FRACKING BLUES, second note What to do? An approach from Citizen Science

[1]

From: FORBES,  Feb 20, 2018. Fracking Has Its Costs And Benefits-The Trick Is Balancing Them. Foto iStock

Recapitulating: What is the Fracking?


 In an earlier blog, I discover that the fracking idea predates the oil industry, and there are some data from the early gaslighting of London. I also found that the techniques of rock fracturing were used by Soviet engineers in central Asia 90 years ago to increase water production, and for American engineers 70 years ago for secondary oil extraction of declining oil wells. I also found that the directional drilling techniques were perfected 40 years ago to horizontally access complex strata, and 20 years ago was common the use of computers and complex information systems for business applications.  Moreover, all these elements have had relatively adequate environmental management[2].


Other things that affect the technique of hydrofracture and that I do not cover in the present blog are the existence of an appropriate regulation or issues in its application by  States and Governments. Among the laws are examples of adequate relationships between actors such as in Alberta, Canada, as much as, the extreme poor operating ones, that provide a quite good, bad examples.


The issue of application of the regulations is complex and ranges from professional and institutional deficiencies to the credibility aspects of governments and corporate public image. The credibility of the governments and the public perception of the companies are low in Latin America, the Arab countries, the African continent and the countries of the former Soviet Union. In the fossil fuel industry, the image and credibility of governments, industry leaders, the perceptions of citizens, the handling of information seldom cured by communications professionals are intermingled; and the suspicions and simplicities of social networks. Misinformation is frequent.


The technique of hydrofracture has several technological achievements by effectively coordinating the fracturing of hard-to-flow deposits, with directed drilling, with information and modelling systems, with process control technologies, with the reduction of costs, with risk management [3] and with the development of financial instruments. It can be said that the technique is an impressive achievement of engineering and project management.


In practice all processes of the technique are environmentally manageable; but several of the aspects noted by those who question the use of the method are not without reason; in particular, to exacerbate emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHG) when we are already suffering the effects of climate change and overexploitation of the planet.


Here we need a clarification: The emotional and perceptual elements about the threats of the technique are presented in about eight out of ten observations. Apart from the effect of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere and cumulative impacts; the others are the threats and operational risks of the oil industry due to problems typical of the industrial activities of the sector.




The central question


Addressing these issues from a citizen science perspective and accepting that fracking is a technique capable of being managed environmentally; so:


How to take advantage of hydrofracture technology safely under current global conditions?


The use of the hydrofracture technique requires considering the real risks; and the main risk is the environmental consequences of GHG, among which the use of Natural Gas [4] due to the application of the technique. The use of Natural Gas will contribute CO2 that will be added to the GHG that is continuously emitted into the atmosphere. The addition of more GHG is the most relevant real aspect of the observations of those who oppose the hydrofracture.


Since the administrative units of Planet Earth are the States or countries and within each of these States there are temporary administrations called governments, it is the obligation of each one of the professionals of the sciences and the environment as well as of all the informed citizens to influence in governments to promote and promote these policies. Faced with such a formidable challenge generated by the GHG, there are no excuses.


Three Policies Necessary for a country that allows Fracking technology


The use of the hydrofracture technique due to its ability to exacerbate the problems of CO2 and other GHG emissions must be framed and coordinated with three unambiguous and well-defined policies that are:


1- A Zero Carbon Balance Policy by 2050 and decarbonization of the economy in coherence with the country's objectives and international agreements on climate change, biodiversity, sustainable development, social development and economic development. Moreover, each state must achieve its zero balance within the 2050 framework.


Already 19 countries and 32 large cities meeting in the "Carbon Neutrality Coalition" [5] have policies or are developing zero-balance strategies, by balancing carbon emissions with carbon removal or with carbon and gas compensation measures of the greenhouse effect


The zero balance policies not only require unity of action and criteria, but it also requires a detailed "benchmarking" [6] of the strategies and instruments among the members of the coalition. This benchmarking is a crucial point to be followed by professionals in the area, as well as by all citizen science practitioners.


The use and promotion of fossil energy as obtained by the hydrofracture technique must be clearly articulated in the Zero Balance Carbon Policy at least defined for the year 2050. Linking hydrofracture to zero balance is a task equally for environmental professionals as for the citizen science applied to the topic of energy and survival.


2- A Policy of International Coherence and Absolute Reciprocity with other countries. Eighty-four of the countries in the world have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and 144 are required to enter into force. This protocol is a critical element to carry out coordinated prevention and management actions.


The main problem to confront climate change is the existence of countries, political parties and economic groups that actively deny or ignore it intentionally to obtain benefits for their elites. Quite possibly, these countries and organizations expect to go in tow and without covering the damages caused by their actions. These revivals cast in the system obtain benefits for others, without paying the cost or making the effort of others are called "free rider" in economics.


Among them the state with the largest emitters of GHG per head, the United States of America, and with it are in the double play several other countries to the swing of electoral demagoguery. In this swing are also New Zealand, Russia, Canada, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, among others.


Curiously, the Climate Leadership Council (CLC), which is an international policy institute founded by business, opinion and environmental leaders from the Republican Party of the United States, has one of the best proposals to address this problem.


To promote a carbon dividend framework as the most cost-effective, equitable and politically viable climate solution, the CLC has developed the Baker-Shultz Carbon Dividend Plan. The plan focuses on the carbon tax and has four pillars. These are:

1- A carbon tax that increases gradually, with a suggested starting point of $ 40 per tonne of carbon dioxide emitted;

2- Carbon dividends for all Americans, which would be delivered directly to people, preferably through the Social Security Administration;

3- Carbon adjustments at the border, charging a carbon tax on any import from any country without a carbon tax and providing export refunds to any country with one; and,

4- Eliminate "regulations that are no longer necessary after the enactment of a carbon tax increase."


The Baker-Shultz Carbon Dividend Plan is simple and elegant. The central idea is that it is possible using carbon tax and tariffs for countries reluctant to address the climate change, to enforce the adoption of a low carbon economy by making paid the "free riders" in this way. 


It is possible that the most appropriate solution is to use the collected money to do defensive works and to reduce the emission of gases instead of distributing it among all citizens. This total distribution, although it may be desirable, is not adequate to disperse the resources necessary for significant investments that require adaptation. It is possible that a compromise between distribution to taxpayers and a central fund will achieve the stimulus seek by the Baker-Shultz Carbon Dividend Plan.


The world realizes that face climate change will require much-applied research and punctual work to monitor and control the mitigation activities of climate change and its effects. Dispersing the money does not make sense and before a severe threat; It requires courage and intelligent decision like that of the Athenians under Themistocles in ancient Greece.


The Baker-Shultz Carbon Dividend Plan is a good proposal, and the idea can be further generalized to create the framework of absolute reciprocity.

For example, copying the Baker-Shultz Carbon Dividend Plan and developing the third point in more detail, it is possible to think of creating dumping tariffs for all countries, multinationals and organizations with poor environmental performance and not participating in global efforts. 

A surcharge of 5% on imports from countries not signatories to the Kyoto protocol, plus 10% proportional to the effectiveness of compliance with international goals and commitments of CO2 emissions, plus 5% to those who have waste disposal, plastics and pollutants to the oceans and more another 5% to those that encourage or instigate the destruction of biodiversity. That will be a ceiling of 25%.


The extra tariff would be an excellent additional stimulus to force the "free riders" to take responsibility for climate change. This charge to imports only requires an independent entity to monitor the selected indicators, with readings and quarterly adjustments. The values of environmental surcharge to imports would be straightforward to establish the information that is already currently collected by international entities.


Direct investments in the economy would create value in many countries and internalize current severe imbalances.


Just imagine that the director of a multinational continues to mock the issue. The pressure of small countries combined can lead to total changes in attitude; and if they want to make fun, they will have to do it in private.


Sounds good, but, How feasible is to create and justify this surcharge in the WTO World Trade Organization?


The rationality is the following: given that the country, organization or multinational is not including the actual costs of contaminating and destroying, it is clear that it is selling below the real price [7] by not internalizing the environmental costs and inherent risks that it is generating for the countries. The OECD also considers this type of dumping [8]. When a country is receiving the impact of products that affect its productive capacity, it is entitled to create an "anti-dumping duty [9]" to compensate or compensate for the effects. The seller country, not including all costs, is charging a subsidy paid by the same buyer.


Resorting to tariffs to impose conduct in the international arena is the same US policy of creating commercial over-taxes and international sanctions based on its strategic and economic interests. On the contrary, environmental tariffs can create a clear policy of reciprocity in countries that destroy the global environment, the ocean and biodiversity that are global heritage.


Creating this environmental surcharge would help create leagues of countries that are already victims of climate change. This is the case of low island countries like Kiribati threatened to disappear under the waters, tropical megadiverse countries, countries with equatorial and tropical mountains, states with forests, dry  forests and tropical savannahs that urgently need real solutions to protect biodiversity; and the nations around the desert areas that desperately need to protect their water resources.


3- A Central Policy on Circular Economy, including a plan to integrate all carbon sources and carbon and gas sinks for complete life cycles, with goals and indicators.


The Circular Economy is the economic system that closes the cycles of goods, products, materials, substances and energies that enter in the human economic cycle in the processes of production, consumption and disposal. Its objective is to close the biogeochemical cycles minimizing waste, maximizing the efficiency in the use of materials and energies; and reducing the generation of waste [10]. All this is achieved by following the logic of the biological, environmental and biogeochemical cycles of the substances considered.


One interesting NGO of the Circular Economy is the Ellen MacArthur Foundation [16]. Although the foundation does not work directly with energy issues, it does present an excellent conceptualization and actions in the Circular Economy. 


One of the most relevant international entity is the World Circular Economy Forum (WCEF) actively promoted by the Finnish Innovation Fund SITRA. The last WCEF2019 forum was held in Helsinki [17] from June 3 to 5. The next conference will be in Canada [18]. The participation of professionals from government entities and advanced political parties is essential, but it is even more important the participation of environmental professionals and citizen science practitioners. It is the latter that open the spaces to new technologies and approaches.


Few entities generate ideas to frame the hydrofracture in a sustainable economy; never the less the International Institute for Sustainable Development (International Institute for Sustainable Development IISD). The IISD is an independent policy research organization that works to provide precise knowledge to act. The Institute works on solutions to the most pressing problems in the world.


Among the country leaders in the Circular Economy is Finland with its road map to the Circular Economy (SITRA: Finnish Road Map to a Circular Economy 2016-2025 [19]); the Netherlands that has a policy of achieving a Circular Economy by 2050 [20]. Cities such as Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Venlo, Haarlemmermeer and others have advanced plans. Moreover, Circular Economy policies are common in many countries, including China (Guiyang Province), Denmark, Belgium, Germany, the United Kingdom, Japan and Russia.

The Circular Economy in many ways borrowed, or articulates or contains the principles and concepts of various other related areas that have been changing over time, but still in force.


There are five main areas related to the Circular Economy but with a slightly different focus, and convergence in the results. These five approaches are:

a) Biomimicry: It is the field of knowledge and technology that seeks to imitate, copy, emulate, adapts systems and natural mechanisms for human and industrial processes. This area is driven by Jeanine Benyus of the Biomimicry Institute of Missoula, Montana [11]. The theme is related to bionics but goes a step further, promoting the transfer of ideas, designs and strategies from biology and ecology to the design of sustainable human systems. The issue of fossil fuels deserves to be reviewed from this angle and explore possible options.

b) Blue Economy: is the economic model proposed by Gunter Pauli in his book The Blue Economy: 10 years - 100 innovations - 100 million Jobs. Pauli founded the Zero Emissions Research Initiative [12] (Zero Emissions Research Initiative - ZERI) at the United Nations University in Tokyo. Pauli began his professional life with the founder of the Club of Rome, Aurelio Peccei. The principles and ideas developed deserve to be reviewed in the context of the use of fossil fuels. The concepts of ZERI should be examined to know how they are linked to the economy of fossil fuels and energy.

c) The Life Cycle of Goods and Services is the complete analysis of interactions and the environmental and social effects of goods and services. Initially, they were called cycles of origin to final disposition “cradle to grave,” but the modern concept is the cycle from the first source to new use “cradle to cradle.” The idea implies that the final disposition must be the reincorporation of materials and energies into new phases of production, or disposition in natural systems that allow recovery of economic or inherent value. Cycle analyzes are regulated internationally by ISO 14040 Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Principles and Reference Framework; and ISO 14044 Environmental management - Life cycle assessment - Requirements and guidelines. One of the oldest institutes with more experience in the subject is the Product Life Institute (The Product-Life Institute in English) of Geneva Switzerland. [13] The Life Cycle aspect includes the complete management of materials in what is called Recurse Recovery and Integrated Waste Management. Water fracture projects contain and provide many goods and services. Many of these points must have been covered in environmental studies.

d) Industrial Ecology is the study, quantification and modelling of the flows of energy, materials, natural resources, use of space and economic, environmental and social efficiencies of the production processes of goods and services. It is a relatively recent multidisciplinary discourse, based on systems that seek to understand the emerging behaviour of complex human and natural systems, to integrate them at local, regional and global scales. Industrial Ecology includes so-called systemic thinking or global thinking in the management of environmental resources and services. There is the International Society of Industrial Ecology (International Society for Industrial Ecology ISIE) [14]. The annual conferences have had a broad audience, and the ISIE magazine is one of the most important on the subject. Reviewing the principles and applications for hydrofracture is an essential task for professionals and citizen science tasks.

e) The Biosphere Rules "The Biosphere Rules" were identified by the IE Business School of Madrid; in 2008, they were published in an article in the Harvard Business Review [15]. These five rules should be studied by all professionals and all citizen science participants on environmental issues. The five points constitute an excellent scale to know the industries that are working with a hydrofracture. These five principles or rules are 1 Parsimony of materials. Minimize the types of materials used in products with a focus on materials that are life-friendly and economically recyclable. 2 Autonomy of power. Maximize the energy autonomy of products and processes so they can work with renewable energy. 3 Value cycles. Recover and reuse end-of-use product materials in new value-added products. 4 Platforms of sustainable products. Take advantage of value cycles as product platforms for economies of scale, scope and valuable knowledge. Moreover, finally, 5 Function on the form. Satisfy the functional needs of the clients in a way that sustains the value cycle. This approach from the management of the industries creates a necessary articulation with the concepts of sustainability of activities such as hydrofracture.


The above are three unambiguous policies that all the countries of the world need. All states require citizen support for these three tasks and frame Fracking within the effort to control and mitigate climate change.


Your mission as a citizen or professional scientist that interacts with the environmental area is:
a) Increase your knowledge by resorting in more detail in the points noted that are of your interest;
b) actively participate in any of the international societies that work on the topic of their choice; and; 
c) influence the policy of your country to assume with clarity and resources, the development of these three policies, (perhaps the second about absolute reciprocity is the most important for now).


Global vision and local action: Later, I will comment on techniques and essential points for the management of Fracking at the local level.


It is time to act. All comments are welcome.


Thank you


Juan Gonzalo Arango

jgarangof@gmail.com  



Notes and Sources:

[1] Citizen Science is the reasoned and testable management of information using proven scientific and technical principles, to obtain and analyze data and observations by qualified citizens; and the clear and coherent communication of the results in an open manner to the scrutiny of all the interested parties.

[2] See: https://preview.api.org/oil-and-natural-gas/wells-to-consumer/exploration-and-production/hydraulic-fracturing/fracking-safe-oil-gas-extraction

[3] Risk is the threat (defined as the potential damage), multiplied by the probability of occurrence R = A * P (x)

[4] Natural Gas is a mixture of natural hydrocarbons, where the main component is methane with varying amounts of other higher alkanes along with carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulphide and sometimes helium.

[5] See: https://www.carbon-neutrality.global/

[6] Benchmarking is the comparative evaluation of the processes, results and efficiencies of the entity to which it belongs against the best practices of the sector and the accomplishments of the benchmarked entity. The benchmarked entity usually is the closest superior competitor. "Environmental Benchmarking" is an instrument of continuous improvement through emulation and exchange of experiences among environmental organizations.

[7] See: https://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=3309

[8] See: http://www.oecd.org/regreform/sectors/2376087.pdf

[9] See: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/anti-dumping-duty.asp

[10] Homogeneous wastes from processes, not contaminated or mixed with other types of waste have value and potential uses. Garbage is the mixture of different kinds of residues from processes or activities contaminating each other. The key to waste management is to keep the flows separate according to their potential use and final disposal; which very often is not difficult, nor expensive.

[11] See: https://biomimicry.org/, also, see https://www.ted.com/speakers/janine_benyus

[12] See: http://www.zeri.org/

[13] See: http://www.product-life.org/

[14] See: https://is4ie.org/

[15] See: https://hbr.org/2008/02/the-biosphere-rules

[16] See: https://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/

[17] See: https://www.sitra.fi/en/projects/world-circular-economy-forum-2019/

[18] See: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/canada-to-host-the-2020-world-circular-economy-forum-856122504.html

[19] See: https://www.sitra.fi/en/projects/leading-the-cycle-finnish-road-map-to-a-circular-economy-2016-2025/

[20] See: https://www.government.nl/documents/policy-notes/2016/09/14/a-circular-economy-in-the-netherlands-by-2050