The Fracking Conundrum: What to do?
The Fracking Conundrum: What to do?
Like
almost all human activities, fracking is neither good nor bad and is strongly
influenced by local conditions and culture.
Two years ago, I wrote about
the analysis of hydraulic fracturing, finding two types of results. On the one
hand, hydraulic fracturing accumulates many scientific, technological,
administrative and financial advances. And on the other hand, fracking presents
a very negative public image, especially in American and European countries,
with a significant emotional charge. Contrary to what I expected, the most
developed and educated citizens show considerable opposition. When studying the
subject, I found that a large part of the impacts, except one, are understood
and regulated in the vast majority of countries. That is the relatively new point of induced seismicity. Everything else is controlled in one
way or another in most countries or recommended by the oil industry associations.
When I was writing the
original articles, I expected to get questions and comments of all kinds.
Still, I received many environmental scoldings and very few questions from
interested people. I believe that all the fauna of "Trolls" and other
beings of the electronic underworld manifested while environmental and oil
professionals remained absent.
I decided to wait a prudent
time for the passing of the months to decant things. I returned to the topic at
the end of 2021 with the expectation of finding changes.
I explored the most recent
articles and postings on the Internet. A Google query with the term "fracking"
returns about 29 million entries on the network. I analyzed 71 articles,
journalism stories, and long documents to identify people and industry concerns
about fracking. I found a significant repetition of the initial arguments and
little change in the recent ones.
By the end of 2021, I found
that a more significant number of websites opposed fracking and even an
international society with permanent staff collecting money to campaign against
hydrofracturing. On the other hand, the explanations of hydraulic fracturing in
oil industry associations and environmental authorities are a little more
complete but still far from containing the information that the public asks
for. In many cases, they show simplifications and drawings so schematic that
they intuitively generate doubts [1]. The videos are short. In general, there
is no clear presentation of the fracking activity, nor of the people who work
in them. Also, the few explanations and videos do not present the complexity
and risks for industrialists or the public.
The revised Internet documents
present almost the same complaints as in previous years. Many documents repeat
what has already been expressed and with vague generalizations. The vast
majority of journalists in the traditional media draw attention to unverified
aspects. In general, people request things contained in regulation and
environmental studies. Still, how people express their concerns, complaints,
and emotions does not allow good communication between authorities, design
engineers, investors, and the public. Any analyst studying fracking can find
examples of distrust and manipulations (conspiracies) in almost every actor
except in design engineering firms. Regrettably, it can be said that several of
the actors do conspire. Managing and solving this situation is complex and requires
the support of the companies, oil industrial unions and the local government.
Complaints from both the
public and the industry reveal ignorance of the regulations and obligations of
the parties. Attentive and clear communication tends to be minor. Ignorance of commitments
and rules activates distress behaviours in the public that lead to emotional
chaos in the hydrofracture practice.
There is a perceived feeling
of talking to irrational interlocutors when speaking with environmentalists
opposed to the industry. Also, industrials believe they are being restricted in
their rights and ignoring their economic contribution, feelings that make them
prone to disqualify "green" interlocutors. Most of the industrial
authors of the revised documents do not fully understand the importance and use
of environmental instruments and regulations. This industrial behaviour
requires the participation of environmental psychologists, sociologists and
social communicators.
Like almost all human
activities, fracking is neither good nor bad and is strongly restricted by
local conditions and culture.
To have a better ability to act
in cases of hydrofracking, all parties must understand the effects, impacts and
risks that hydraulic fracturing can generate and have a minimum common
terminology.
To have solutions, each
environmental professional and any interested person must have a broad mentality
with explicit rationing, critical capacity, impartiality, and understand and
use the "Right to Know." This right is typical of
information-intensive democratic societies that use democracy and the market
economy as essential instruments. Likewise, the stress generated by fracking on
the local inhabitants must be respected since irresponsible generalizations
create conditions of moral panic.
Rachel Carson's "Right
to Know" (1962) empowers people by allowing them to participate in an
informed manner in decisions that affect them and at the same time holds
governments and entities accountable to participate in decision-making with the
public. This right to know implies the "Clifford's Principle of
Epistemic Responsibility" (1877), which says: "It is wrong
always, everywhere and for anyone, to believe something with insufficient
evidence" [2].
Democracy, open information
societies and a market economy always go together (a topic of another article).
On environmental issues, the concept of "Right to Know" was presented
by Rachel Carson in her book Silent Spring [3] and is a central theme in
democracies, open information societies, market economies and environmental
regulations.
The most significant
difficulty in understanding the public's position is their lack of knowledge of
each of the necessary steps of the hydrofracture projects. An ignored part for
the people, and one that generates distrust, is how companies decide to start
the hydrofracture drilling process to extract the resources contained in the
geological strata. Few of the opponents know that once the Feasibility Studies
of the hydrofracture are initiated, environmental studies and communication
with the authorities, the community, and the landowners are also started. The
public is unaware that the main permits are obtained in the feasibility phase.
Later, the investors decide to invest when the main permits are assured. Once
the decision to invest is taken, the local and other minor licenses are
acquired during the design phase. Usually, the public realizes that the project
is a reality and the timing to expose their views is generally late for the
authorities and the project.
Nevertheless, locals and other
stakeholders can participate in all these stages. In most countries,
participation is mandatory, and designers follow strict protocols to
communicate projects to the population. But once a major licence is conceded,
it isn't easy to reverse the decision.
The interaction between the
public, owners and designer engineers is not easy. A project gets "frozen"
in many situations because the population opposes it. The oppositions are in
part because:
a)
the local people have no good
experience in democratic processes; and,
b)
the innate human tendency to
maintain the status quo; and,
c)
the above points are combined
with the desire to "make feel our presence or existence," especially
in cases of marginalization.
Hence the importance of social
psychologists and environmental sociologists in the hydrofracture projects.
In the population with
experience in democratic processes of consultation and voting, the emphasis
shifts to personal and community opportunities and disadvantages. This
experience can lead to long times of tension and negotiation. In this process,
negative perceptions of the oil industry and fracking weigh heavily on
community decisions. Typically, design engineering firms adjust the project to
comply with all laws and be accepted by local communities, but not always.
It is common for the public
and local authorities to ignore that project owners instruct their design
engineers to "design the project to be approved and attract investors,"
but this is only possible if the cost/benefit balance allows it. In this sense,
the "surface environment" weighs heavily in the cost-benefit balances
and is perceived as a burden by the owners. At the same time, the value of the
extracted material compensates for the costs of the "underground
environment." This dichotomy is a false perception.
Agreements are usually reached
between the community, the government and investors. However, a noisy minority
can bring down an entire process, and political instability or an outbreak of
violence can scare away investors.
In my experience, discussions
between design engineers, project owners, government and the local community
move from readings, analysis, and explanations of impact studies with their
complex methodologies, to talks about avoiding, reducing-mitigating, and
compensating impacts. The agreed actions will be expressed in action plans and monitoring
plans. The public wants to know the central point of how each impact is
reduced-mitigated and compensated. Hence the importance of concrete management
plans, specific to the issues perceived as important, with their resources,
compliance policies and assigned to the operating firm.
Below I present the most
important observations that account for more than 80% of the complaints about
the hydrofracture technique that the public makes. The documents, in my
experience, clearly contain the answers that the public needs. The curious
thing is that almost all the information necessary to complete the management
plans is available during the phases of feasibility studies and designs, with
few exceptions. Government institutions and public data already generate part
of the required information. They are documents that can be prepared quickly by
someone with experience in the subject.
Environmental professionals
and interested persons should be aware of the main observations that the public
has of fracking. These can be gathered into five categories. The recommendation
on what should be prepared by engineering firms and what may be requested by
the public are:
1- Effects resulting from the
industrial activity itself,
a) Increased
accident rate for the population. It is a natural consequence of the
increase in activity in the areas where fracking occurs. To internalize the
rise in local accidentality is the Health Impact Assessment". This Plan is designed and coordinated
with the Emergency Prevention and Response Plan, the Water Monitoring Plan and the Air
Quality Monitoring Plan, covering potential toxic pollutants. These studies
and plans are public and almost always mandatory. The interested person can ask
for them.
(b) Air
pollution. It is an essential point of the EIA Environmental Impact
Studies. The project's design considers the acceptable limits, and an Air
Quality Monitoring Plan is established. The limits on particulate matter and gases
are strict.
(c) Noise and
vibration pollution. It is an essential point of the Environmental Impact
Studies. The project's design considers the acceptable limits, and a Noise
and Vibration Monitoring Plan is established. This Plan should include audible sounds,
infrasounds (such as when feeling low notes such as drum vibration felt in the
belly and diaphragm), ultrasounds (such as dog whistles), explosives, rhythmics
or explosion waves, etc.
(d) Unpaid and
uncompensated damage to local property and infrastructure. Curiously, this
is a point that is not adequately identified in several environmental impact
studies or the regulations of several countries. There are countries where
these aspects are considered at the level of permits and authorizations to use
roads, canals, public services of aqueducts and sewers, etc. A repeated
complaint is damage to roads and bridges. Since the use of roads is a generally
open access service in most countries, the compensation of damages is in the
hands of local authorities, the infrastructure owners, or the authority that
issues the road use permits. Other arguments are about water infrastructure and
obtaining water from rivers, lagoons, wetlands, wells, dams, cisterns, etc.
Several complaints are about the access to rivers or canals to dispose of water
from the interior of the area and the delivery of flows from rainwater drainage
and storms. In these cases, the definition of what to do is usually made in the
Environmental Licenses. The designer shall submit complete studies and define
an Infrastructure Adaptation Plan covering the project area to obtain water
concessions and permits. To compensate for the environmental impact of traffic,
it is customary to include improvement of specifications, traffic signs,
protection of water infrastructures and others. To compensate for water
management cases that may affect the capacity of drainage channels, natural
drainage, rivers and wetlands or affect their quality, two plans are essential,
the Erosion Control and Soil Protection Plan and the Storm Water
Management Plan. The environmental authorities usually request those plans.
(e)
Environmental, landscape, biodiversity and ecosystem services degradation. This aspect is
one of the central points of the Environmental Impact Studies, and questions
from the public reveal a severe failure of these studies; since one of the main
points is to inform those affected of the possible effects and impacts, the
plans to mitigate them and the indicators to monitor them. Each of the impacted
aspects requires specific points in specific management plans. These have
titles such as Plant Landscape (or Ecosystem) Management Plan, Vulnerable (or Endangered) Animal and Plant Species Management Plan, Natural and
Recovery Area Management Plan, Invasive and Undesirable
Species Management Plan, Management plan for poisonous, toxic and
dangerous species, the Management plan for vector species important for
human and animal health, the Biodiversity protection and management plan,
etc.
(f) Oil spills
and their consequences. Spills are one of the central points of the Emergency
Prevention and Response Plan. In general, emergency management plans
contain a series of chapters for environmental emergencies identified in the
Environmental Risk Study. Keep in mind that the study of environmental
risks is another of the central points of environmental impact studies. The
risk study considers several possible leaks and spills (involuntary and
unexpected discharges) of gases into the atmosphere and liquids and solids into
soils and waters. The reader must be very clear about the potential damage
multiplied by the possibility of occurrence and how the project owner takes the
appropriate insurance policies to the emergency plan for all these incidents.
All participants should be aware that there are entirely unacceptable
incidents:
1.
loss of human life and damages
to health,
2.
the change o reduction of
vital resources to the population,
3.
the affectation of endangered
species increasing risks of extinction,
4.
the destruction of essential
habitats, and
5.
damage to ecosystems and their
environmental services.
The Plan should contain alerts
and alarms for the population and local authorities of the potential impact
area estimated by modelling the events and the areas covered by the monitoring
and follow-up of the status of the other environmental values.
(g) Permanent
deterioration of the landscape and land use. This complaint stems from the
absence or vagueness that some local or state authorities have about the
importance of land use plans and reclamation plans. There are jurisdictions where
the land ownership is total, and the owner owns absolute rights of the wedge
that his property generates up to the planet's center. This complete ownership leads
to land use problems and vicinity of activities by not considering the distance
of retreat, visual effects and generalization of land value (the lousy house in
the good neighbourhood lowering the price of the homes around). These two
points require that the engineering designers follow in detail land ownership local
regulations, the regional land-use planning and the requirement to comply with
the Land Use Plan and take the Insurance on the complete restoration of the
expected final use. The location of the works must respond to the land
ownership rules and the regional land-use planning.
(h) Methane
leaks. This aspect is part of the project's design and is quite regulated
in most countries. Any interested person can request the presentation of the
design and operation measures for handling gases, avoiding leakage, capturing
gases from tanks, managing teas, gas incinerators and chimneys, etc. In most complaints,
people don't know the differences between Natural Gas and Methane. Methane is a
component of Natural Gas. The typical composition of Natural Gas is 95%
methane, 4% ethane, and the remaining 1% is a mixture of propane, butane and
isobutane. Sometimes it is not necessary to request a specific management plan
but to know what type of management the company will give to recover natural
gas, including methane. Monitoring for potential leaks and correct leaks is essential.
In cases of considerable gas volumes, the design engineer must prepare a Plan
for the recovery of natural gas and the combustion management in teas, torches,
and gas incinerators. Those points are required in most countries. And in
somewhat more extreme cases, it has to be complemented with a Plan for
monitoring, control and management of natural gas leaks and other gases.
What is essential is the burning of the H2S and the dispersion model of the SO2. All these
aspects must be included in the Emergency Prevention and Response Plan.
This emergency prevention is a critical plan, and it should be based on a
detailed study of environmental risks.
e) Impact by
heavy vehicle traffic. Apart from using road infrastructure, it is
necessary to consider a plan for managing heavy traffic during the fracking
process that uses large trucks and trailers intensively. Sharing the road
infrastructure requires a Heavy Traffic Management Plan. It may contain
the improvement of signage, the dates with heavy traffic and the precautions
that neighbours must follow. This Plan is a "good neighbour" plan informing
the need to occupy the road. This Plan requires courtesy to neighbours and
local authorities. From experience, I know it is very uncomfortable to reverse
a few kilometres to make way for a large vehicle.
f) Impact from
the management of sludge and water from drilling. This aspect is a normal
part of the management of oil drilling and is intensely regulated, except for a
few countries that have not yet updated their regulations. In these cases, you
should ask about the handling and destination. There is a detailed regulation
for facilities treating drilling sludge and water. Dispatches of those waters
follow detailed instructives, use transparent chains of custody and provide
receipts. Usually, the designer presents a Sludge and Drilling Water
Management Plan. In case of doubts or conflicts, the materials' tickets can
be requested at the facilities for treatment and disposition.
g) Impact of
the management of garbage and waste from oil exploitation. In this case, it is very
similar to the previous one. The vast majority of countries require that firms
treat waste materials from oil and gas exploitation at specialized facilities.
Materials are collected and transported with clear tracking protocols or custody
chains. Those protocols generally include treatment and final disposal. The
designer must prepare a Plan to manage garbage and waste from the hydrofracture
processes. As in the previous case, the interested stakeholder must request
the documents of the custody chain and the receipt of materials at the disposition
points
h) Use of large
volume of water. This is one of the biggest complaints, especially in arid
regions with water scarcity, competition for water use and a high water value.
The overconsumption of water is a complicated perception to handle. On the one
hand, the volume is insignificant compared to other agricultural or industrial
practices. Still, each drilling requires a significant water volume for a small
producer or the inhabitant of an area with a water deficit. All waters in all
countries are subject to detailed regulations. The project designer must
prepare a Hydro Fracture Water Management Plan respecting all local and
national rules and fully consider local customs. The Hydrofracture Management
plan should be presented at meetings with all local stakeholders.
2- Serious technology failures
under specific well conditions
a) Blow-out.
The blow-out of a well is a rare condition as the well is controlled with very
high precision. Each well uses a variable amount of barium-rich material
(called barite, which are barium sulphate clays (BaSO4)) to increase the weight
of the sludge column to prevent a blow-out. The detailed well control is an
operational detail of the project in charge of the drilling engineer; however, the
blow-out control may be requested by local inhabitants or the authorities. The
blow-up is part of the Emergency Prevention and Response Plan.
(b)
Contamination of aquifers, surface waters and soils by hydrofracturing
liquids. This contamination is the most common complaint and one of the
most complex aspects to deal with between the parties due to fake news and
manipulations. The ignorance of some environmentalists is regrettable, and that
of the affected communities, in general, is very high. This subject reflects a
failure of the social part of the project that has significant effects. One of
the aspects opponents of hydrofracture ignore is the presence of five layers of
insulation between geological strata and fracking wells. Most are unaware of
the high technology of horizontal drilling, detailed knowledge of geophysical
aspects, depth of reservoirs and handling of sludge and liquids during drilling.
Countries have different approaches, but the vast majority prohibit mercury,
lead, chromium, cadmium, arsenic and any radioactive elements. Also, most country
regulations require the absence of carcinogens and compounds such as benzene,
toluene and xylene (BTX) and their derivatives. But other countries, especially
the USA, insist that the composition of hydro-fracture liquids is part of the
technique's intellectual property, creating a conflict between the perceptions
of private enterprise's right and the right to know. The behaviour that some
citizens perceive as freedom is perceived by other citizens as bulling. And
vice-versa, what is perceived by the second as irresponsible
behaviour, the first ones perceived it as a right. In general, hydro-fracture
drilling is used only in deep reservoirs, contained between mantles of
impermeable rocks that limit the leakage of liquids into other formations. The
central flow in wells is inside five different layers of protection. The
probability of rupture is efficiently controlled as the costs of these wells
are pretty high, and regulations for accidental spills have severe penalties.
If the stakeholders have doubts, the designer engineers shall prepare an
Emergency Prevention and Response Plan, the Hydro-Fracture Water
Management Plan, the Sludge and Drilling Water Management Plan, the
Health Impact Management Plan, and the chapter in which the Geophysical
Study consider the
geophysical aspects, and the Seismicity Risk Reduction Plan.
Those plans and the chapter usually contain all the needed information for the
hydrofracture contamination.
c) Exposure of
the population to toxic chemicals by hydro-fracture liquids. These cases are very low
probability given what is provided in the above numerals. But if someone has
concerns, the engineering designers must prepare the Emergency Reduction and
Response Plan, the
Hydro Fracture Water Management Plan, the Sludge and Drilling Water Management Plan,
the Health Impact Management Plan, and the Geophysical chapter with its
conclusions.
3- Effects not previously
contemplated
a) Induced earthquakes. The
induced seismicity is an issue that until 2019 was not regulated in most
countries. It can be said that seismicity emerged to the public in the last
five years. The problem comes to light with the earthquakes of the drilling
zones in northern British Columbia, Canada and in the central United States.
The first geophysical models were from 1998 when the issue was raised. By 2020
these models include confinement and minor local fault and micro fault systems.
Due to the long experience with the technique in the reactivation of wells, the
current hydrofracture studies include microfracture analysis as part of the
mechanisms to support the extraction of gases and liquids, but not as the
potential source of small earthquakes. The earthquakes are only perceptible by
the inhabitants of nearby areas. Earthquakes originate by water facilitating
the activation of micro faults and local faults, producing a local
rearrangement of the stress of the geological mantle and adjacent ones. By its
nature, seismicity is of low intensity unless a fault already subjected to
stress is activated. Such faults are identified in the Geophysical Study and
can be modelled with reasonable accuracy. The interested party can ask for the
Geophysical Study and request a Plan to reduce and manage induced
seismicity. Induced microseismicity can reach values of scale four on the
Richter's scale and can be crucial in areas of high instability in mountainous
regions. A chapter should be included in the Emergency Prevention and Response
Plan if necessary.
4- Social effects of the
project
a) Anxiety and
distrust – "complete lack of trust" – This is an old-fashioned
condition of complete lack of trust. It comes from the time of the
Rockefellers, Mellons, Flaglers, Gates and others from the beginning of the oil
industry when disinformation, manipulation and abuse of the position of power
were valid tools to manage the market. Unfortunately, the entire industry
adopted closed management and misinformation for the next 75 years. Things
began to change around the 1980s to 1990s, but manipulations continued. There
is quite a dissatisfaction with the privileges and subsidies that different
countries grant to big industries. The latest manipulation example is the
unclear status of three countries' publicly funded carbon capture investments
in oil and environmental technologies. The situation is complex. The oil industry
keeps the industrial secret on processes and chemical formulations,
exacerbating the perception of hydrofracture. The public expresses a rejection
of the unknown about hydrofracture additives. In turn, the industry resents the
accusations and qualifiers that the public gives to professionals in the oil
industry. The conflict reveals a failure to apply ESG (Environment, Social and
Corporate Governance) principles in corporations, the underdevelopment of
Corporate Social Responsibility in several of the industries and indirectly of
investors ("stockholders"). There are two critical plans at the
project level: the Social Management Plan, Induced Migration, Protection of
the Economy and Local Work, and the Communications Plan to the
Population and Local Governments (including emergencies). The titles vary widely from
country to country, but the contents are similar. Both plans are approved by
the authorities and applied by the engineers who designed the project to obtain
the Environmental License and the most necessary license even if it is not
regulated, which is the "social license" of the neighbours to
operate. In the event of any environmental nuisance, neighbours can request
both plans in addition to the company's Annual Sustainability Reports. Any
inaccuracy and greenwashing must be clarified with the corporation, discussed
with the authorities or in extreme cases, which I do not suggest using, airing
it in the media clearly and presenting it to the authorities.
(b) Exclusion
of local inhabitants. This case only arises when hiring policies are
inadequate to the local reality, and the industry perceives local labour as poor
quality or low "work ethic." This exclusion responds to a failure of
the Social Impact Assessment study and the weakness of Corporate Social
Responsibility, and in some cases, the manipulation of the local political
environment. In general, the Social Management Plan, induced migration,
protection of the economy and local work includes the training or education
of local personnel to perform from manual and service tasks, to retrain or
re-educate the local population on new skills required by the activity. The
interested professional must request the Social Management Plan, induced
migration, protection of the economy and local work to understand and face
these cases.
c) Local
inflation with an impact on the resident population. Local inflation is an
unwanted aspect, but it is a natural result of increased local economic
activity. The increase in circulating money held by project workers can put
local people not linked to the project at a disadvantage. This case is one of
the points of the Social Impact Study. This study must have originated
the Social Management Plan, induced migration, protection of the economy and
local work that includes this aspect. In many cases, opposition to
hydrofracture comes from the fear of local inhabitants being marginalized by
the change and the economic capacity of the neighbours who did achieve a
position in the company. There are no unique or easy solutions at this point. The
engineering firm in charge of studies and designs must conduct an excellent
socioeconomic study of this aspect and propose appropriate solutions.
5- Global effects
a)
Increase in CO2 from natural
gas & oil use impacting climate change. This is a real
impact and one of the least addressed in hydrofracturing projects. The final
consequence of exploiting fossil hydrocarbons from hydrofracturing is more
carbon to be released into the atmosphere. The natural solution is to
articulate the volume of CO2 to be released within CO2
capture projects. This articulation implies entering fully into the mechanisms
of carbon bonds and in the final coordination with the specific tools for
capturing and retaining CO2. This part of the studies and designs is
not yet regulated, but the logical part indicates that the best way to achieve
carbon capture is that at the time the product is sold, the carbon credits
acquired are transferred to it. To link products sold and bonds requires that the
resource extractor is the one who obtains the carbon bonds. The market
principles require that the seller and buyer report the CO2 equivalent
involved and the bonds traded in each transaction to the government. Note that
part of the released carbon comes from the process and the machinery; this is a
CO2 that the producer must report and assume. It is still not
customary to request the Climate Effects Mitigation and Compensation Plan with
a zero balance. Still, it is one of the most critical plans overdue for
regulation. This Plan must be adjusted to the country's policies on climate
change and be coordinated with the Plan for compliance with international ESG
policies (Environmental, Social and Corporate Governance). This Plan is also
unregulated in most countries.
Remember that it is the task
of the interested persons to identify the critical points and request the
measures considered in the specific management plan of the project. It is essential
to insist that one particular point be assessed for each impact the community thinks
of interest and included in the appropriate management plan.
If these reports and plans do
not exist in many countries, the person concerned, with just cause, can ask the
environmental authority to request their preparation. Also, in most countries,
before construction starts, any person can request the writing of specific
reports and Management Plans.
However, the most complex
situation is the emission of CO2 from the use of carbon-rich fossil
fuels. The best strategy to achieve a zero balance is to make the oil industry
acquires the carbon bonds and the product sold along with the proportion of the
carbon credits. In this way, the responsibility is not evaded by third parties,
the object is fulfilled, and at each step of the fuel supply chain, zero
balance is obtained.
Attending to the points above
serves to give a somewhat more rational basis to the hydrofracture process and
agree on the conditions of when not and when yes.
Here is an explanation that is
exceptionally complex and requires tact and outstanding professionals in the
social and communications area in the project supporting environmental
professionals:
· For project owners, business investors,
design engineers, and science professionals, fracking opponents are highly
emotional and unreasonable.
· For opponents of fracking, project owners,
corporate investors, design engineers, and science professionals are highly
emotional and unreasonable.
Both groups accuse each other
of the same thing, both are right, and at the same time, both are wrong. And as
in all human relationships, the more they scream, the more polarized each
becomes. Nothing convinces you more than repeating your arguments out loud.
Owners and investors, and
their STEM professionals usually view the issue from the perspective of finance
and economic capital from the development of the resource. They assure that the
activity will generate economic growth and improve the quality of life. But,
they do not have the concept of the planet as a single, closed system with
limited resources. In terms of their economic vision, social and environmental
issues are externalities. Things external to the project should not be
considered since they are a burden, such as was previously regarded collateral
damage in military operations. Stuff outside the project should be ignored
or taken for granted in private capital rights, finance, laws and the market
economy (Spoiler: this is not true for markets). Owners and investors often
complain about regulatory instability when governments, via regulation, include
externalities within project costs.
I have found that people in
this group are highly emotional in individual rights, private property, and the
so-called "reality" of hard money (money talks!) And in their position, they are much more
absolutist than the people opposed to fracking with their green idealism. And
if they are not agitating in the street, it is because they have the economic
power and are lobbying the institutions of the state.
Opponents of fracking
usually view the issue from the perspective of natural capital, the quality of
the environment, experiential capital, and the future of culture and life on
the planet. The meaning they have about developing the fossil mineral resource
is that exploiting it will affect the quality of life. Unfortunately, they lack
the vision of the development of economic capital to improve the environment
and quality of life. They have the correct concept of the planet as a single,
closed-system unit with limited resources. In terms of a green and real economy,
social and environmental issues belong to the effects and impacts of the
project that must be avoided, reduced, mitigated and compensated, where the
concept of externality is false. In this greener vision, laws and
regulations are made so that investors and companies follow the "Kaldor-Hicks
Improvement" principle over the "Pareto Principle." Both current
and future individuals can enjoy a healthy environment and the same
opportunities and resources that we have today.
People in this group tend to
find themselves exasperated by their inability to express their opposition clear,
and often in their exasperation, they confuse their own arguments. They go out
to agitate in the streets and to disseminate by electronic means various
notions without basis and to support ideas somewhat unhinged in their sense of
urgency and the suffocation of feeling that they are not heard. And in the
barrage of confusing ideas and memes avalanches, politicians are intimidated
and give in to measures that hurt the interests of everyone, including both
investors and opponents of fracking, but politicians keep votes.
In general, opponents show in
the writings that they are as emotional with their radical ideas about fracking
as investors and project owners with their emotional ideas about the economy,
private capital and the reality of hard money.
Interestingly, when people
from both groups set out to read and understand the other side, the possibility
of rational agreements is very high, and the points for reaching agreements
multiply. This expansion of agreement possibilities is especially true when
they realize that those in the other group are coherent and relatively
rational, with different points of view.
One of the most complex points
is when both sides consider the other group inconsistent with principles or
actions. Incoherence is one of the biggest obstacles in this type of
confrontation. Any inconsistency is perceived as falsehood, evil intent or the
pursuit of harm. And any perceived falsehood or evil intention blocks the
possibility of agreement.
Consequently, the company that
owns the project must prepare for each hydrofracture project 37 documents,
mostly management plans and at least two insurance policies. All documents and Plans
must be coherent and coordinated, have their own resources and be assigned to
clear positions in its organizational chart. In bold are highlighted the most
important studies and plans for the subject required by the general public.
These are:
1. Environmental
impact assessment
2. Health
Impact Assessment
3. Social
impact assessment
4. Geophysical
risk assessment
5. Environmental
Risk Assessment or
Study
6. Infrastructure
adaptation plan in the project area
7. Communications
plan to the population and local governments (including emergencies)
8. Erosion
control and soil protection plan
9. Compliance
plan with international ESG policies
10. Hydro-fracture
water management plan and aquifer protection
11. Rainwater
and Storm Management Plan
12. Management
plan for natural areas and areas in recovery
13. Waste
and hydrofracture waste management plan for construction and operation
14. Management
plan for invasive and undesirable animal species
15. Management
plan for vulnerable (or endangered) animal and plant species
16. Management
plan for invasive plant species, weeds and plant pathogens
17. Management
plan for poisonous, toxic, aggressive and dangerous species
18. Drilling
water and sludge management plan
19. Management
plan for vectors and parasites important for human and animal health
20. Natural
gas management plan, gas incineration and burning in torches and teas
21. Health
Impact Management Plan
22. Heavy
Traffic Management Plan
23. Social
management plan, induced migration, protection of the economy and local work
24. Climate
change mitigation plan (zero balance in-process and final product)
25. Water
Monitoring Plan
26. Air
quality monitoring plan
27. Noise
and vibration monitoring plan
28. Monitoring
and control plan for leaks of natural gas and other gases
29. Risk reduction and prevention
30. Prevention
and management plan for induced seismicity for the area of influence
31. Biodiversity
protection and management plan,
32. Land
claim and end-use Plan
33. Seismicity
management plan
34. Emergency Response plan (including leaks, spills, fires, etc.)
35. Final
decommissioning and reclamation plan (with expected lands' end-use)
36. Land
use plans of local municipalities and coordination of expected end-use
37. Claim
plan compliance policy or Insurance
38. Policies
and Insurance of coverage of the reduction and emergency response plan
39. Annual
Reports of Sustainability and Greenhouse Gases, atmospheric and surface and
deep water discharges, ISO 14001 Environmental Management System report,
compliance with the Environment, Society and ESG Corporate Governance policies,
and others mandated by law
For their part, opponents of
the fracking project can request the above documents that address more than 95% of their
concerns; but they must be clear and concrete in their questions. And they must
be precise in the requirements of when mitigation or compensation of an effect
or impact is acceptable and when it is not. Please remember that absolutes do
not allow negotiation.
Based on existing laws,
government entities must be clear in mediation to achieve the risk and final
compensation acceptable to society.
Politicians must project their
plans and vision of the future in modifying the laws that allow an acceptable
risk and compensation following the rules of the democratic game.
Environmental journalists and
information leaders should understand and explain the conditions that make
risks and trade-offs acceptable to present and future inhabitants. And in doing
so, they must clearly state the origin or source of the observation or idea and
the reasons that assist both. Being impartial on environmental issues is not an
absolute necessity, as long as the journalist or person expresses their
preferences and reasons clearly and presents the ideas and arguments with
loyalty to the original author's idea.
The above sounds good, but to
apply it, we must always bear in mind that the "Right to Know or Know"
by Rachel Carson (1962) always implies the "Clifford Principle of
Epistemic Responsibility" (1877) and believe only in what we have
sufficient evidence.
The ancient Greeks and the old
Castilians rightly said that "beauty is in the harmony of the whole present
in the details."
But also, the Anglo-Saxons say
with sarcasm that "The devil is in the details" said that alludes to
the trap or the deceptive hidden in the details. Something that may seem simple
will surely be full of complicated details that will cause problems.
For these cases is that there
are environmental professionals.
Commented literature
1- See: Nationa Geographic
Society, How Hydraulic Fracturing Works: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/media/how-hydraulic-fracturing-works/
2- Clifford's
Principle of Epistemic Responsibility (1877) in Chignell, Andrew, "The
Ethics of Belief," The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2018
Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2018/entries/ethics-belief/
3- Carson, Rachel
(1962). Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin. pp. 13, 278 pp.).
Comments
Post a Comment