What both the protesters and those in favour of drilling at Balcombe do not seem to understand is that, whatever they say, they are simply expressing opinions and not facts.

One fact is that if oil is found in commercial quantities it will have to be transported from the site. This can only be done in three ways: road, rail or pipeline.

Whatever system is used, there will be consequences which locals may find unacceptable.

A pipeline will necessitate the digging of trenches through the countryside, large fuel tankers will probably need new roads to travel on and new rail tracks would have to be laid to connect with the main line.

A pipeline may well be able to transport the fuel away from the well directly but I would assume the road or rail alternatives will require storage tanks on site, which will obviously prove unsightly as well as causing disruption while they are being built.

There is also the fact that if the process of hydraulic fracturing is used the transportation process will double, as this method requires large quantities of sand to be carried to the site, either by road or rail.

One railway company in the US makes 15% of its profits just by transporting fracking sand.

While this letter may be taken as an argument for the protesters, there is another that can be made for the supporters.

I watched a report on a New York TV station last week which stated that the average American was now the equivalent of £800 a year better off due to the cheaper fuel being produced through the fracking process. Car and home utility costs had fallen and manufacturers had also experienced considerably lower production costs.

Personally, I haven’t formed an opinion as to what is going on at Balcombe but the fact is that, whatever the outcome, one group is going to end up dissatisfied.

I hope they will bear in mind that it is just not possible to please all of the people all of the time.

Eric Waters, Ingleside Crescent, Lancing