|
When formulating regulations for an industry practice, it is best to base your decisions on (choose one):
A. Public opinion polls.
B. Political expediency.
C. Some stuff I read on the web, and I’m pretty sure it’s true.
D. Facts.
As the second U.S. President, John Adams, famously said, “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” He was not speaking about energy regulations, but he could have been. This is not to say that scientific facts are pudgy, immutable things. Scientific research may be modified and reexamined, and ideas tested and retested, but there is still objective truth, and that’s what we’re looking for. Right?
Here’s a fact. Public perception is crucially important in developing regulations. This is especially true today, right now, in the debate over development of shale hydrocarbon resources. What people think is true is just as important as what is actually true. If enough of the public believes that the risks of hydraulic fracturing outweigh the benefits, then more communities will turn to severe restrictions or even outright bans on the technology.
A breath of non-polluted air. An upcoming report by the University of Texas’ Energy Institute, hopefully entitled “Fact-based regulation for environmental protection in shale gas development” (still in draft form) addresses the issue of public perception clearly and directly.
The report reveals a disturbing trend in media coverage: the “tone” of reporting on shale gas development, “has been overwhelmingly negative in all forms of media.” Fully two-thirds of all stories on the subject were deemed negative, and less than a third were even neutral. This was true nationally and locally, inside and outside shale country. The same study found that only a small minority of stories and articles carried any mention of scientific research on the subject. Online articles were most likely to utilize science, roughly one-third, but only 20% of newspapers mentioned any sort of scholarly research. This is really, really sad, but at least it points a sharp finger at where the focus should be—public education. Unfortunately, even when you have the facts on your side, it doesn’t always help that much.
In an article published last month in AlterNet by author Chris Mooney (writing on an entirely different subject, but the idea is the same), he lamented the existence of “the ‘smart idiots’ effect: The fact that politically sophisticated or knowledgeable people are often more biased, and less persuadable, than the ignorant. It’s a reality that generates endless frustration for many scientists—and indeed, for many well-educated, reasonable people.”
Given the general media slant, and the general lack of hard information, it is not surprising that perceptions of hydraulic fracturing trend from generally negative to openly hostile. The most common concerns cited by the report center around groundwater. First, the fracing process itself will contaminate the aquifer, and second that methane will subsequently invade wellwater, leading to the infamous “no smoking near the sink” phenomenon.
The Energy Institute studied instances of reported groundwater contamination in the Barnett, Marcellus and Haynesville regions, and reached several significant conclusions: 1) There was no evidence of aquifer contamination by the chemicals used in fracing; 2) many instances of groundwater contamination resulted from casing/cementing failures in all types of wells, not especially in hydraulically fractured ones; 3) methane found in drinking water was most often attributable to pre-existing, shallow methane; and 4) the greatest risk of contamination from hydraulic fluids is from surface spills.
Regulation and standards in a highly complex industry should, and do, exist in abundance. Often, the issues in question pertain to oil and gas drilling in general. Most authority falls on the states, some of which have specific regulations for shale development and some don’t. The Energy Institute cites a number of “regulatory gaps” in some states, particularly in the areas of well casing and cementing, water usage, and waste or “slickwater” storage and disposal.
Updating regulations. Several initiatives are underway from organizations, such as the national non-profit Groundwater Protection Council (GWPC) and State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Regulations (STRONGER), to help develop and improve state regulation of shale hydrocarbon development. Recent regulatory revisions have been concerned with proper casing and cementing of wells to protect groundwater, management of wastewater, and disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals.
The public needs to understand that potential hazards are being addressed, and that industry is fully appreciative of the real problems, and that efforts should be most concentrated where there is the greatest risk, such as surface spills. Most of all, I think people should understood risks versus benefits. The best potential for U.S. energy independence lies in its vast abundance of shale gas, and it is hydraulic fracturing that makes this gas abundant.
The temptation when confronted with illogical arguments and hyperbole is to start throwing slushballs. This accomplishes nothing and reinforces the opposition’s contention that you’re a Big Oil trog. The drilling industry needs to rely more on studies like this one from independent organizations like the Energy Institute, patiently educating and building consensus. It might seem futile sometimes, but then, there’s a lot at stake.
Of course, once you start using science to bolster a position, you have to accept it won’t always be your prom date—science might convince you that you were wrong sometimes. A risk worth taking, I think. 
|
