal with that.”

    BP’s next planned step is a “top kill” — pumping heavy fluids and then cement into the gushing well to plug it. That operation could start next week, perhaps on Tuesday, BP Chief Operating Officer Doug Suttles said.

    Adding to the confusion, BP revised downward on Friday an estimate from Thursday that one of its containment solutions — a 1 mile (1.6 km)-long siphon tube inserted into the larger of two seabed leaks — was capturing 5,000 barrels (210,000 gallons/795,000 litres) of oil per day.

    A BP spokesman said the amount of crude oil it sucked from the leak fell to 2,200 barrels (92,400 gallons/350,000 litres) a day in the 24-hour period ended at midnight on Thursday.

    “The rate fluctuates quite widely on this tool,” Suttles told reporters at a briefing in Robert, Louisiana.

    Many scientists dismiss an original 5,000 bpd estimate of the total leaking oil — often defended by BP executives — as ridiculously low and say it could be as high as 70,000 barrels (2.9 million gallons/11 million litres) per day or more.

    “There’s a huge amount of uncertainty around that number and it could have a fairly wide range,” Suttles said. A federal panel will release its estimate of the actual flow rate as early as next week, a Coast Guard official said.

    “HOT POTATO”

    “It’s very clear that BP has not been telling the truth,” Massachusetts Democratic Representative Ed Markey told CNN.

    BP denied any coverup and said some third-party estimates of the leak were inaccurate. The company’s shares fell more than 4 percent in London.

    Michael Gordon, chief executive of Gordon Strategic Communications, a corporate and crisis public relations firm in New York, called BP’s handling of the spill “a case study in failed crisis communications.”

    “It would not have been possible for them to handle this worse. They are not taking sufficient responsibility for what happened. They’ve played a game of ‘hot potato’ with the other companies involved,” he said, referring to BP’s public trading of blame with its partners in the drilling of the well.

    A month after the well blowout and rig explosion that unleashed the catastrophic spill, sheets of rust-coloured heavy oil are starting to clog fragile marshlands on the fringes of the Mississippi Delta, damaging fishing grounds and wildlife.

    Scientists fear parts of the huge fragmented surface slick will be sucked to the Florida Keys and Cuba by ocean currents.

    At a briefing in Mobile, Alabama, Coast Guard Incident Commander Captain Steven Poulin said an overflight on Thursday of the oil slick showed that while “minor portions of sheen” were in the Loop Current there was “really no trail or elephant trunk” of oil extending down into the moving current flow.

    Markey said it was clear BP was only siphoning off “just a small fraction.”

    “BP has mismanaged this entire incident from day one,” he said. “They should not be trusted.”

    BP spokesmen say the original leak estimate came from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, one of its federal partners in the joint spill response.

    “I understand the frustration,” Suttles told CBS. “We’re supplying information.”

    LIABILITY ISSUE

    “It’s obvious they are trying to limit information to protect their economic liability,” said Markey, chair of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

    In a sign of the Obama administration’s mounting anger and frustration, senior U.S. official have demanded BP share more data on the spill with them, accusing the company of falling short in keeping the government and public informed.

    There were signs of growing tension between BP officials and the U.S. government at the briefing in Robert. As Suttles described the “massive amount of information being gathered through this exercise,” Coast Guard Rear Admiral Mary Landry interrupted.

    “I have to challenge the word ‘exercise,’ Doug,” Landry said. “This is a full response.”

    BP said it was working with a newly created Flow Rate Technical Team to determine the exact amount of oil escaping.

    Suttles said BP had spent almost $700 million on the spill response and had “thrown absolutely everything” at the job. BP also is drilling a relief well to try to plug the leak but it probably would not be finished until August.

    On the Louisiana coast, fishermen counted the cost to their livelihoods. “This is going to keep killing stuff and it will make whole areas incapable of supporting marine life,” said George Barisich, president of the United Commercial Fishermen’s Association.

    BP has promised to pay legitimate damages claims and faces billions of dollars in expected cleanup and damages costs.

    (Additional reporting by Anna Driver and Chris Baltimore in Houston, Matt Spetalnick in Washington; Tom Bergin in London; Writing by Pascal Fletcher; Editing by Bill Trott)

     

  • Out of sight, Out of trouble

     

    I suspect that no amount of evidence will sway some of these people. There’s a large contingent which seems to hate renewables come what may. However often you point them to papers showing how a European supergrid, which could one day stretch from Iceland to North Africa, allows us to balance renewable resources against each other, ensuring constant supplies; however often you explain the potential of smart appliances, a smart grid and new energy storage technologies, they just clamp their fingers in their ears and shout: “No, no, no!” I don’t know how to explain this unreasoning antagonism, but it casts an interesting light on the oft-repeated myth that it is environmentalists who are hostile to new technologies.

    But even the defeatists might be swayed by some of the findings of the Offshore Valuation report, just published by the Public Interest Research Centre (Pirc). It’s the first time anyone has tried to work out how much electricity could be produced by offshore renewables in the UK, and the results are fascinating.

    It examines only existing technologies – wind turbines with both fixed and floating foundations, wave machines, tidal range and tidal stream devices – and the contribution they can make by 2050.

    It accepts the usual constraints on offshore renewables: maximum water depths, the need to avoid dense shipping lanes and other obstacles, the various technical limits. Having applied these constraints, it finds that the practical resource for offshore renewables in the UK is 2,130 terawatt hours per year. This is six times our current electricity demand.

    Were we to use only 29% of the total resource, the UK would become a net electricity exporter. We would be generating energy equivalent to 1bn barrels of oil a year, which roughly corresponds to the average amount of North Sea oil and gas the UK has been producing over the past four decades.

    The report estimates that this industry would directly employ 145,000 people and produce annual revenues of £62bn. The construction effort would be roughly similar to building the North Sea oil and gas infrastructure: eminently plausible, in other words, if propelled by strong government policy.

    Were we to make use of 76% of the resource, the UK would become a net exporter of total energy. This is a tougher call, but not necessarily impossible: we’d be producing the equivalent of 150% of the energy output from UK’s peak production year for oil and gas (1999).

    It would mean building an average of 1,800 7.5 megawatt wind turbines every year. This is likely to stretch available manpower and construction capacity to the maximum, possibly beyond. But if enough investment is sunk into training, manufacturing and transport, the potential for creating both employment and income is enormous.

    The national grid, the report estimates, could accommodate about 50% variable renewables (power sources whose output depends on the weather) by 2050, as long as it had 34 gigawatts of backup capacity, energy storage and interconnectors linking it with the continent. This is both plausible and affordable. (Backup, to address another persistent myth, does not mean that the necessary thermal power plants are kept running all the time, just that they are available if needed.)

    There are some interesting implications. The UK could close its looming energy gap without using new sources of fossil fuels. It could do this without encountering the public hostility which often scuppers onshore windfarms.

    The best wind resources are mostly way out of the sight of land: the further out to sea you go, the stronger the wind becomes. A recent study shows that offshore windfarms can greatly increase the abundance of fish and crabs. (My hope is that the foundations could be connected by a web of steel cables, so the windfarms could function as marine reserves which never needed to be policed, as trawling through them would be impossible.)

    It also raises some important questions. If the offshore resource is so abundant and its deployment likely to cause hardly any political fuss, should we give up fighting for onshore windfarms? I don’t know, but I would appreciate your views.

    The report also makes me wonder whether, in the light of the damage they will do and of the far greater resources in the open sea, a Severn barrage and other tidal range devices are worth developing. The report suggests that the total practical resource for offshore wind is 1,939 terawatt hours per year, while the total tidal range resource is just 36 – and more expensive to deploy. Given the aggro tidal barrages will cause and the habitats they will destroy, are they worth developing?

    If any of this is to happen, the big decisions will need to be taken in the next year or so. So if ever you meet ministers or officials, ask them these questions. Have they read the report? What do they intend to do about it?

    www.monbiot.com

  • GetUp A Friday Cartoon

    2 – An important win for the river red gums on the Murray-Darling.
    On Wednesday night NSW Premier Kristina Keneally reversed her position and passed a bill to protect river red gum trees in the Murray-Darling basin. Thousands of hectares of these sacred old trees were set to be logged, but in the last month 11,000 GetUp members faxed, emailed or called the Premier’s office asking her to protect the trees. Congratulations! Thanks to your efforts, and the tireless campaigning of our friends in the environment movement (particularly the Wilderness Society and the National Parks Association), these ancient trees will now be safe from logging. Click here to send a message of thanks to Premier Keneally on twitter, or here by email.

    3 – We’re Australia’s largest progressive advertiser
    This week alone we have an incredible two newspaper ads and three television ads running across the country.

    Page 5 of the Australian yesterday featured our parody ad on the mining super profits tax — and because members hit the target of $105,000 you can find a new ad today in the Oil and Mining Markets page (p. 31) of the The Australian Financial Review: the paper delivered straight to the desks of mining executives.

    Three GetUp ads are also running on TV at the moment, made possible by donations from GetUp members. Did you know you were such a media powerhouse?

    Mental Health: our message from Australian of the Year, Prof. Patrick McGorry, will continue running for the next month, with some 400 ad spots booked across the country.
    Refugees: the GetUp ad featuring Riz Wakil, an Afghan refugee, is running on Border Security (with an audience of 2 million) and SBS world news in major cities.
    Internet Censorship: our Censordyne ad parodying the Government’s proposed internet filter is still showing every Sunday on Channel 10.

    4 – We’re making waves in Parliament House
    In recent weeks, tens of thousands of GetUp members called their Labor representatives at their electorate and Parliament House offices to voice dissent over the Government’s delay on climate action. We asked our MPs and Senators to speak up in the Labor party caucus over the back-flip. It worked: “PM tries to pacify worried caucus” read the headline in The Herald Sun1.

    To drive it home, GetUp traveled to Parliament House and hand delivered a dossier to every parliamentarian showing the number of GetUp members in their electorate, and the total number of actions and donations. One MP in Victoria said he’d received over 150 calls from GetUp members in a day — more than their office usually receives in months!

    GetUp is more than any one campaign or single success. Your actions breath life into the progressive principles of social justice, economic fairness and environmental sustainability. Together our movement, now 350,000 strong, holds power to account, whatever its form, and helps create a fairer, more sustainable and more just Australia.

    Now there’s an election coming–word in Canberra is that it may be upon us as early as July or August. Elections are moments for movements to bind together to make a difference. It is a time to recommit ourselves to achieving real progress and to inspire others to take notice and join the cause.

    Thanks for making these past weeks possible,
    The GetUp Team.

    –RECENT MEDIA COVERAGE OF GETUP CAMPAIGNS–
    Television

    Print

    –Sources–
    1 “PM tries to pacify worried caucus”, Michael Harvey, Ben Packham, The Herald Sun, 11 May 2010.

  • Campbell resigns for ”personal reasons’

     

    However, he does apologise to her and his family, colleagues, staff and the community for letting them down.

    He has asked for his family’s privacy to be respected and says it will be a difficult time.

    Mr Campbell says he will remain the Member for Keira.

    “I am incredibly proud of my achievements while serving as minister for transport, roads, police, small business, the Illawarra, regional development and water utilities,” Mr Campbell said in the statement.

    Mr Campbell has been under pressure to resign several times, most recently for his handling of an accident on the F3 north of Sydney. The accident left motorists stranded for hours.

    The Opposition had also called for him to stand down over the tens of millions lost on the scrapped CBD Metro.

    Tags: government-and-politics, states-and-territories, australia, nsw

    First posted 43 minutes ago