Promised
Land, The Movie Gets It Right January
16, 2013
Introduction
Last weekend was the first general release of the Gus Van Sandt – Matt Damon movie Promised Land. Dr Smith and I went to see it with a sense of trepidation and expectation – would the movie be a replay of GasLand, a string of unrelated videos or a real movie with characters and plot? We came away satisfied with the movie and glad to have invested the $10 (no popcorn). But I want to spoil it for you – this movie is not about environmental threats, it’s about local politics and as such it has the greatest relevance to the oil and gas operators and those investors in the saltwater disposal business.
Last weekend was the first general release of the Gus Van Sandt – Matt Damon movie Promised Land. Dr Smith and I went to see it with a sense of trepidation and expectation – would the movie be a replay of GasLand, a string of unrelated videos or a real movie with characters and plot? We came away satisfied with the movie and glad to have invested the $10 (no popcorn). But I want to spoil it for you – this movie is not about environmental threats, it’s about local politics and as such it has the greatest relevance to the oil and gas operators and those investors in the saltwater disposal business.
Promised Land portrays life in a small town in
Pennsylvania, rural life is removed from life in the big cities of Pittsburgh
and Philadelphia but running through the movie is the message that rural farm
life is an illusion; farmers must have second or third “real jobs” in order to
stay on the farm. The unreality of farms is a thick thread that runs through
the movie. Into this rural paradise come two landmen for a big oil and gas
company that wants to develop the shale-gas under the farms and town. Big money
is thrown around to get leases signed until a local high school teacher starts
talking about the dangers of fracking. The town’s venal, cowardly mayor calls a
town election to decide whether or not to allow fracking. The rest of the movie
leads up to the municipal election to vote on permission for the company to
drill and frack. Two extremely likable young men are the protagonists in the
story; this makes us pay close attention to their words and expressions because
we don’t want to dislike either one.
The
movie presents no evidence for or against fracking but citizens are told to
read about it, always good advice for us citizens. But what happens when
information is all over the geographical map and all over the trustworthiness
map? Does bad fracking news from Wyoming have any applicability to western
Pennsylvania? Is a spokesman from the Sierra Club more trustworthy than one
from Chesapeake Energy? The first question has sound technical answers; the
second question has no answer. It has been the tradition in The West to
relegate those hard questions to politics. But when the questions threaten to
impinge on business interests, especially big business, we recoil. Many of us
cheer a new business start-up based on a strange, new idea; we’d be disgusted
if our mayor suddenly forbade the owners from starting that business. If an EPA
regulator had the power to disallow drilling when she thought the prospect was
too weak, the oil sector would be up in arms – real arms.
I see
that Promised
Land has the zeitgeist of 2013 America dead right – citizens claim the
right to curtail business development that they feel harmful to them. I have
seen or read about these citizen protests several times throughout my history
in the oil business but more frequently in the past ten years. I will describe
the histories of five factual confrontations between oil companies and citizens;
maybe these narratives will help explain the movie and will convince owners and
investors in disposal wells that this trend is serious for our industry.
1.
Pauls Valley, Oklahoma: I have mentioned this
confrontation elsewhere in this blog. Citizens blocked the installation of a
disposal well in rural Garvin County in the heart of Oklahoma’s oil country. A
permit had been received earlier but the well was not drilled before the permit
expired. The new permit application was protested by more than 1200 citizens
who were concerned about groundwater supplies, truck traffic, and the potential
for serious earthquakes in the area. The permit applicant presented the facts
at a town meeting and at the permit hearing at the Oklahoma Corporation
Commission. The planned well was found to be in compliance with all state
regulations. Citizens presented data extraneous to the permitting requirements
but important to the community – noise, dust and road damage. Citizens were
allowed to present arguments despite lacking legal representation. The citizens were also allowed ex parte (one side only) discussions
with hearing officers. There is in fact no written procedures for hearings with
pro se (without lawyer) protestants and no guidance about hearing
arguments outside the jurisdiction of the OCC (e.g. noise, dust, and road
damage). The Pauls Valley hearing showed the danger of giving industry or citizens free rein. Clearly
citizens have the right to protest and to state their objections but in front
of the OCC those objections need to be restricted to agency jurisdiction. The
objections listed above are indeed the jurisdiction of the Garvin County
Commissioners. Commissioners’ meetings are public, do not require legal
representation, and often concern themselves with traffic issues.
2.
Erick, Oklahoma: Citizens complained to the
Oklahoma Corporation Commission about noxious smells from a commercial disposal
well. The citizens suspected the operator of illegal dumping. Several citizens
lived nearby a busy disposal well at the edge of town and citizens complained
about noxious fumes coming from the well; they stated that they had not smelled
such chemicals before and that is was not just crude oil and condensate. When
the citizens called the OCC field inspector he came onsite but by then the
smell had faded. The OCC talked with the disposal well operator and he said
that he had taken several loads of “frack flow-back” lately that contained
volatile chemicals with strong odors. The OCC decided to sample air at the edge
of the SWD facility when odors were noticed. The sampling was coordinated with
citizens and with the well operator so there was sufficient lead-time. Samples
were taken by opening hand-held stainless steel vessels that had been evacuated
in the lab. After the vessels filled with ambient air they were transported to
the Tulsa City-County air quality lab for analyses. Various pollutants were
found in the ppb (parts per billion) range but the levels of pollutants were
much lower than good days in Houston and New York City. There are no limits set
for these air pollutants at oil and gas facilities in the state of Oklahoma or
nationally. The lab data and level of effort by the OCC convinced the citizens
of Erick that their air, although odorous at times, was safe to breathe.
3.
Bozeman, Montana: Citizens complained to the
Governor and the Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation protesting natural
gas development. Citizens opposed the drilling for coalbed methane (CBM) in a
subdivision of Bozeman. A Texas natural gas producer had applied for drill
permits within the municipality of Bozeman, Montana; there had never been any
previous production in the vicinity of the city. At the time there was wide media
coverage of conflict between landowners and CBM developers in Wyoming. Wyoming
ranchers told of failed water wells and natural gas fouling their water. The
area of Wyoming was unique in that fresh water and natural gas are commingled
naturally in coal seams less than 1000 feet deep. When CBM wells are drilled
and fracked, water wells nearby can be affected in different ways, therefore
the state of Wyoming requires that every CBM operator tests water wells near
their development and signs an agreement with the surface owner pledging to
replace any affected water wells. In response to public pressure, the County of
Gallatin (including Bozeman) passed laws prohibiting the drilling or development
of CBM within the county borders. Blanket prohibitions against legitimate
enterprise are not good ideas for making government work.
4.
New Brunswick, Canada: Citizens protested the
development of shale-gas within the province. Eco-terrorism may have been
involved. Several large companies moved into the province to gain a foot-hold
with leases and seismic; this is a region that had not previously known oil and
gas development. Citizens became alarmed and concerned that air and water would
be impacted by shale-gas development including fracking. Seismic vehicles and
surface equipment was repeatedly vandalized and contractors became concerned
for their physical safety. At the present time all shale-gas operators have
left the province for greener pastures.
5.
British Columbia: Enbridge and its investors seek
to locate a pipeline from the Fort McMurray oil-sands west to the Pacific Coast
of B.C. One of the areas being crossed
is a coastal rainforest frequented by the white “spirit bears” as shown below:
The
Gateway pipeline is designed to transport crude oil from oil-sands projects to
a terminal on the coast from export to Asia. The pipeline project is drawing
protesters who see potential environmental damage to wilderness resources. A
recent article describing recent events (http://www.vancouverobserver.com/politics/tense-final-day-enbridge-northern-gateway-joint-review-panel-hearings-victoria) tells part of a familiar story
with heavy industry facing citizens who lack trust in industry and government
and feel disenfranchised.
These
five factual episodes and the story contained in Promised Land point to a
growing political confrontation between concerned citizens and fossil-fuel
developers. Public outreach by the oil and gas operator can dispel some
misconceptions and education by government agencies can help but the bulk of
the conflict entails lack of trust in industry, not lack of knowledge by the
public. As the Pauls Valley and Promised Land battles make clear,
there are few adequate vehicles for handling political-environmental disputes
in a regulatory framework. A regulatory agency such as the OCC can evaluate
technical issues such as the protection of groundwater by surface casing but
they cannot evaluate road noise or dust effects and most importantly they
cannot deal with public trust issues. Until oil and gas agencies adopt adequate
rules, oil operators and private citizens will be made to fend for themselves
when faced with development of shale-gas and tar-sands or installation of
disposal wells. This situation introduces another measure of financial risk for
operators and their investors. Operators and investors must demand improved
hearing processes that put citizens and operators on equal footing.
No comments:
Post a Comment