AIBU to think women are against fracking because of the science not because they don't understand!

[deeedeee]

'Many women are against fracking because they “don’t understand” the process due to a lack of education in science'.

That's what Prof Averil MacDonald, who works for the UK oil and gas industry, says is the reason women are against fracking.

There is clear scientific evidence of the hugely negative environmental, social and climate change impacts of fracking, but she clearly does not want to listen to that!

What could possibly have clouded Prof MacDonald's views on women's scientific judgement? Oh, wait a minute! She chairs the industry body industry body UK Onshore Oil and Gas which represents the views of the fossil fuel companies.

Read more here www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-dont-understand-fracking-due-to-lack-of-education-industry-chief-claims-a6705166.html

Trouble with "some" scientists and academics with specialisms in fields related to fracking is that their education, research and future careers are owned by the oil and gas industry. So an independent frame of reference is very difficult, even if unintentionally.

Trouble with thinking that these academics and scientists are the only people that can "understand" is that you leave out so many issues, such as public health specialists, climate scientists etc.

Although to think that fracking can be "perfectly safe" is at best naive and to my mind uninformed . A best case scenario would be that with enough regulation fracking would still be unacceptably risky to the environment and public health. But the amount of regulation needed would render it economically unviable. Which is why the oil and gas industry lobby government for looser regulation. In the UK's case, successfully.

And climate science is quite clear it's untenable.

MacDonald's suggestions that women make decisions based on both intuition and greater empathy because they are mothers has been a patronising trope for centuries...insulting to women and men...also that stat about women giving up science at 16 seems surprising...what she prob should have said is that there are less women studying the TEM part of STEM (if you exclude the Science bit of Science, Technology, Engineering & Maths) But not true in life sciences. When we have recruited PhDs for a life science fellowship network most of the applicants, and selected fellows were women. Of course once you get to senior posts again most of the posts are filled by men but that's a whole other story isn't it? Macdonald might as well have suggested women can't gather and understand evidence because the poor wee fools can't read!

deeedeee It is you who is woefully misinformed on fracking. It can be perfectly safe and economically viable. Also, replacing coal usage with gas reduces CO2 emissions.

I don't know about you girls, but in between shopping and moisturising I don't have much time for boring stuff.

I think I saw Kim k s fracking tape.

Carole, I respectfully completely disagree with you.

And there is plenty of countries around the world that do too.

Starting with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, who all have moratoriums and amendments to their planning rules to forbid any unconventional gas developments.

Because it is not perfectly safe. And it will not help us "transition" away from coal. That is all spin from the industry that wants to frack at all costs due to MONEY

I actually no very little about fracking other than the basic mechanics of the process , which lets be honest is hardly bloody rocket science .

What concerns me about fracking is responsibility and culpability with regards any potential damage to either private property ( my home ) or the wider environment . If there is legislation in place to protect both should something unforeseen ( or possibly foreseen ) take place , then I would feel a whole lot happier about the process .

Carole, do you truly believe that "replacing coal usage with gas reduces CO2 emissions."?

What about fugitive methane emissions? Methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas then CO2.

Any large scale extraction of shale gas in the UK is likely to be at least 10-15 years away. It is also unlikely to be able to compete against the extensive renewable energy sector we should have by 2025-30 unless developed at a significant scale. By that time, it is likely that unabated coal-fired power generation will have been phased out to meet EU emissions directives, so fracking will not substitute for (more carbon-intensive) coal. Continually tightening carbon budgets under the Climate Change Act will have significantly curtailed our scope for fossil fuel energy, and as a consequence only a very small fraction of the possible shale gas deposits will be burnable.

A moratorium on the extraction of unconventional gas through fracking is needed to avoid the UK's carbon budgets being breached in the 2020s and beyond, and the international credibility of the UK in tackling climate change being critically weakened.

Aaaargh know not no !!!!!!

sorry frumpet!

didn't mean to ignore you.

Yes adequate restoration bonds would be part of adequate regulation, which there currently is not! It is imperative that commercial operators have sufficient resources and insurance to cover full liability in the event of a pollution incident. Currently they don't/

deeeDeee There are around 200 on-shore wells in the UK which all use fracking technology and have done for decades.

Large scale extraction would happen much quicker if people like yourself stopped being so irrational about it.

I was going to say the same as Carol, we've been fracturing wells for years in this county including some in areas of outstanding natural beauty. Look at the wells in Beckingham and in areas of Hampshire such as Wytch farm.

In the USA, they don't have the same safeguards we have. The hoops that have to be jumped through to do anything on an oil site are huge, involving DECC, The Environment Agency and the local planning authority. They have regular audits on practice from the EA, DECC and the local authority which the oil company has to pay for.

It is people like you misleading others by making them think that the technique of "fracking" ( that as you correctly say has been used in conventional oil and gas production) involves the same processes and chemicals and volumes of water and traffic and carries the same controversies and risk as full scale Unconventional Gas Extraction industrialising swathes of the UK.

Hydraulic fracturing for shale gas has only happened in one well in the UK at Preese Hall. It is a significantly different process. Stop misleading people.

Do you not realise this yourself? or are you deliberately misleading?

Mrs Pnut, do you not realise that too?

The process of fracking is the same no matter what the well, hydraulic fracturing is so similar to conventional fracturing that there is no need for hysteria.

There are significant differences, due to the huge number of wells needed to make the Shale Gas industry profitable. Leading to increased risk of leakage through the wells into water table, increased issues disposing of produced water, rogue emissions, huge water consumption.

There is no hysteria here. Just facts.

Did you know that the term "hysteria" used to be considered a medical condition thought to be particular to women and caused by disturbances of the uterus ?

I find it fascinating that you should use that term in the context of this thread. Belittling the arguments of those with different opinions by using misleading statements is not good science, but suggesting they are hysterical is pretty low and also weirdly patriarchal!

The number of well heads used in the USA are far in excess of what would be used here. Many facts and figures used in fracking discussions come from the USA when the execution in this country will be very different due to enhanced regulations.

There is a massive amount of water being pumped into conventional oil wells we already have along with chemicals such as dewaxers and biocides to increase production without any harm to the environment. When was the last oil field accident in the UK reported?

Facts such as:

It is the same process
More wells mean more water used - luckily the UK is not a desert
Disposing of the water is not an issue and there is no evidence to show leakage into the water table.

Unless you can show some support for your ludicrous claims, you do come across as hysterical.

Ludricous?

The majority of what I've written, I copied and pasted from this report.

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmenvaud/856/85602.htm

From the conclusions page here.

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmenvaud/856/85607.htm

Environmental Audit - Eighth Report
Environmental risks of fracking
The published report was ordered by the House of Commons, 21 January 2015.

Any, back to the topic of the thread...

Isn't it ridiculous when a person is belittled , deemed "hysterical" and "Ludricous" or indeed as the opening post shows "uneducated " or misinformed for holding different views?

Someone just asked when the last oil field accident was and it reminded me that it was in the papers this week, although at uks second largest oil refinery rather than oil field
Piper alpha was a long time ago of course, but horrendous loss of life as well, still the highest death toll i think? 167 lives lost
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11940625/Stanlow-oil-refinery-blast-Firm-faces-fine-after-7000-gravestones-soaked-in-huge-leak.html

Wrt fracking, its all about tory donors and making them rich, not the science in any case

That was at a refinery, not an on-shore well (piper alpha was off shore conventional drilling well).

Another quote from your paper you missed out:

The evidence from a range of government bodies and independent scientific institutions is generally in agreement that fracking can proceed in the UK safely and without harm to the environment

That quote is completely out of it's context Carol.

I don't think it's good science to pull one quote out of it's context and headline it?

but it's not important. I'm sure anyone here interested in what that Government Report from January this year, that called for a UK wide moratorium on Shale Fracking, had to say will click on the link themselves and read the entire report. Or at least just the conclusions page.

They may also be interested in the suppressed DEFRA report that concluded that fracking would likely cause house prices to fall,impact don jobs in industries such as tourism and industrial pristine countryside.

Reported here

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/fracking/11712040/fracking-house-prices-defra-report.html

Entire report here

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/440791/draft-shale-gas-rural-economy-impact-report.pdf

Anyway, totally agree with you otto the dog, it's about money for those invested in these industries. Which must be huge amounts of individuals and companies, and effect much government policy and be far reaching in the corridors of power.

OK, without fear or favour, from the beginning of your report just linked:

This paper is an early draft of an internal document; it is not analytically robust. Work on it has since been discontinued.
The draft paper was intended as a review of existing literature. It includes early,often vague, assumptions which are not supported by appropriate evidence. These were never intended as considered Defra positions or as statements of fact.

In June 2012, the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering report
concluded that environmental (and health and safety) risks can be managed
effectively in the UK if operational best practices are enforced through
regulation. The UK has a rigorous and robust regulatory regime which is fully capable of preventing and managing any risks.

Read the news article I posted too Carol. I posted the one from the telegraph to be most palatable to you, but there are others too. That Defra report had been suppressed and only published in heavily redacted form. After a prolonged freedom of information struggle, the government published it unredacted.

Ministers immediately attempted to discredit the report, describing it as "an early draft of an internal document" and "not analytically robust".

The section you are quoting from is the new front page of the report that the government added when they were forced to publish it.

We hold very different views Carol, that's for sure.

Why do you think there are bans and moratoriums in Scotland, Wales, Germany, Northern Ireland, France, Bulgaria, New York State ( amongst many others keeptapwatersafe.org/global-bans-on-fracking/) ?

Why do you think the New York Compedium, a frequently updated independent view of increasing numbers of reports on fracking, that informed the ban in New York State , is not independent?