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

Dee

Will ignore the second one because if the locals can't be arsed to read planning applications made around them ,it is their own fault - fraking is no different to a housing estate in this example.

On the first, the article has issues with:

water - They may not need a permit for using non-pollutants and may buy water from the local water supplier. (page 13)
chemicals - they have not been explicitly licenced for fracking (but all other controls, including pollution, drilling have been covered), so the laws od chemistry may change.
CO2 - discussed above.

None of this is evidence in any sense of the word.

Caroldecker in some cases the wool is pulled over peoples' eyes about planning applications. Secondly, recently the law changed so that there is now a bias to support fracking applications. So even if the local communities do object they have very little grounds to object from so the planning permission is likely to go through. Councils have very little power to fight fracking and communities less so. I presume you live far away from a shale rich area? It's not about people not being bothered. It's about peoples' lack of choice about what happens in their communities, close to their homes and schools.

Carol you missed this bit in the report:

"The planning guidance states that cumulative impacts are unlikely to be a consideration at the exploration stage regardless of how close well pads are. This is despite the National Planning Policy Framework referring to the relevance of cumulative impacts in assessing whether a development is appropriate to its location and in the public interest. This means that fracking impacts are segmented. Separating such aspects imposes an artificial distinction and ignores the full implication of the potential for environmental damage at the exploration stage, particularly when deficiencies in the regulation are ignored."

Which I think adds to my comments rather nicely.

I wonder if you missed anything else in that report when you read it?

I read that they received planning consent for FORMATION OF BOREHOLES FOR THE EXPLORATION AND EXTRACTION OF COAL BED METHANE on 18 sites.

Scottish planning law states that:
When the council receives an application for planning permission it will tell the neighbours (the meaning of ‘neighbours’ is set out in law) what is proposed, by sending them a notice. This notice tells them about the development and how, and by when, to make comments. Some types of application are also advertised in local newspapers, including when the council is unable to send a notice to neighbours. Councils put information about applications on a register and, every week, the council will prepare a list of the applications for that week and send it to community councils. The council will also make a full list of applications it has still to decide on, available in libraries and on its website.

Therefore all neighbours and community councils had the information about the extraction of coal bed methane and chose not to object or, as far as i can see, comment.

There was no 'riding roughshod' over the local community that I can see in this evidence.

I need to come back to you on two points -

firstly the excerpt I am referring to refers to the limitations related to objecting to planning applications. Yes, people are given the right to object but the process of the application is biased in favour of the oil industry. The excerpt I chose shows that for example when objecting you can only base your objections on the development of one well, each well is considered individually. So what they are saying is that one well has the same impact as 18 - which is clearly bonkers. Each well requires an enormous amount of infrastructure in place as it a highly industrialized process - yet each well considered individually seems relatively innocuous.

Secondly - as to why people didn't object - where I live planning applications are usually about chopping down trees and people building adding extensions to their houses. Extracting oil from just down the road is an alien concept - so out of keeping with the area. People get planning rejected if they need to chop down a protected tree - how would such an industrialised process even be allowed? Why would anyone allow some oil company to drill an oil/gas well in a field near my home? Why would anyone consider allowing a massive flare to be constructed and burnt within metres of where people? That would be ridiculous. That's why- people trust the planning process thinking it's there to protect them.

...metres of where people live? (is what I meant)

The full extract from the policy guidance is:

When should an operator assess cumulative effects?

56. Each application (or request for a screening opinion) should be considered on its own merits. There are occasions where other existing or approved development may be relevant in determining whether significant effects are likely as a consequence of a proposed development. The minerals planning authority should always have regard to the possible cumulative effects arising from any existing or approved phases of hydrocarbon extraction. There could also be circumstances where two or more applications should be considered together. For example, where the applications in question are not directly in competition with one another, so that both or all of them might be approved, and where the overall combined environmental impact of the proposals might be greater or have different effects than the sum of their separate parts.

57. It is unlikely that cumulative impact will be an issue at the exploration phase of development, regardless of how close individual well pads are to each other.

Each application has to be considered separately by the planning authority (as for any type of planning application), it is up to the authority to then consider the potential for cumulative effects from separate applications.

The guidance in Para 56 states that authorities do need to consider cumulative impacts.

I don't know why Para 57 is there, it doesn't say that cumulative effects shouldn't be considered just that they are unlikely, which is an opinion (and I can see how cumulative impacts can occur with closely spaced well pads, eg traffic, noise, vibration, dust etc) and just muddies the process.

But squirrelled if you are a objecting to a planning application to your local authority on the basis of cumulative impact the objection is considered "non-material" - ie it is not a relevant consideration of the town and country planning authority - it is decided , as you say, by the Mineral Planning Authority. So whether you or I think that the cumulative effect is objectionable is irrelevant it's what the Mineral Planning Authority thinks - and this is largely determined at a national policy level rather than a local one.

There is no logical reason to argue that that cumulative impact should not be considered at exploration stage. An exploratory well is actually the same thing as a production well. Perhaps what it does mean though is that it makes it easier to get planning permission for just one well, and then it's harder to prevent further activities taking place in that location and in other similar locations. It provides leverage - there is no change of use for the land etc. That's just my opinion though.

A Minerals Planning Authority is a local authority with responsibility for minerals planning, including dealing with planning applications - in England that's unitary authorities, County Councils and National Parks. So it is still dealt with at a local level.

All local plans should be set in accordance with national planning policies. You should lodge an objection(s) and relate it (them) directly to the relevant national planning policy (policies). If you are objecting to, say, a housing development then the most effective way is to demonstrate how it is contrary to national planning policies and to the local plan. Even then, local authorities can decide that there are reasons to deviate from national policies, and planning committees can override the advice of the planning department.

A Minerals Planning Authority is a local authority with responsibility for minerals planning, including dealing with planning applications - in England that's unitary authorities, County Councils and National Parks.

Which would be fine if your list of the Planning Authorities in the UK was not 1/3 incorrect.
County councils are NOT the planning authority.

And if you did not know, what hope have locals got?

TalkinPease County Councils are the planning authority for minerals development (and waste development, and County Council's own development, such as schools). The District Councils are the planning authority for all other matters (except areas covered by a Unitary or National Park Authority). Trust me, I'm a minerals planner!

There are two National Parks round here
that cannot see eye to eye with ANY of the tiers of authority

One of them is threatened by fracking
but have a stupendously well informed person in the team campaigning against
its going to be interesting

The MPAs are required to "make provision for the extraction of nationally important resources". It requires councils to set criteria for the location and assessment of drilling sites.
It is assumed that the development of these sites in principle is acceptable.

This is despite national imperatives to reduce carbon emissions.

Kent County Council published their position on fracking and note that, "LPAs should give great weight to the benefits of mineral extraction, including the economy. ". The government's approach is that "in principle" fracking gets the go ahead and LPAs are tied to this.

It actually flies in the face of many other elements of the NPPF.

As I understand it, under the NPPF MPAs must plan for mineral extraction, and in doing so must understand the extent of the potential resource and how it could be developed, and address constraints on production within licensed areas. Local plans have to address the potential for fracking developments in their areas, and if local plans do not specifically address fracking or are seen as placing constraints then these will be seen as out-of-date and will be accorded little weight if applications are called in.

Sites will still need to meet the environmental criteria and MPAs still need to address cumulative impacts of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or a number of sites in a locality..

The NPPF endorses exploration, as without this the extent of the reserves are not proven, and this is in line with the NPPF policy of giving great weight to the economic benefits of mineral extraction.

But you're correct in that it is not in accordance with the need to reduce carbon emissions.

It also contradicts the NPPF statement regarding protecting and enhancing the natural environment.

Also - who decided that exctracting hydrocarbon from shale was a "must"? Why has it been decided that it absolutely has to happen? Who will really stand to benefit and at what cost? If you look at the economic arguments and who is involved with the key operating companies in the UK it is not as clear cut as the mass media would have you believe.

I don't actually understand why if local plans place constraints upon fracking they should be regarded as "out of date" - please explain.

Regarding cumalative impact - as you said they do not consider cumulative impact for an exploratory well - yet actually an exploratory well is the first of many if it shows that the target formation is shale rich and recoverable - so why isn't it a material objection to object to the fact that a test well will result in more wells? Afain it reflects a bias in favour of the exploration companies not the communities they are operating in.

Sites do need to meet environmental criteria but they are not required to complete an Environmental Impact Assessment unless the development is greater than 1 hectare in size. Cuadrilla were able to proceed in Balcombe for example without one as the site was slightly smaller than that. There are easy ways around the laws which again work in favour of the exploration. Communities find themselves powerless.

Regarding objecting to planning - you are limited to objecting about noise, traffic movements and vibration rather than emissions and other aspects related to the actual process of extraction as the assumption is that the relevant agencies will monitor these effectively. However experience shows that this is not the case.

The system is built very securely to protect the industry over the community.

Then, when you complain about fracking, you're told either that you're just a woman - how could you possibly understand? Or, you're some sort of green idealist who lives in the clouds and hasn't got a clue?

Who does it benefit to have such an extreme view of people who protest against the development of fracking and how has it become acceptable for such discourse?

According to the NPPF local plans can't place constraints on mineral extraction (Para 144) so any local plans which do place constraints do not conform to the NPPF and so the presumption is in favour of development (Para 14).

No, I didn't say that planners can't consider cumulative impacts for exploratory wells - the NPPF is quite explicit that cumulative impacts should be considered. However, because the NPPF emphasises the weight of economic benefits of mineral extraction then there is a necessity to define those resources.According to the NPPF local plans can't place constraints on mineral extraction (Para 144) so any local plans which do place constraints do not conform to the NPPF and so the presumption is in favour of development (Para 14).

No, I didn't say that planners can't consider cumulative impacts for exploratory wells - the NPPF is quite explicit that cumulative impacts should be considered. However, because the NPPF emphasises the weight of economic benefits of mineral extraction then there is a necessity to define those resources.According to the NPPF local plans can't place constraints on mineral extraction (Para 144) so any local plans which do place constraints do not conform to the NPPF and so the presumption is in favour of development (Para 14).

No, I didn't say that planners can't consider cumulative impacts for exploratory wells - the NPPF is quite explicit that cumulative impacts should be considered. However, because the NPPF emphasises the weight of economic benefits of mineral extraction then there is a necessity to define those resources.

Exploratory wells can avoid having to go through EIA if the site is deemed to be not in a sensitive area and it does not reach storage thresholds or exceed 1 Ha in area. However, any site deemed to be within a sensitive area and likely to have significant environmental impacts will need an EIA. The screening opinion for Balcombe found that the proposed operations did not have the potential for significant impacts on the environment within the meaning of the relevant regulations.

Correction, the site size threshold is 0.5 ha.

.5ha for surface activities, 1ha for deep drilling.

Wouldn't it make more sense for an Environmental Impact Assessment to be required for all onshore drilling? Especially as some of the proposed locations are in sensitive areas?

The screening opinion for Balcombe was on the basis that the site was located within a sensitive area and exceeded 0.5 Ha in extent, and so fell under Schedule 2 of the EIA Regs. The screening opinion considered that environmental risks would be managed under the environmental and HSE permitting regimes, that the works were temporary and considered the site to be brownfield.

For the sake of public transparency, it would be better for EIA to be required for all proposed deep exploratory wells, but whether that would be technically necessary if the environmental permitting regime is robust enough is another matter.

You've looked at the EIA permission relating to Jan 2014. The drilling had already been done (google Balcombe fracking 2013). However you will know that one of the reasons an EIA wasn't required in this instance is the fact that hydrocarbon exploration had already taken place there - hence supporting my view that exploratory drilling paves the way in planning terms for further drilling in an area so therefore cumulative impact should not be ignored.

But I'm glad you agree that it would be better for an EIA to be required for all wells - if only for transparency. Given that fracking has yet to obtain "social license" to take place you'd think it would be in their interest to do so if it's such a low impact technology. Why isn't it? Another example of protecting industry over community?

And now there's this - Tories have changed their mind about fracking in - national parks and groundwater protection areas ..

www.lep.co.uk/news/community/u-turn-will-allow-fracking-in-protected-areas-mps-claim-1-7542865

How is this working for the benefit of communities and the general public?

I've looked at both the 2010 and the 2014 screening opinions, and both concluded that environmental risks would be managed by the EA and HSE permitting regimes and that the works were considered to be temporary. I don't think the fact that ConocoPhillips originally drilled the site in 1986, and hence it being brownfield, would have been of over riding importance - in my opinion it's more that the existing permitting regimes were considered appropriate and sufficient to manage the risks and the identified impacts were considered to be temporary (traffic, waste, hydrology, light, noise, dust etc) and could be addressed by specialist reports and planning and permitting conditions rather than requiring a full EIA.

Yes and experience, in this case, proved that existing permitting regulations were not satisfactory (if you want the documents relating to this comment then I can send them). All you have confirmed to me is how the planning system is operating to protect industry.

Hence my argument that an EIA should be mandatory.

It's an area of outstanding natural beauty BTW, the well pad is in a field adjacent to a B road, less than .5km from homes. It is surrounded by tributaries to the Ouse and ancient woodland (and during the summer of 2013 lots of tents and an extraordinary large number of police officers).

We seem to have hijacked the thread...

I'm aware of the site, and its environmental setting. I've produced specialist reports and risk assessments for similar sites for EIAs, due diligence, contamination, remediation etc. I've also been hands on with onshore drilling operations (not oil and gas) and have a good understanding of many of the technical processes involved.

I'm also aware of Cuadrilla's various breaches of planning permissions, and I've read the judicial review by Mr Justice Gilbart. I don't particularly support your view that the planning regime operates support to industry, I do think that the onshore permitting regimes need to be tightened up and more integrated.