http://blogs.wvgazette.com/watchdog/2012/01/27/word-play-gas-industry-protests-use-of-f-word-but-its-pr-machine-takes-advantage-of-focus-on-fracking/

January 27, 2012 by Ken Ward Jr.
In this Jan. 23, 2012 file photo, Gillie Waddington of Enfield, N.Y., raises a fist during rally against hydraulic fracturing of natural gas wells at the Legislative Office Building in Albany, N.Y. President Barack Obama the f- word during his recent State of the Union speech nor did he mention the technology used to get it, known commonly as fracking. That’s because the word has become a lightning rod. (AP Photo/Mike Groll, File)

Well, The Associated Press spent 888 words toying with whether the use of one word – ‘fracking’ was appropriate when the media covers the continuing controversies over natural gas drilling. The thrust of the story is that industry is upset with the phrase, and blamed environmental activists for the media’s continued use of it:

The word is “fracking” – as in hydraulic fracturing, a technique long used by the oil and gas industry to free oil and gas from rock.

It’s not in the dictionary, the industry hates it, and President Barack Obama didn’t use it in his State of the Union speech – even as he praised federal subsidies for it.
The word sounds nasty, and environmental advocates have been able to use it to generate opposition – and revulsion – to what they say is a nasty process that threatens water supplies.

“It obviously calls to mind other less socially polite terms, and folks have been able to take advantage of that,” said Kate Sinding, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council who works on drilling issues.

One of the chants at an anti-drilling rally in Albany earlier this month was “No fracking way!”

Industry executives argue that the word is deliberately misspelled by environmental activists and that it has become a slur that should not be used by media outlets that strive for objectivity.

“It’s a co-opted word and a co-opted spelling used to make it look as offensive as people can try to make it look,” said Michael Kehs, vice president for Strategic Affairs at Chesapeake Energy, the nation’s second-largest natural gas producer.

This is the kind of story that New York AP writers love – it will get a lot of play, ending up on front pages all around the country, just as it did here at the Gazette. But the story reminded me of a discussion a while back here on this blog in which our old buddy Bill Howley, author of The Power Line blog, about whether the right spelling is “fracking” or “fracing” and – more importantly – whether use of the phrase was leading to some fundamental misunderstandings about the potential dangers of the larger natural gas drilling and production process. Take a minute and go back to read the comments section of the previous post, Report ties ‘fracking’ to W.Va. well contamination and you’ll see what I’m talking about.

You see, environmental groups do love the word “fracking.” It makes for great signs and slogans and chants. From a public relations standpoint for them, it’s almost perfect. But the industry’s huge and growing PR machine, despite their protestations in this AP story, well, they like it to – because it’s allowed them to deflect the real issues about potential drinking water contamination into an almost absurd game of word play. Environmental groups have turned “fracking” into short-hand for the entire gas drilling and production process, and in some ways that’s given the industry a big advantage.

The main talking point for industry and its political friends regarding potential drinking water contamination from natural gas drilling and production has become this:

There are no documented cases of ground water contamination from hydraulic fracturing.

Friends, family and people effected by well water problems surround Craig Sautner as he speaks outside his home on Friday, Jan. 20, 2012 in Dimock, Pa. prior to a water delivery provided by The Enviromental Protection Agency. Under the authority of the Superfund law the EPA is delivering water to four homes and testing water at 61 homes in the Marcellus Shale gas drilling area in Susquehanna County. (AP Photo/Scranton Times & Tribune, Michael J. Mullen)

Now, maybe that’s true. Maybe it’s not. Regardless, the turn of phrase – making fracking and hydraulic fracturing the whole focus – has allowed questions about drinking water contamination to be unfairly dismissed by industry, its PR machine, lawmakers and even some regulators. And there is plenty of evidence that other parts of the process – particularly poorly done well casing jobs – has and can continue to lead to drinking water contamination. An expert panel appointed by the Obama administration explained it this way:

One of the commonly perceived risks from hydraulic fracturing is the possibility of leakage of fracturing fluid through fractures into drinking water. Regulators and geophysical experts agree that the likelihood of properly injected fracturing fluid reaching drinking water through fractures is remote where there is a large depth separation between drinking water sources and the producing zone. In the great majority of regions where shale gas is being produced, such separation exists and there are few, if any, documented examples of such migration. An improperly executed fracturing fluid injection can, of course, lead to surface spills and leakage into surrounding shallow drinking water formations. Similarly, a well with poorly cemented casing could potentially leak, regardless of whether the well has been hydraulically fractured.

Bill Howley probably explained it better in comments on this blog:

Casing failure is a real and continuing problem for the gas industry. Failed casings and cement jobs have been destroying water wells in West Virginia for over one hundred years, at well pressures far below those used in the 1987 Parsons incident. Sloppy and dangerous cementing caused the Macondo well blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.
There is extensive evidence, the Duke study being the latest, of contamination of water wells because of failed casing and cement work on Marcellus wells. This is a proven problem that needs to be dealt with now.

Searching for some holy grail that will prove direct migration of fracing fluids from gas formations to aquifers is a distraction from the real and immediate problem – sloppy and dangerous casing work. This problem has been with the gas industry from the beginning. The Marcellus drilling is different only because the fracing pressures are so much higher and because of the massive amounts of water injected into wells.

Getting caught up in whether “fracking” is the right word just takes time, energy, and newsprint away from focusing on the very real questions about the shale-gas drilling boom, including not only water pollution, but the long-term sustainability of this industry in terms of gas supply and global warming.

This entry was posted on Friday, January 27, 2012 at 9:02 am

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2105598,00.html?xid=gonewsedit

By TIM PADGETT / MIAMI Friday, Jan. 27, 2012

A Chinese-built drilling rig, known as Scarabeo 9, is seen off the coast of Havana, January 21, 2012.
Desmond Boylan / Reuters

On Christmas Eve, a massive, Chinese-made maritime oil rig, the Scarabeo 9, arrived at Trinidad and Tobago for inspection. The Spanish oil company Repsol YPF, which keeps regional headquarters in Trinidad, ferried it to the Caribbean to perform deep-ocean drilling off Cuba – whose communist government believes as much as 20 billion barrels of crude may lie near the island’s northwest coast. But it wasn’t Cuban authorities who came aboard the Scarabeo 9 to give it the once-over: officials from the U.S. Coast Guard and Interior Department did, even though the rig won’t be operating in U.S. waters.

On any other occasion that might have raised the ire of the Cubans, who consider Washington their imperialista enemy. But the U.S. examination of the Scarabeo 9, which Repsol agreed to and Cuba abided, was part of an unusual choreography of cooperation between the two countries. Their otherwise bitter cold-war feud (they haven’t had diplomatic relations since 1961) is best known for a 50-year-long trade embargo and history’s scariest nuclear standoff. Now, Cuba’s commitment to offshore oil exploration – drilling may start this weekend – raises a specter that haunts both nations: an oil spill in the Florida Straits like the BP calamity that tarred the nearby Gulf of Mexico two years ago and left $40 billion in U.S. damages.

The Straits, an equally vital body of water that’s home to some of the world’s most precious coral reefs, separates Havana and Key West, Florida, by a mere 90 miles. As a result, the U.S. has tacitly loosened its embargo against Cuba to give firms like Repsol easier access to the U.S. equipment they need to help avoid or contain possible spills. “Preventing drilling off Cuba better protects our interests than preparing for [a disaster] does,” U.S. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida tells TIME, noting the U.S. would prefer to stop the Cuban drilling – but can’t. “But the two are not mutually exclusive, and that’s why we should aim to do both.”

Cuba meanwhile has tacitly agreed to ensure that its safety measures meet U.S. standards (not that U.S. standards proved all that golden during the 2010 BP disaster) and is letting unofficial U.S. delegations in to discuss the precautions being taken by Havana and the international oil companies it is contracting. No Cuban official would discuss the matter, but Dan Whittle, senior attorney for the Environmental Defense Fund in New York, who was part of one recent delegation, says the Cubans “seem very motivated to do the right thing.”

It’s also the right business thing to do. Cuba’s threadbare economy – President Raúl Castro currently has to lay off more than 500,000 state workers – is acutely energy-dependent on allies like Venezuela, which ships the island 120,000 barrels of oil per day. So Havana is eager to drill for the major offshore reserves geologists discovered eight years ago (which the U.S. Geological Survey estimates at closer to 10 billion bbl.). Cuba has signed or is negotiating leases with Repsol and companies from eight other nations – Norway, India, Malaysia, Vietnam, Brazil, Venezuela, Angola and China – for 59 drilling blocks inside a 43,000-sq.-mile (112,000 sq km) zone. Eventually, the government hopes to extract half a million bpd or more.

A serious oil spill could scuttle those drilling operations – especially since Cuba hasn’t the technology, infrastructure or means, like a clean-up fund similar to the $1 billion the U.S. keeps on reserve, to confront such an emergency. And there is another big economic anxiety: Cuba’s $2 billion tourism industry. “The dilemma for Cuba is that as much as they want the oil, they care as much if not more about their ocean resources,” says Billy Causey, southeast regional director for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s marine sanctuary program. Cuba’s pristine beaches and reefs attract sunbathers and scuba divers the world over, and a quarter of its coastal environment is set aside as protected.

So is much of coastal Florida, where tourism generates $60 billion annually – which is why the state keeps oil rigs out of its waters. The Florida Keys lie as close as 50 miles from where Repsol is drilling; and they run roughly parallel to the 350-mile-long (560 km) Florida Reef Tract (FRT), the world’s third largest barrier reef and one of its most valuable ocean eco-systems. The FRT is already under assault from global warming, ocean acidification and overfishing of symbiotic species like parrotfish that keep coral pruned of corrosive algae. If a spill were to damage the FRT, which draws $2 billion from tourism each year and supports 33,000 jobs, “it would be a catastrophic event,” says David Vaughan, director of Florida’s private Mote Marine Laboratory.

Which means America has its own dilemma. As much as the U.S. would like to thwart Cuban petro-profits – Cuban-American leaders like U.S. Representative and House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Miami say the oil will throw a lifeline to the Castro dictatorship – it needs to care as much if not more about its own environment. Because fewer than a tenth of the Scarabeo 9’s components were made in America, Washington can’t wield the embargo cudgel and fine Repsol, which has interests in the U.S., for doing business with Cuba. (Most of the other firms don’t have U.S. interests.) Nor can it in good conscience use the embargo in this case to keep U.S. companies from offering spill prevention/containment hardware and services to Repsol and other drilling contractors.

One of those U.S. firms is Helix Energy Solutions in Houston. Amid the Gulf disaster, Helix engineered a “capping stack” to plug damaged blow-out preventers like the one that failed on BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig. (It later contained the spill.) Having that technology at hand – especially since the Cuba rigs will often operate in deeper waters than the Deepwater rig was mining – will be critical if a spill occurs off Cuba.
Helix has applied to the Treasury Department for a special license to lease its equipment, and speedily deliver it, to Cuba’s contractors when needed. The license is still pending, but Helix spokesman Cameron Wallace says the company is confident it will come through since Cuba won’t benefit economically from the arrangement. “This is a reasonable approach,” says Wallace. “We can’t just say we’ll figure out what to do if a spill happens. We need this kind of preparation.” Eco-advocates like Whittle agree: “It’s a no-brainer for the U.S.”

Preparation includes something the U.S.-Cuba cold-war time warp rarely allows: dialogue. Nelson has introduced legislation that would require federal agencies to consult Congress on how to work with countries like Cuba on offshore drilling safety and spill response, but the Administration has already shown some flexibility. Last month U.S. officials and scientists had contact with Cuban counterparts at a regional forum on drilling hazards. That’s important because they need to be in synch, for example, about how to attack a spill without exacerbating the damage to coral reefs. Scientists like Vaughan worry that chemical dispersants used to fight the spill in the Gulf, where coral wasn’t as prevalent, could be lethal to reefs in the Straits. That would breed more marine catastrophe, since coral reefs, though they make up only 1% of the world’s sea bottoms, account for up to 40% of natural fisheries. “They’re our underwater oases,” says Vaughan, whose tests so far with dispersants and FRT species like Elkhorn coral don’t augur well.

A rigid U.S. reluctance to engage communist Cuba is of course only half the problem. Another is Havana’s notorious, Soviet-style secrecy – which some fear “could override the need to immediately pick up the phone,” as one environmentalist confides, if and when a spill occurs. As a result, some are also petitioning Washington to fund AUVs (autonomous underwater vehicles) that marine biologists use to detect red tides, and which could also be used to sniff out oil spills in the Straits.

What experts on both sides of the Straits hope is that sea currents will carry any oil slick directly out into the Atlantic Ocean. But that’s wishful thinking. So probably is the notion that U.S.-Cuba cooperation on offshore drilling can be duplicated on other fronts. Among them are the embargo, including the arguably unconstitutional ban on U.S. travel to Cuba, which has utterly failed to dislodge the Castro regime but which Washington keeps in place for fear of offending Cuban-American voters in swing-state Florida; and cases like that of Alan Gross, a U.S. aid worker imprisoned in Cuba since 2009 on what many call questionable spying charges.

U.S. inspectors this month gave the Scarabeo 9 the thumbs-up. Meanwhile, U.S. pols hope they can still dissuade foreign oil companies from operating off Cuba. Last month Nelson and Cuban-American Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey introduced a bill to hold firms financially responsible for spills that affect the U.S. even if they originate outside U.S. waters. (It would also lift a $75 million liability cap.) Others in Congress say Big Oil should be exempted from the embargo to let the U.S. benefit from the Cuba oil find too. Either way, the only thing likely to stop the drilling now would be the discovery that there’s not as much crude there as anticipated. That, or a major spill.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

By Virginia Chamlee | 01.27.12 | 4:52 pm

The U.S. Department of the Interior announced yesterday morning that it will begin selling leases to allow offshore oil drilling in 38 million acres in the central Gulf of Mexico. Environmental groups say the move is troubling, as regulatory oversight and environmental problems related to the catastrophic 2010 gulf oil spill haven’t yet been fully remedied.

President Obama made the announcement during an appearance in Las Vegas, where he expanded on the energy blueprint laid out in his State of the Union address on Tuesday night.
The announcement came despite a National Academy of Engineering report released last month that revealed that deepwater drilling is one “of the most complex and most risky ventures conducted by commercial enterprises.”

The report also said that the Deepwater Horizon disaster raises “questions about the industry’s overall safety preparedness, the ability to handle the complexities of the deep-water operations, and industry oversight to approve and monitor well plans and operational practices and personnel competency and training.”

The environmental law firm Earthjustice filed suit against the federal government last year, alleging that federal regulators conducted an “irrationally optimistic risk assessment” for Shell’s plan to drill for oil in deep gulf waters near the site of BP’s devastating spill. The suit, filed on behalf of the Sierra Club, the Gulf Restoration Network and the Florida Wildlife Federation, is currently awaiting oral arguments.

In a press release sent out today, Earthjustice attorney David Guest argued that the Interior Department’s announcement flies in the face of logic.

“The federal government is acting as if the BP disaster never happened,” Guest said. “The Interior Department is supposed to be looking out for the public. Instead, they are pandering to drilling companies and putting Gulf Coast communities at risk.”

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/206407-obamas-offshore-drilling-pledge-re-states-existing-plan

By Ben Geman – 01/25/12 08:54 AM ET

President Obama’s State of the Union speech endorsed expanded offshore oil-and-gas drilling but didn’t alter existing administration plans that energy companies and Republicans complain are too narrow.

Obama, in his speech, called for continued increases in U.S. oil production. “Over the last three years, we’ve opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I’m directing my administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil-and-gas resources,” Obama said in the Capitol.

The “75 percent” comment, however, is a nod to the Interior Department’s draft 2012-2017 offshore leasing plan, unveiled late last year. An administration official confirmed that Obama’s comment is a reference to the Interior plan released last November.

That plan, which does not require congressional approval, envisions a suite of new oil-and-gas lease sales in resource-rich areas in the western and central Gulf of Mexico and, in the later years, off Alaska’s northern coast.

But the plan does not include leasing off the Atlantic Coast or in the eastern Gulf of Mexico – regions the administration pulled from consideration in the wake of the 2010 BP oil spill. (Leasing in the eastern Gulf would have required legislation to remove the moratoria in place there.)

Republicans and oil companies are pushing plans that would require vastly expanded leasing compared to the Interior proposal.

Advocates of wider drilling also say that testing and exploration in untapped areas, such as Virginia’s coast, will yield expanded resource estimates.

The House approved legislation last May that would mandate much wider leasing than the administration envisions, including areas off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.

House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings (R-Wash.), the author of the House-passed measure, knocked Obama’s comments on drilling, arguing the “lofty rhetoric” is at odds with the White House record on energy.

Hastings, in a statement, said, “An accurate description of President Obama’s energy policies would include: reinstating an offshore drilling ban off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts.”

He knocked other White House policies he alleges hinder job creation and energy security, including rejection of the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline.

Obama’s speech, in addition to the offshore drilling comments, touted expanded onshore natural-gas production while reiterating his call for repealing oil-industry tax breaks.

The tax proposal drew an attack from the American Petroleum Institute, an industry trade group. “Advocating greater energy production but penalizing those who provide that energy is not a sound energy policy, but a contradiction,” said Jack Gerard, the group’s CEO, in response to Obama’s speech.

Interior Department officials, when rolling out the draft offshore plan last November, said it strikes the right balance.

“The proposed program will promote safe and responsible domestic energy production by offering substantial acreage for lease in regions with known potential for oil and gas development,” Interior said when announcing the plan.
Obama, in his Tuesday speech, touted tougher offshore drilling rules that Interior imposed after the 2010 BP spill. “I will not back down from making sure an oil company can contain the kind of oil spill we saw in the Gulf two years ago,” he said.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20120125/ARTICLES/120129672

Richard Charter has spent nearly three decades working to protect the Sonoma County coastline and beyond from interests such as offshore oil and gas drilling. (The Press Democrat/ Christopher Chung, 2005))

By GUY KOVNER
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT
Published: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at 4:14 p.m.
Last Modified: Wednesday, January 25, 2012 at 4:14 p.m.

Environmentalists scrambled Wednesday to determine if President Obama’s reference to offshore oil drilling in his State of the Union speech posed a new prospect for oil rigs along the North Coast.

It didn’t, but activists said the reference underscores the need to achieve permanent protection from oil and gas drilling for the rugged coast that supports the region’s fishing and tourism industries.

“Our coast has become a political football – and we are in overtime,” said Richard Charter of Bodega Bay, a veteran anti-drilling advocate.

Obama’s statement that he will open “more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources” essentially affirmed the Department of Interior’s five-year oil and gas leasing program announced in November.

The plan calls for 15 potential lease sales in 2012-17 period, 12 in the Gulf of Mexico and three off the coast of Alaska.

The Pacific Coast was not included, the plan said, in deference to a 2006 agreement by the governors of California, Oregon and Washington opposing energy development off their coasts.

But after 2017, “all bets are off for California,” said Charter, a senior fellow with The Ocean Foundation, a nonprofit environmental group.

The oil industry, in an effort to rebound from the gulf oil spill of 2010, has mounted an aggressive promotional campaign featuring posters on Washington, D.C. subway cars and on television, Charter said.

A bill by Rep. Lynn Woolsey’s, D-Petaluma, to double the size of two marine sanctuaries would permanently ban drilling off the Sonoma coast and up to Point Arena in Mendocino County.

“It’s my highest priority,” said Woolsey, who is retiring this year. “It just has to happen.”

Woolsey said she was surprised by Obama’s comment, and said it amplifies the Interior Department’s plan.

In his speech, Obama noted that U.S. crude oil production was “the highest that it’s been in eight years” and that reliance on foreign oil was the lowest in 16 years.

Offshore oil production increased by more than one-third, from 446 million barrels in 2008 to more than 600 million barrels in 2010, the Interior Department said.

By excluding California, the five-year lease plan left an estimated 10.5 billion barrels of oil “off limits to U.S. customers,” said Catherine Reheis-Boyd, president of the Western States Petroleum Association.

Dependence on foreign oil is down partly because the recession reduced oil consumption, she said.

Obama’s recognition of the benefits of a secure oil supply “is a little bit at odds” with his decision to reject the Keystone XL pipeline bringing Canadian crude oil into the U.S., Reheis-Boyd said.

You can reach Staff Writer Guy Kovner at 521-5457 or guy.kovner@pressdemocrat.com.

Special thanks to Richard Charter