|
If New York state is currently the North Korea of shale gas development, Pennsylvania is South Korea—more market-friendly, more prosperous, but also more volatile, with opposing forces pitted in a continuous and contentious struggle for the hearts and minds of citizens and royalty owners. That’s an exaggeration, but the Appalachian basin has been the demilitarized zone of the shale wars, in the same ironic sense as the one on the Korean peninsula.
That’s why it was particularly encouraging last month when the Center for Sustainable Shale Development (CSSD) was officially launched in Pittsburgh. A coalition of industry and environmental groups, backed financially by some deep-pocketed philanthropic organizations, the group is tasked with creating a certification process for hydraulic fracturing to help minimize damage to the environment and protect human health. In the words of the CCSD’s mission statement, or whatever you want to call it, the goal is “the development of rigorous performance standards for sustainable shale development and a commitment to continuous improvement to ensure safe and environmentally responsible development of our abundant shale resources. CSSD will offer an independent, third-party evaluation process to certify companies that achieve and maintain these standards.”
In addition to major producers Chevron and Shell, participating organizations include Appalachian coal and gas producers such as CONSOL Energy and EQT Corp., regional environmental groups such as Group Against Smog & Pollution (GASP), PennFuture and the Pennsylvania Environmental Council, and national environmental advocates such as Clean Air Task Force and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF).
CSSD will divide its efforts into two main areas: Preserving air quality and protecting water. The first mission will focus on control of emissions from both engines and storage units, limiting flaring and pushing so-called “green completions.” The second area will emphasize water recycling and closed-loop drilling, and protection of groundwater through better monitoring, improved casing design, higher standards for wastewater disposal and reducing toxicity of fracing fluids.
And the people rejoiced. Within days of the CSSD’s initial press release, the lights came back on all across Appalachia. Landowners, politicians, environmentalists, natural-gas advocates, wildlife preservationists and believers in American energy independence all broke out into spontaneous cheers and whoops of joy. And, as the old folksong goes, “The people in the streets below were dancing ’round and ’round.” OK, not really.
Green vs. green. The chasm within organized environmentalists continues to widen, with those, such as the EDF, who see this as a chance to set up a rational process for review and certification, as opposed to other organizations that do not accept the premise that shale gas should be produced at all, even with stringent safeguards. Sierra Club campaign director Deb Nardone was quoted by the Associated Press as saying, “We know that our reliance on dirty, dangerous fossil fuels like natural gas will not solve the climate crisis, even with the best controls in place.” She also added: “The majority of natural gas must stay in the ground.”
This reflects a significant policy shift on the part of the Sierra Club over what has been generally a pro-gas position in the past. In 2012, the organization admitted that for several years before 2010 it had accepted (without disclosing the fact) millions of dollars from Chesapeake Energy (directly and indirectly), funds it used to finance its Beyond Coal campaign. This rubbed many members the wrong way, though such environmental/industry partnerships are hardly unprecedented.
It also reflects a “purist” attitude towards the burning of hydrocarbons taking over from the pragmatic. That is, the idea of using natural gas as a “bridge fuel,” is no longer considered an acceptable position. The only good kind of burning is no burning, in other words. It may be an intellectually consistent position, but it has practical consequences, none of which involve developing “clean” energy sources on an unimaginably immense scale to fill the gap. Put a stop to natural gas, and the winner is . . . Lignite! (applause).
Toothless? A common criticism of the proposed CSSD certification is that it is not the same as regulation. New York-based writer Chip Northrup, of the marvelously named “No Fracking Way” blog, complained, “Best practices are not regulations. They are not enforceable, hence meaningless.” Another blogger added: “CSSD is not an enforcement agency. They have no regulatory power, no authorization to levy fines.”
Are they right? Will a CSSD certification just be pointless window-dressing? The broader question is, does ANY industry self-regulation work? Or are we just hiring coyotes to board-certify the sheep pen? John Hanger, former Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, pointed out that it is ultimately the consumers who decide. “Sustainable” forest products, for example, are widely demanded by customers. The certification is entirely voluntary, but it can also make or break a business.
Similarly with shale gas, Hanger wrote, “What will be decisive is that consumers of gas from Washington, D.C., to Maine and from New York to Chicago will demand that their gas is certified as sustainably managed.” If politicians get involved (and they will), compliance with the CSSD standards could be what ends up allowing hydraulic fracturing to resume in New York state. With a hot-button issue like fracing, companies may feel that joining CSSD is in their best interests, because gas users have the ultimate say over whose gas they will be willing to buy. Regulators can talk—money talks louder. 
|
