Earlier this week I sat with a group of citizens, oil and gas industry people, and officials from the Department of Environment and Conservation to begin hammering out a proposal for regulation of hydro-fracturing in Tennessee.
This process essentially began with a bill to limit high volume hydro-fracking in the state. In a legislative compromise, Tennesseans got, instead, a resolution that encouraged specified citizen groups, the Tennessee Oil and Gas Association and TDEC to meet with the purpose of proposing regulations to provide necessary oversight for the use of hydrological fracturing as a method of modern natural gas extraction in Tennessee."
House Resolution 98 stated that the goals of these regulations would be
to protect Tennessee’s groundwater quality and drinking water supplies, to protect the collative rights of the land and mineral owners, and to allow for development, protection, and management of the resource of natural gas deposits.
The initial meeting for these purposes on Wednesday was interesting, to say the least. For me, it brought more into focus the ways different stakeholders fundamentally view humankind's relationship to nature, and how those views drive the behavior which -- if analyzed in terms of natural consequences -- tells us how future life on Earth will look.
Source:Energy Information Administration
The day after our meeting in Knoxville, the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) Natural Gas Subcommittee released a 90-day report on hydrofracking that had been called for in the Obama Administration's Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future. The purpose for this 90-day report was to identify any immediate steps that could be taken to improve the safety and environmental performance of the practice of fracking.
For me, reading this report was a little like deja vu because the recommendations of the Subcommittee closely paralleled the issues that citizen groups had put on the table in our meeting with TDEC and TOGA.
Deja vu all over again was reading responses to the Natural Gas Subcommittee's report. If I hadn't heard them all at the Wednesday meeting, I'd heard it at other meetings and hearings on oil and gas regulations in Tennessee.
For example, Erik Milito of the American Petroleum Institute commented on an analysis of the report and response to it by Michael Levi:
While I have great respect for your coverage of energy issues I have to take issue with your interpretation of my comment on the DOE report. It was meant to underscore that opponents of natural gas who claim that shale gas development is unregulated and unsafe are incorrect and that any work toward improving both the development of energy from shale and perceptions of that development must start with recognizing the hard work that regulators and industry already perform to ensure that this important resource has been, and will continue to be, developed responsibly. Far from being a dismissal of further studies and improvement – best practices and regulations are continuously evolving and part of that evolution is identifying problems and solving them– the comment was a reminder that any DOE recommendations must be based on reality and not on the alarmist rhetoric of those opposed to resource development.
And from Jim at Marcellus Drilling News:
The report says in the Executive Summary:
This 90-day report presents recommendations that if implemented will reduce the environmental impacts from shale gas production. The Subcommittee stresses the importance of a process of continuous improvement in the various aspects of shale gas production that relies on best practices and is tied to measurement and disclosure. While many companies are following such a process, much-broader and more extensive adoption is warranted. The approach benefits all parties in shale gas production: regulators will have more complete and accurate information; industry will achieve more efficient operations; and the public will see continuous, measurable improvement in shale gas activities.
MDN’s interpretation of the above paragraph: Some companies are doing it right, but others are not, and we think a heavy-handed top-down approach that forces everyone to follow our rules is the best solution. Bottom line: Get ready for the federal government to start interfering in states’ business. The federal government is building a case, via this report and no doubt the second report due from the Subcommittee in another 90 days, for a federal takeover of regulations for oil and gas drilling, instead of letting states oversee what is their constitutional right to oversee.
On the other side of the fracking divide, here's an excerpt from an Earthworks press release:
An Energy Department advisory panel today called for swift action to protect air, drinking water and public health from the impacts of the shale gas boom. Earthworks applauded the recommendations, but said loopholes in key environmental laws must still be closed to shield communities in America's gas patch from the risks of drilling and fracking.
Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), who coauthored the FRAC Act, which would mandate public disclosure of fracking chemicals and allow the EPA to regulate fracking under the Safe Drinking Water Act, also released a statement on the report:
I continue to have significant concerns that six of the seven members on the Natural Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board have financial ties to the natural gas industry, which inherently creates a conflict of interest. Nevertheless, the fact that this same subcommittee found a wide array of improvements that should be made by the natural gas industry and government agencies underscores the fact that we as a nation are not adequately prepared yet to protect the public and environment from an unprecedented level of drilling across the country.
You can see more responses via links in Michael Levy's article and in this one by Tara Lohan at Alternet.
The geology of natural gas resources. Source: EIA
The meeting on Wednesday, the Subcommittee Report, and the response to their recommendations has been revealing, and adds much to some research I'm doing on humankind's ambivalent relationship to nature and to the Earth. A core question going forward has to do with how systems change, how they evolve. More to come on that subject....
One more note for people who are concerned about natural gas development and extraction:
Next Monday, August 15th, SEAB will hold an open teleconference at which Natural Gas Subcommittee members will present their report. Members of the public will be able to comment during the teleconference. Registration for this event closed on August 10th, but anyone can still submit comments in writing to Amy Bodette, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington D.C. 20585, or email to [email protected].
Comments