Rob Edwards highlights the confusion regarding the Scottish Government's moratorium on fracking (New front in the fracking war, News, February 1).

Shale gas fracking is covered by the moratorium; underground coal gasification (UCG) is not. In the Firth of Forth area, 335 million tonnes of coal have been identified for gasification. Does Holyrood have powers to include UCG in the moratorium, and if so what are these powers?

Energy licensing is reserved to Westminster, the UK Government can grant licences that confer exclusive rights to "search and bore for and get" petroleum over a limited area for a limited period. "Petroleum" includes natural gas in its natural condition in strata, clearly not UCG since the process involves converting coal into gas by burning it, with the resulting synthetic gas, known as syngas. Licences relating to natural gas are issued by the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC); licences for syngas are issued by the Coal Authority.

The eco sensitive DECC is the parent organisation of the dirty polluting Coal Authority. Both organisations seem to issue licences without regard for environmental or health concerns, which then fall within the remit of the local planning regime, where the Scottish Government is empowered to intervene. Planning authorities are directed through the Scottish Planning Policy on matters relating to extraction of resources, such as the need for a risk assessment, but unfortunately, although shale gas and coal bed methane are covered, UCG is not referred to.

The Firth of Forth issue is further clouded by innuendo from the coal gas companies that the moratorium may affect employment at Grangemouth, as if INEOS's reliance on natural shale gas is somehow dependent on a local supply, but syngas is not compatible with their operations.

The division of powers between the UK and the Scottish Government in this matter must be put right.

Les Cox

Helensburgh

Dr Harry Bradbury, chief executive of Five Quarter, suggests "we can all go back to sackcloth and ashes" if giving up on fossil fuels is mankind's future agenda (Coal gas industry chief hits out at green activists, News, February 1). Actually we can't. With a massive human population of 7bn - potentially 10bn before the century ends - subsistence living scenarios are not an option.

The inference in Dr. Bradbury's observation is that without fossil fuels to power human economies the continuation of our advanced technology-based societies becomes impossible. Plenty of recent studies demonstrate that this is not true. Solar, wind and wave power, reinforced by geothermal, tidal, biofuel based and clean nuclear power are well capable of supplying the energy demands of our modern world economies. What is missing is the political will to make it happen.

Alan J Sangster

Edinburgh