Hydraulic Fracturing is the process
of drilling into shale rock which is very fragile and easily broken, the
drilled holes are then injected with a fracturing fluid which breaks up the fragile
shale rock and releases natural gas. Hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” has become
the newest craze in gas drilling, being one of the most prevalent domestic
methods of extracting the large deposits of natural gas in the United States.
The natural gas boom however is not specific to all of the United States but in
a select few shale formations such as the Marcellus Shale Formation, and the
Utica Shale Formation. These formations
span many states which make the widespread regulation of this process very
difficult. The environmental considerations are serious and often debated due
to the lack of sufficient evidence from agencies such as the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Departments of Environmental Quality. There are many
government agencies, large oil/gas companies and citizens that have been
fighting to regulate or deregulate this process. Currently there are only a few federal regulations
that include hydraulic fracturing in the regulation spectrum. There are however
local and state ordnances that can
regulate the drilling process until federal laws are put into place to control
the gross use of chemicals and ignoring if geological restrictions on drinking
wells and aquifers. Proposing a comprehensive regulation of geological water
restrictions and chemical use in the fracturing process will be the best
available way to control pollution and to encourage economic growth through the
use of hydraulic fracturing to produce domestic gas at a cheaper cost to the
consumers.
Of
the many locations where natural gas is found in shale rock formations none are
more prevalent for current drilling practices than in the State of
Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania is the epi-center for the drilling rush and has felt
the brunt of the many environmental consequences seen by this process (Steven, 2013) . By looking at the
method more closely a better understanding can be gained in determining what
the environmental risks might be such as ground water contamination, forest
degradation, aquifer contamination and residential disturbances. In Pennsylvania alone there are 467 sites
available for drilling at this time and this includes residential area’s that
may be affected (Marcellus Coalition, 2013) . The reason this
method is so controversial is not so much the act of drilling into the ground
but the high pressure fluids that are injected into the ground. The drilling
process consists of first drilling holes into the shale rock which requires a
“slick” that comprises of oils, and chemicals to allow the drill components to
operate correctly (Marcellus Coalition, 2013) . There are several
holes that are drilled within a drill site to allow maximum containment of the
natural gas. Then there is a fluid injected into the drilled hole at very high
pressure which breaks up the shale rock from the naturally occurring fissures
within the shale rock itself. The fluid contains water, sand, and other
chemicals which are for the most part not disclosed to the public. The sand and
chemicals act as the propping agents to hold the rock open and allow the
release of the natural gas that can then be siphoned up the drill hole. Some of
the reported chemicals used in the fluids are hydrochloric acid, sodium
chloride, ethylene glycol and polyacrylamide (Environmental Protection Agency, 2013) .
There
are a number of environmental concerns due to the drilling process, wastewater
and ground water contamination being the two largest. In the process large
amounts of water are being used combined with sand and chemicals and then
typically delivered to local municipal sewage plants (Schmidt, 2013) . The Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Quality secretary Michael Krancer called on the Marcellus Shale
Coalition to stop this gross neglect and asked that the water be recycled or
repurposed in another way (Department of Environmental Quality , 2013) . The industry heads
did comply and shifted a minimum of 70% in flow back water to be re-used and as
much as 100% is being used as recycled water for the drilling process. This
does however increase the risk of wastewater contamination of the drinking
water in area’s near residential communities (Schmidt, 2013) . The ground water contamination is a serious
and unavoidable problem for the people of Pennsylvania who happen to live in an
area where drilling is occurring. The Responsible Drilling Alliance (RDA) is a
grassroots group that has dedicated itself to the pursuance of regulation that
will control the pollution of ground water and help to make “fracking” a viable
commerce for the state (Responsible Drilling Alliance , 2013) . The RDA uses the
views, and personal experiences and stories of the people directly effected as
a means of combating the process. There have been countless reports on the
contamination of drinking water and some of the major companies have been
forced by the Pennsylvania DEP to provide safe drinking water in such places as
Dimock, Pennsylvania (Responsible Drilling Alliance , 2013) .
There
are several major constituents that are involved in hydraulic fracturing in
Pennsylvania, Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation, Chesapeake Energy Corporation,
Delaware River Basin Commission, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, and community coalitions like
Responsible Drilling Alliance. There are two sides to the issue, those who are
proponents for the process and those who oppose the process. The oil and gas
companies are obviously for the process and count on the billions of dollars to
be made from the gas industry in Pennsylvania. With the natural gas economy
ever rising, the economic benefits are also hard to ignore. Natural Gas prices
have increasingly gone up and have averaged from 2011 to 2013 7 cents to the
dollar and rising as high as 8.3 cents to the dollar. The Natural Gas industry
is heavily taxed which provides needed income for the states. In Pennsylvania
the drilling companies can be taxed up to 40.6 percent which is much higher
than other industries operating in the state. Cabot Oil & Gas has several
programs that deal with the “fracking” process such as the Appalachian Shale
Recommended Practices Groups (ASRPG) (Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. , 2013) . This group is a way
of encouraging drilling operators to use recommended practices for responsible
and environmental quality that will be sufficient (Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. , 2013) . On the opposite
side of the spectrum the Delaware River Basin Committee created in 1961 is a
committee of delegates and agencies that has the power to create law and
enforce it when dealing with the river and waterways in its jurisdiction and
this includes the upper northeast part of Pennsylvania (Delaware River Basin Commmittee , 2013) . The committee has
issued a moratorium in 2010 on drilling permits and has not lifted it. The
reason for this moratorium is there are no federal regulations that contain
permitting and chemical use information for hydraulic fracturing (Delaware River Basin Commmittee , 2013) . This is a
controversial way of controlling the drilling process and is implemented across
several states in the basin area. The
Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Environmental Quality are
both involved in the process and have issued reports stating the investigation
of the process but have come up with conflicting results. The EPA has been
completing a comprehensive study of the process and has not released any
information from the study as of yet (Environmental Protection Agency , 2013) . The DEP is also
conducting an independent study of the process and has released some information
pertaining to the issues and concerns of the process (Department of Environmental Quality , 2013) . There is of course
citizen coalitions that have been formed such as the Responsible Drilling
Alliance that have combated these reports stating the real and personal effects
from the drilling process within a community and near to residential areas (Responsible Drilling Alliance , 2013) .
Each
of these stakeholders is involved in some way in the process of hydraulic fracturing,
which is either to help push for regulation or to report voluntary company
restrictions to keep the appearance of responsible proprietorship. The
companies involved all want to appear as if the company specific processes are
revolutionary in the environmental considerations. The usage of vague wording
and even less facts to back up the methods assumes the practices are not as
concerned with environmental quality as they appear to be. The facts that
should be taken into consideration are the reports that are tested for
environmental quality such as the EPA’s report on the process. In 2010 the EPA
released a statement about the 1.9 million dollar study to be conducted, case
studies to be completed, and water, soil, and air quality to be considered in
reference to the Hydraulic Fracturing process. This process is not safe from
stakeholder manipulation. The statement did disclose that significant input and
cooperation from the stakeholders would take place, meaning the companies would
have a say in the sites that where being considered (Maykuth, 2010) . There are several case studies being done by
the EPA in Pennsylvania in Susquehanna and Bradford County. There is also
significant research into the town of Dimock which has been the largest
reported site of water contamination. There have not been any significant
findings from the EPA or the DEP despite the continuous reports on the effort
to conduct meaningful and acceptable testing on drill sites and community
wells. There has been no official statement from either on the process or the
regulations that may be needed to control pollution efforts. There are however
some other state agencies that have attempted to control the situation such as
the Delaware River Basin Committee, and the states courts system. This has come
in lue of the overwhelming concern and outcry from citizens and several court
cases that have fought the outright abuse of the local commodities and land
rights.
In
several important court battles and with the creation and amendments to several
federal laws the battle over land rights and usage pertaining to hydraulic fracturing
is in full swing. For the most part the environmental impacts should have had
jurisdiction restrictions under the current environmental acts such as the
Clean Water Act, Drinking Water Act and the Clean Air Act. These acts would
normally have regulated the fracturing fluids and the methane release into the
air. There have been several amendments to these acts that have exempted these
fluids from the regulation process and have caused the debate between opponents
and advocates as to the environmental consequences with increased air and water
pollution and the economic benefits to be reached. The Safe Drinking Water Act applies
regulation to the injection of fluids into the ground that may or may not enter
groundwater. In the case of fracturing fluids the act only imposes standards
upon drilling operations that use diesel fuel, and nothing is mentioned about
other fluids concerned with the “fracking” process (Steven, 2013) . In a 2003 negotiation between the EPA
and Halliburton Energy Services, BJ Services and Schlumberger Technology the
companies voluntarily ceased use of diesel fuel in the fracturing process but
stated that some of the acceptable chemicals used posed some environmental
concerns (Steven, 2013) . This was then followed by a study by
the EPA into the effects and then the passing of the Energy Policy Act of 2005
which contained an amendment to the SDWA’s definition of injection fluids to
exclude specifically injection fluids and propping agents used in Hydraulic
Fracturing operations (Steven, 2013) . This meant that states no longer had
to require permits before drilling could commence. The clean Water Act which is
the primary source of regulation pertaining to the containment and treatment of
flow back water mentioned earlier. This does regulate the methods and treatment
of the flow back water to certain specifications and does require special permitting
and charges for the disposal and treatment of such waste water. There have been
several attempts to pass amendments to the Clean Air Act to include hydraulically
fractured gas wells. In 2012 the EPA passed national air quality standards for
hydraulically fractured emissions and required compliance by all operating
companies by January 1, 2015 (Steven, 2013) . This is to reduce the amount of
emissions by 95% by that time and save the oil and gas companies needless fines
due to non-compliance (Steven, 2013) . These are the only federal standards
to regulate the emissions and pollution dealing with “fracking” and the rest is
left up to the specific states to do the rest.
In
Pennsylvania there has been hard fought debate over the control of
hydrofracking. Under state oil and gas laws local governments in Pennsylvania
can regulate but not stop “fracking” from occurring. After the long debates
Pennsylvania passed Act 13 which preempted local control (Steven, 2013) . This required local government to
include hydrofracking as an accepted permitted use in all zoning districts,
which is a direct violation of the moratorium enacted by the Delaware River
Basin Committee which is another government agency allowed to create and
implement policy in Pennsylvania. In the court case Robinson Township v. Commonwealth
found that the Commonwealth used the states oil and gas legislation to make
irrational land use classifications and failed to protect the citizens and
owners of land used in the process from harm (Steven, 2013) . This preempted the states legislation
of allowable permits. There are local zoning localities that specifically
restrict the imposed municipalities from allowing certain activities within
certain zoning codes under the chapter 32 zoning rights of the state. In
Pennsylvania there is also the Municipal Planning Code (MPC) which requires
that adoption of plans to create proper zoning districts due to federal and
other state enforcements, this means environmental ordinances as well (Steven, 2013) l. Act 13 has conflicted with these codes and
many are contending the sheer ignorance and lack of regulation under the
pretense of economic benefit and special interest group manipulation. The
Pennsylvania courts have ruled that there is substantive evidence that Act 13
does indeed violate the comprehensive plans that would regulate hydrofracking
and has given power to the local ordinances to create municipal zoning codes
that would allow the regulation of hydraulic fracturing (Steven, 2013) . The courts have ruled that local
governments should be allowed to regulate zoning laws, and that state
preemption of these rules violated the standardized regulations of local
governments.
In
Pennsylvania due to the preemption of local ordinances by the state government
has caused a delay in the regulation process as the land use zoning districts
cannot be properly organized and determined who, what, when and how the permits
will be given and where the drilling will be allowed. It is clear that there
are benefits economically to the local markets that come directly from
hydraulic fracturing as jobs and commerce will be large in number. There are
however environmental considerations that need to be concluded as well. The
companies involved have shown compliance with voluntary actions to reduce or at
least acknowledge the environmental impacts of this process. If there were
comprehensive policies relating to the process itself and specifically a
balance can be reached. In the terms of the actual steps in the process that
should be regulated, the flow back waste water should be help to proper
standards and enforced under the acts that are already in place by the local
authorities. The air quality standards can also be further enforced by local
authorities based on the federal standards in place. The amendments to the
Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act should be dissolved and new
standards should be set to include regulations on known hazardous chemicals especially
including those that are already being found in contaminated water such as
naphthalene, formaldehyde, hydrochloric acid, sodium chloride, ethylene glycol
and polyacrylamide (Environmental Protection Agency, 2013) . These substances
are entering ground water and contaminating drinking water aquifers. This is a major
point source pollution that should be regulated on a federal level and then can
be enforced more stringently by local authorities in Pennsylvania. The companies
have already begun to reach negotiations and include voluntary actions in this
manner so the implementation of federal regulation is not far from the future. In
Pennsylvania there have already been small steps taken to regulate the process
and further federal regulations will help the local authorities to have a solid
legal standing for the regulation of such processes. The citizens and opponents
of the process have been dutifully working to gain support for such regulations
and will most likely accept any federal regulation standards dealing with this
process as well.
In
conclusion by proposing a comprehensive regulation of geological water restrictions
and chemical use in the fracturing process will be the best available way to
control pollution and to encourage economic growth through the use of this
method to produce domestic gas at a cheaper cost to the consumers. In
Pennsylvania the use of injecting high pressure fluids into drill holes to
release the natural gas and in doing so contaminating the ground water,
polluting the air, and creating waste water that must be disposed of is a major
concern that cannot be ignored. There are large economic considerations that
are being considered mostly by the companies in which are using this source of
natural gas as a means of solid income. These companies such as Cabot Oil &
Gas Corporation, Marcellus Shale Coalition, and Chesapeake Energy Corporation
all see the benefit in the large store of natural gas that is trapped within
the Marcellus Shale Formation sitting directly under Pennsylvania. Not only
will this process bring added domestic gas, but can create needed jobs, and
increase the economy for the local markets. The citizen coalitions such as the
Responsible Drilling Alliance understand the need for the economic growth the
drilling can bring but are deeply concerned with the environmental and more
importantly social effects. Proper regulation is called for and needed to be
able to accurately and legally restrict certain practices. The major issue currently
facing this process is the preemption of state power over local power. This is
a concern being seen from the numerous court cases that have found that state
regulation that has allowed any and all drilling directly violated the zoning
restrictions of local governments. This lack of cooperation between the local
governments and the state and federal ones is a problem that must be fixed in
order to properly and comprehensively create policy that will regulate the
process. What policy will be created in the future will be directly related to
the cooperation between the government agencies, the citizens, and the
companies involved in the process. The cooperation between stakeholders and the
creation of comprehensive policy will be the only way to regulate this method
of drilling and allow for the economic benefits to be shown in a strong and
environmentally conscious way.
References:
Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. . (2013, 7 15). Policy on
Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids . Retrieved from Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. :
http://www.cabotog.com/pdfs/Frackingfluidpolicy.pdf
Delaware River Basin Commmittee . (2013, 7 15). About
DRBC. Retrieved from Delaware River Basin Committee:
http://www.state.nj.us/drbc/about/
Department of Environmental Quality . (2013, 7 17). Hydraulic
Fracturing . Retrieved from Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Proctection :
http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt?open=512&objID=14295&mode=2&PageID=590867&q=Fracking
&cp=Site,Documents,News
Environmental Protection Agency . (2013,a). Key
Issues to be Investigated at Case Study Locations. Retrieved from
Environmental Protection Agency:
http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy/key-issues-be-investigated-case-study-locations
Environmental Protection Agency. (2013,b). Hydraulic
Fracturing. Retrieved from Environmental Protection Agency :
http://www2.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing
Marcellus Coalition. (2013, 5 21). Natural Gas
Deposits . Retrieved from Marcellus Coalition :
http://marcelluscoalition.org/
Maykuth, A. (2010). Federal EPA to study hydraulic
Fracturing. The Philidelphia Inquirer.
Responsible Drilling Alliance . (2013, 6 4). About
RDA. Retrieved from Responsible Drilling Alliance:
http://www.responsibledrillingalliance.org/index.php/education/water-quality
Schmidt, C. (2013). Estimating Wastewater Impacts from
Fracking. Environmental Health Perspectives, 121(4), 117-117.
Steven, J. N. (2013). Hydrofracking: State Preemption,
Local Power, and Cooperative Governence. Case Western Law Review, 63(4),
995-1039.
12/17/2013 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
Introduction
On April 20 2010 the Deepwater
Horizon Oil Platform off the shores of Louisiana and positioned in the Gulf Coast exploded. The explosion was suspected to have been
caused by methane gas seepage and igniting which triggered an explosion (Office Of Response and Restoration, 2013) . This started a
chain reaction of events that would make this the largest oil spill to date and
one of the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history. The explosion not
only caused the platform to sink it also killed eleven people and jeopardized
the drills in turn allowing oil to leak uncontrollably out of the drill heads. The
leakage lasted for a staggering 87 days and the total amount of oil estimated
to have been released from the wells equaled 4.9 million barrels or 205.8
million gallons (Repanich, 2010) . There were several attempts to not
only save the rig before it sank but to stop the wells from leaking, all of
which failed. There were plenty of safety procedures that suggested the accident
should never have happened. Some of these procedures included pipeline cutoff
valves, regulators to check the amount of caustic gases escaping the well,
centralizers that would keep the rig afloat in case of an emergency, and containing
hydrocarbon pressure within the well. There were also blowout prevention
systems in place that just simply failed (Office Of Response and Restoration, 2013) .
The
well was eventually capped on July 15 2010. The slick that was created from the
leaking oil was estimated to coat 665 miles of coastline and 2,500 square miles
of the water’s surface (Repanich, 2010) . There is much uncertainty surrounding
the spill, the clean-up and the estimated environmental impact. Several
companies have been named in direct connection with the spill BP, Transocean,
Cameron International, and Halliburton Energy Services. Debates suspected
conspiracy theories and governmental mistrust have provided more questions
about the spill than can be answered. An incident as large as this has created
many intersecting themes and political standoffs as the fate of offshore
drilling is being decided. Government estimates did not match scientific data, the information was adjusted to reflect modest
amounts. The cause of the explosion was unclear, the reason for the safety
measures failing, and the massive amount of oil released in the ocean makes the
reality of the situation immeasurable. The truth behind the explosion, the
massive leakage and inability to stop the spill may be buried with the rig
itself.
There are many perspectives that relate to the
explosion, response, management and continuing clean-up. There are numerous
stakeholders that have invested interest in this incident, and each holds a
certain amount of information. This is imperative to analyzing the political,
social, and administrative values. Each stakeholder has a perspective in which
they base opinions and respective analysis of the incident. Within these
perspectives narratives and codes can be gathered to gain a better idea of each
stakeholder’s beliefs (McBeth, 2009) . With an incident as large as this one
there can be many stakeholders such as government officials, agencies,
citizens, groups, and companies. The eclectic array of perspectives lends the
analysis to a broad and colorful range of ideas, and implications of the
incident. To detail certain stakeholder’s perspectives codes will be compiled
using simplified content analysis in order to arrange a broad perspective of
all political and social standpoints. There are many problems at hand and even
more solutions to be offered by each stakeholder.
Narratives
The first article to be analyzed
is from the New York Times written by Thomas Friedman a long time political and
social columnist. The standpoint is very clear in this article and identifying
the code is quite easy. It is clear that Friedman is taking a social approach
to the issue in putting the blame on the citizens for over consuming good such
as oil and not looking at our own lifestyle. The article seems to suggest that
the oil industry is just reflecting off of the demands of the citizens and the
dependency on oil. The coded problem statement is American’s ultimately drove
the oil industry to cut corners, reduce safety measures all to provide the
public with a cheaper more dependable source of domestic oil. The authors
states “It’s my fault because I haven’t digested the world’s in your face hints
that maybe I ought to think about the future and chance the unsustainable way I
live my life (Friedman, 2010) .”
This seems to suggest that
citizens have as much of a stake in the process of creating as the author
states the enemy in environmental consequences. The article proposes that there
is an urge to push the bright minds into financial institutions instead of
creating new technologies, commending oil companies to find cheap and plentiful
oil fields, pushing for vast amounts of goods yet ignoring the reality of
disposal, and refusing to see that it is the everyday person that is equally to
blame not just the government and industries.
Within this self-convicting article the author offers a solution to the
problem, one that is not easily digested. Freidman states, “we cannot fix what
ails America unless we look honestly at our own roles in creating our own
problems, we have created an awful set of incentives that have encouraged it (Friedman, 2010) .” This is a powerful
statement in which the blame is clearly put on the American public to make
changes in the consumerism lifestyle. The author takes the socialist position
blaming the spill indirectly on the lack of public participation in government.
After all the government is a democracy and is a reflection of the public
opinion, when there is a lack of this than the officials will seek other avenues
to base policy on. This indirectly is a cause, the public’s lack of awareness
and participation where participation is allowed.
The solution is simple; to reduce
the oil dependency by making radical changes in the way each and every citizen
lives. Reducing the dependency on oil is not as hard as it sounds, there are
many options available such as solar, and wind power. Living more simply is
another option to rid the country of the idealism that material goods defines a
person. Reducing the amount of goods consumed by each citizen will indefinitely
create change as the amount of goods to be disposed of will reduce the need for
oil to ship those goods, to dispose of those goods, and ultimately to make
those goods. One of the largest sources of oil use would be the automobile
industry. This alone would be an invaluable commodity that could alone change
the dependency. More people should make the sacrifice to as the author states
bike to work or choose electric vehicles. There is a powerful tool at hand and
that is to solve the most powerful problems and not ignore or postpone them in
lue of more, “lobby-driven, lowest common denominator solutions (Friedman, 2010) .” In reality the solution to many environmental
issues can be solved by individual participation in lowering the countries
dependencies on oil, and other harmful fossil fuels. By adopting better personal practices a domino
effect will take place as the need for oil will decrease and be transferred to
safer, and more technologically advanced options such as solar, or wind. Citizens provide a powerful tool as a means of
pushing and lobbying for environmentally conscious policy. In the process of lobbying for better policy
to protect the environment, more safety measures will be taken to reduce
disasters such as the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. If there was better policy
in place this disaster may not have happened, and assume there was less
dependency on oil the rig may not have been built, in turn removing the spill
form the equation. This is the price that is paid for ignorance and naivety.
The search for more, and cheaper oil often results in disaster.
The second article is also from
The New York Times but offers a much different approach adding to the
complexity of the massive problems that plagued this natural disaster. In this
article the problem that is defined can be found easily. The author takes the
position of blaming the technology or rather the lack of technology for the
untimely spill. The code that has been found for this article is clear and
stated as, “Americans have a lot of faith that over the long run technology
will solve everything, a sense that somehow we’re going to find a way to fix it
(Rosenthal, 2010) .” This is not only a downfall of
government and citizens but it plagues the entirety of society. There is any idea that because a species is
technologically advanced that it can trump even the most powerful natural
forces. This is both naive and problematic when this theory is proven wrong.
This was seen with the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, nature proved more powerful
a advisory than predicted. The fail safe’s where not adequate to deal with
unforeseen forces. The technology may have been there but the ability for it to
actually work to stop a disaster like this from happening may not have been
apparent.
The statement from David Eyton
the vice president of BP at the time of the spill acknowledges that the company
“did somewhat underestimate the full nature of the challenges we were taking on
in the deep waters of the gulf (Rosenthal, 2010) .” Before the spill Eyton was confident
in the companies risk management expertise and believed that it would allow the
company to triumph over nature’s hurdles. This however was proved wrong and did
not go as planned where the company was able to handle or prepare for natures
obstacles. The vice president also admitted that the deep water frontier
offered up challenges that outpaced the knowledge of how to drill safely (Rosenthal, 2010) . On the other hand there are plenty of
technologies that are available and it is not clear whether or not BP had
actually used all the safety technology presented. Eyton
stated that the blowout on the rig and the technological failures where “beyond
the realm of expectation” which was a cause of human and mechanical
errors. The problem with this statement
and others like it suggests that the engineers and companies involved in the
process knew that there were unforeseen risks, and possible complications with
the engineering of the rig, yet the rig was being operated without proper
testing of such fail safe’s and blow-out preventer’s. Drilling in deep water is
relatively new and estimating the possible risks is almost impossible and
highly complex. Many critics of the spill
have cited this very matter, the lack of adequate and tested technology to
prevent such disasters. The ability for the human component to accurately
detect and prevent disasters and the mechanics to facilitate this should be
proven its worth before the operation is allowed to commence. William Jackson the deputy director general
of the International Union for Conservation of Nature states, “At this time in
history we have great faith in having the technological ability to solve
problems, and that faith has proved incorrect in this place (Rosenthal, 2010) .” This statement encapsulated the
problem definition, the code of the article and the solution all in one.
The solution to this problem
regarding the events at the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, would be to create
policy to reflect the need for tried and tested mechanics to avoid situations
such as this. The solution is given in
the article stating, “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled (Rosenthal, 2010) .” This brings to mind the simple fact
that there is not always an answer to natural disasters. Human ingenuity can
only go so far and people are still at the mercy of nature. Not too long ago
humans worked with the forces of nature respected them, and lived by them. It
is not a viable option to completely ignore the forces of nature and to try and
create technology to get around the raw power that is nature itself.
The last article is one that was
very popular in the aftermath of the Deepwater Horizon Oil spill. The title of
the article, “The Spill, The Scandal and the President” encapsulated the political
characteristic of the spill and how the government did or did not protect the
assets of the people and the environment. On top of the complexity of the spill itself,
stopping the leakage of oil, organizing clean-up procedures, and determining
the cause and responsible parties the government added another layer to the
story. On May 27th President Barak Obama took the stand and admitted
that the spill was the responsibility of the administration and the government
is to blame. The president took full responsibility for the spill and stated
that “I was wrong in my belief that the oil companies had their act together
when it came to worst-case scenarios (Dickinson, 2010) .” The article details the government’s
position, the issues, and the mistakes that made it possible for the oil
companies to take short cuts and ultimately caused the spill. The problem
definition is harder to spot in this article. Defining the code to determine
the problem can be found in the political perspective that is read between the
lines. The author uses specific information to accuse the President and the
administration for knowingly ignoring needed reform that would have posed more
strict regulations on the industry. This suggests that the problem is allowing
the self-regulation of the oil industry by keeping and supporting vague and
incomplete loophole policy that allows this behavior.
The problem definition or code
for this article would be the lack of political interference with policy that
effects the regulations imposed on oil industries, allowing for the
self-regulations and dangerous short-cuts to be taken. The standpoint of the administration
was at first to deny any responsibility. In a statement made by the Whitehouse
spokesman Robert Gibbs, “they have the expertise to plug the hole, it is their
responsibility (Dickinson, 2010) .” The big question was whether or not
the clean-up and regulatory processes should be federalized to avoid any other
short cuts and disaster. The response of the administration was that the
clean-up effort was the sole responsibility of the companies involved which
were BP, Transocean, Cameron International, and Halliburton. Just days later,
the administration changed positions on the spill. It was decided that because
the companies failed to stop the flow of oil, and pretty much failed to do
anything to better the situation the government would take over.
The President acknowledged the
fact that reform was not made to the Minerals Management Service which the
author states is a scandal-ridden federal agency that for years allowed the oil
companies to self-regulate. There was not an urgency to reform the agency which
ended up costing eleven lives and millions of barrels of oil to be released
from the sea floor. One statement in the whole article encapsulates the whole
position, “Obama left in place many of the top officials who oversaw the
agency’s culture of corruption. He permitted it to rubber-stamp dangerous
drilling operations by BP-with virtually no safeguards, using industry-friendly
regulations drafted during the Bush years (Dickinson, 2010) .” The administration wanted to be seen
doing something so a moratorium was placed on all deep water drilling, but the
specifics suggest otherwise. Only 33 deep water operations where shut down only
1% of all operations in the gulf. Going
further to bring home the point the author includes a statement made by
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, the Cabinet-level official appointed by Obama.
The secretary said “the moratorium is not a moratorium that will affect
production (Dickinson, 2010) .”
The author offers many facts
concerning the cause of the spill, the problem definition but no solution. One solution that can be presented could be
that the administration should commit to reforming all agencies and regulations
concerning safety features on any and all oil drilling operations both off
shore and on. Policies that encourage self-regulation should be abolished. By better regulating the operations the
safety procedures are federalized which is a much debated topic. The
federalization of private business can be seen in several lights. On one side people
believe that the corruption of private business especially large ones such as
BP results in disastrous effect, and should be government controlled. On the
other side there are those who feel that giving the government control over
such proceedings will only further the decent into darkness. Either way the simple fact is that there
needs to be better communication between industries and the government. The author states some distressing facts, one
of the other largest deep water operations owned by BP is the Atlantis Rig.
This rig according to congressional documents lacks required engineering
certification for as much as 90 percent of its subsea components. This flaw can
be catastrophic if errors were made in anyway and could be more devastating
than the recent Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.
This type of ignorance cannot be allowed, regulation and agency reform
needs to happen in order for disasters like to be avoided.
Interpretation
The events that took place on April
20, 2010 would change the view of offshore drilling and political ability to regulate
industry forever. No longer was the American public able to ignore the need for
political and social change. In any disaster there is the immediate response to
determine which party and which stakeholders are directly responsible for the
mishap. There are also those stakeholders who are indirectly responsible, but
each of these parties has some involvement in one way or another. In the articles cited, three different
perspectives where detailed with three different problems analyzed. Each of the
articles provided facts and information in which they supported their claims. Although
the perspectives where largely different, the call for change is shared by all.
The need for the government and the public to step up push for reform and
better the communication between parties remains a common theme. Each article
provides a different perspective, and when these perspectives are combine a
clear picture can be drawn from the complex and multifaceted event that was the
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill.
The first article was unique because
it was indirectly related to the oil spill, but more importantly focused the
blame to the citizens. There are many stakeholders in a large environmental
disaster such as this and citizens can be considered indirect stakeholders. The
article suggests that the common everyday citizen is to blame for ignoring the
“in your face” fact that most people live in an unsustainable way. The theme of
this article is simple, the need and dependency for oil has caused a chain
reaction that lead to the lacking safety standards and therefore the explosion.
This single environmental disaster was the catalyst for many changes and to awaken
the need for personal reform in many citizens. This is in contrast with the
second article that placed the blame and similar theme on the human dependency
on technology. The second article placed the blame on the fact that society has
become engulfed in the false sense of safety that technology brings. Many are
of the mindset that technology can and will solve any problem, including
control over forces of nature. The author gives an answer to the problem, which
is that humans start solving the issues instead of making the situation worse.
One statement in particular stood out and that was “we have met the enemy and
he is us (Friedman, 2010) .”
The last article offers yet another approach
and that is one that is politically charged and weighted with severe
implications. The article written for Rolling Stone’s magazine creates a
picture of an ignorant and unconstitutional administration in which knowingly
failed to act upon situations that could have avoided the disaster. The
administration admitted to not reforming agencies like the Mineral Management
Service. The president failed to take notice of the reported safety violations,
and to not act upon the reports that stated in the event of an explosion the
effects would be catastrophic. Not only
was there a lack of policy reform and regulations to keep safety a top
priority, but there was also a report of low estimates to downplay the real
scope of the spill. There was also the
moratorium that didn’t really impose any real control just the illusion of
control. These facts are all to support the problem definition and to convince
others that the administration and ultimately the president was to blame.
What can be taken from each of
these articles is a common theme, the need for change. This is not only the
problem but the solution as well. Each of these perspectives offers a
standpoint of one of the many stakeholders. The view of the citizens represents
the public aspect of policy and government regulations. The public holds stake in an environmental
issue as it will affect the health and wellbeing of individuals. It is the
responsibility of each individual to make changes like reducing the dependency
on oil by riding a bike to work, buying an electric vehicle, and reducing the
carbon footprint. By doing these things citizens can encourage change, and in
this way make a positive impact on policy and help to avoid disasters such as
the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill. In
comparison the other article suggests change in another direction, on the political side. The government can also
be stakeholders as it represents the aspect of policy and regulation of a topic
such as the control and regulation of oil rigs and refineries. In this was the
stake is making appropriate regulation to avoid any accidents such as the oil
spill. Government is a powerful tool, and should be used for good, rather than
to line the pockets of the wealthy. Policy should reflect change and the
ability to control and regulate dangerous and hazardous industries. This is the
view point and the solution suggested by Tim Dickinson the author of the
Rolling Stones article. The last perspective ties the others together in
encompassing both the government and the public side of the issue. By stating
that Americans have a false sense of security when it comes to relying on
technology to fix every problem, the author draws a realistic view of how
powerful the forces of nature are. This power should be respected and included
in the safety procedures, engineering, and planning stages of all operations.
The author states this issue is the real problem in which caused the spill to
be so devastating. This lack of respect is not only held by government but by
all people in general, and puts the blame on human nature. The lesson to be
learned from this perspective is to respect the powers of nature and to plan
for the unexpected, to test and re-test technology to account for the
unforeseen possibilities. The statement “we have met the enemy and he is us”
encapsulated the themes of all three narratives and codes into one unified
perspective. A lot can be said from this statement and the implications when
reading between the lines is powerful. It puts blame on all of humanity and the
search for greed. The only way to change the world is to change those who live
in it, to step up and use the intellect and ingenuity that got us into the
dangerous situations in the first place. There are many lessons to be learned
from the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, and the future lies within the ability to
learn from the mistakes made and to work together not apart.
References:
Dickinson, T. (2010, June 8). The Spill, The
Scandal and the President. Retrieved from Rolling Stone:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-spill-the-scandal-and-the-president-20100608
Friedman, T. (2010, June 12). This Time Is
Different. Retrieved from The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/opinion/13friedman.html?_r=0
McBeth, R. C. (2009). Public Policy Praxis: A Case
Approach for Understanding Policy and Analysis. Pearson.
Office Of Response and Restoration. (2013, September
12). NOAA Data on Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Plume Now Available Online.
Retrieved from National Oeanic and Atmospheric Administration:
http://usresponserestoration.wordpress.com/2013/09/12/noaa-data-on-deepwater-horizon-oil-spill-plume-now-available-online/
Repanich, J. (2010, August 10). The Deepwater
Horizon Spill by the Numbers. Retrieved from Popular Mechanics:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/bp-oil-spill-statistics
Rosenthal, E. (2010, May 9 ). Our Fix-It Faith and
the Oil Spill . Retrieved from The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/30/weekinreview/30rosenthal.html
No comments:
Post a Comment