A safer approach to drilling? Not for us.

If you’re reading this blog, you probably follow environmental issues and see a lot of articles, videos and information every day: emails from friends, links on social media sites, alerts from various news sources. I always find it interesting to see which of these really excite people. Some articles show up in my inbox over and over, with comments demanding, “You have to read this.”

Krupp_BloombergOne article that was sent to me many times yesterday was an op-ed that appeared in the Wednesday New York Times. The authors were credible representatives of business and the environmental movement — former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg and Fred Krupp, President of the Environmental Defense Fund. The title of the articles was The Right Way to Develop Shale Gas.

In the article the two authors from contrasting backgrounds present reasoned balance between their points of view — business and economic development that fracking enables and the environmental havoc that it causes.

But what seems reasonable in the New York Times doesn’t have much relevance for southern Montana.

The argument
The arguments presented are not unreasonable. On the positive side they argue that the fracking boom has been a good thing because it is

lowering energy costs, creating new jobs, boosting domestic manufacturing and delivering some measurable environmental benefits as well. Unlike coal, natural gas produces minuscule amounts of such toxic air pollutants as sulfur dioxide and mercury when burned — so the transition from coal- to natural-gas-fired electricity generation is improving overall air quality, which improves public health. There’s also a potential climate benefit, since natural-gas-fired plants emit roughly half the carbon dioxide of coal-fired ones.

They also recognize the legitimate concerns of environmentalists, all of which we’ve talked about on this blog:

(The) opposition to shale gas development is driven by very real instances of localized air and groundwater pollution. Because of intensive shale-gas development, the small town of Pinedale, Wyo., has experienced smog concentrations comparable to those of Los Angeles. The industry asserts that hydraulic fracturing does not contaminate water supplies when fluids are shot at high pressure into shale deposits to release gas. But inspection records in several states show that mistakes or accidents in other phases of the process — poor well construction or surface spills, for example — have done so.

They argue that we can bridge the gap between the two sides through regulation, and provide examples of how methane emission can be reduced and groundwater contamination can be controlled.

This, they say, is “essentially a data management and acquisition problem.” Let’s measure and demand controls. In this way we can “make shale gas development safer…and help the industry regain public trust.”

This is an important article, written by two credible people and published in America’s national newspaper. It will have significant reach and be quoted by lots of people as a balanced approach to oil and gas drilling. It’s hard to disagree with their recommendations. We absolutely need to reduce groundwater contamination and emissions of methane and other pollutants.

Why this argument doesn’t work
Because the article is significant, it’s also important to clearly say what’s wrong with it.

Bloomberg and Krupp have a macro point of view. They argue that controlling airbone pollution and reducing the likelihood of spills and contamination is a good thing. Of course it is. All of us would applaud any regulation that reduces greenhouse gas emissions and makes it less likely that you’re going to get benzene in your well water.

But the notion that a straightforward compromise can achieve both a “safer” environment and the financial benefits of fracking is just hogwash. Maybe it somehow works at a 35,000 foot level (although I doubt it — a “safer” environment built on compromise is hardly a safe environment), but on the ground it just doesn’t work.

On the ground fracking involves bringing heavy industry into people’s back yards, and the two just don’t mix. That’s why fracking opponents are so angry. They have seen how well-funded corporations come in to communities and leave devastation in their wakes. That’s why they are voting for moratoriums.

Where we stand
Here’s where we stand in Carbon and Stillwater Counties:

  • We’ve got a serial polluter standing on our doorstep ready to drill 50 wells in an attempt to “bring the Bakken to the Beartooths.”
  • The EPA and the state of Montana currently offer no significant barriers to stop them from tearing up our land and water in the same irresponsible way they have drilled in other places. Congressman and would-be Senator Steve Daines, for example, is happy to tell you, “I will not support policies that would harm America’s economy while having an insignificant or uncertain benefit to the environment.”
  • ECA has the resources to drill these wells in a relatively short period of time, way before Washington or Helena can put any regulations in place to stop them, even if they were inclined to do so.
  • Individual landowners have no rights or ability to stop mineral rights holders from using their land to extract oil. The overlay of heavy industry on agricultural and ranch land will destroy property values and render the land unusable for its original purpose after the drillers leave.
  • There will be incidents of water contamination here, just as there have been in every other area where the oil and gas boom has taken place — Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, North Dakota and other parts of Montana. Our watershed is fragile. Contamination could be disastrous.

So thank you Mayor Bloomberg and Mr. Krupp. We applaud your efforts to promote rational debate, and we wish you success in your efforts to achieve significant policy change to reduce pollutants and protect water.

But forgive us if we don’t agree that this is a data management and acquisition problem. Sorry if we don’t wait around while it takes years to develop the laws and regulations you are promoting. We need to be in action to protect our water and property rights today. And we need to move like our hair is on fire to enact local ordinances that will protect our water, our property rights, and our way of life.

Update 5/10/2014: Two on-point letters to the editor in response to the Bloombert-Krupp op ed in the New York Times.

About davidjkatz

The Moses family has lived on the Stillwater River since 1974, when George and Lucile Moses retired and moved to the Beehive from the Twin Cities. They’re gone now, but their four daughters (pictured at left, on the Beehive) and their families continue to spend time there, and have grown to love the area. This blog started as an email chain to keep the family informed about the threat of increased fracking activity in the area, but the desire to inform and get involved led to the creation of this blog.
This entry was posted in Community Organization, Politics and History, Fracking Information and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to A safer approach to drilling? Not for us.

  1. kurt voight says:

    Hi David, I’m on my second cup of coffee but I think your comments woke me up even better. After people get over their initial reaction to the news about ECA’s plans they tend to get back to focusing on their day to day lives, particularly since there has not been a flurry of development. As the urgency recedes articles like this may placate some concerns as you accurately point out but that only sets the stage for a sudden flurry of development which once underway is hard to control with a stop gap response of local planning efforts. We definitely need to be proactive and stay out in front of things. Hair on fire is good. Thanks, Kurt Voight

    • davidjkatz says:

      Thanks Kurt. Agree on all counts. We need to be in action.

      • Great article and website to help all realize our water at risk, and Citizens for Clean Energy, Inc. in Great Falls supports ya’ll! We fought against toxic coal plant in Great Falls an natural gas should be the bridge fuel to the future and ideal for firming, but the mad, insane dash for ‘cash and gas’ has ‘becalmed’ our emerging wind industry and inexcusable.

  2. Pat Kennedy says:

    Men, women and their families have a right to drink clean water and breathe clean air. That right must be expressed in the form of a declaration of those rights supported by an affidavit from each man or woman rightfully desiring clean water and air. That declaration and affidavit must go to the companies proposing the fracking to be rebutted point by point with specificity in writing and under penalty of perjury within a certain time period or by their silence the company officials agree the facts stand as the truth as stated in the declaration and affidavit in support of the declaration.

    The affidavit is expressed by the man or woman who is of the age of majority, has first hand knowledge of the facts stated (right to drink clean water and breathe clean air) and be competent to state the facts. The affidavit includes that facts are true and correct to the best knowledge of the man or woman writing the declaration and affidavit.

    When there is a group of men or women who have done this they could take these declarations and affidavits to their city or county officials accompanying yet another declaration and affidavit to those officials regarding the right of the men and women to drink clean water and breath clean air with the copies of declaration and affidavit sent to the company(s) annexed. That declaration and affidavit must be rebutted by the city or county officials point by point with specificity i writing and under penalty of perjury within a certain time period or by their silence these county or city officials agree the facts stand as the truth.

    Now these men and women who have expressed their right to drink clean water and breathe clean air in their affidavits have evidence of other men and women who spend time as company, city or county official agreeing that the men and women who brought the declaration and affidavits to these company, city or county officials are not entitled to clean air and water thereby agreeing to harmful actions of the companies proposing the fracking. Next the men and women who wish to drink clean water and breathe clean air press for a city or county ordinance that supports the right for men and women living in the city or county to drink clean water and breathe clean air bringing the evidence of the declarations and affidavits to the men and women of the county or city who were elected to serve men and women in their county or city.

    Failure for city or county officials to support the right of men and women to drink clean water and breathe clean air by refusing to pass a county or city ordinance to protect the right of men and women to clean air and water could result in a claim from the clean water and air men and women that injury and harm are brought from the men and women who are either working for companies proposing fracking or on city and county councils spurning the rights of the men and women in their county or city. This would not be a claim against ‘company, city or county officials’ but against those who are men and women 24 hours a day who spend part of that 24 hours as company, city or county officials.

  3. S. Thomas Bond says:

    A splendid, insightful article. I wish you much better luck than we are having here in the Marcellus. The problem is the difference between the “executive mentality” and those of us who see “facts on the ground.”

    • davidjkatz says:

      Thanks Thomas. I think that executive mentality ignores the real human pain that people have experienced in places like the Marcellus. I’ll leave the executive mentality to the execs. We’ve got work to do on the ground.

  4. Deb says:

    My hair is on fire! This legislative work feels so far away, doesn’t it? We need teeth and speed. Sounds like a mama cougar is being called for. I’ll step up and write an LTE using your facts OK?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s