Tag / fracking

by Frank Maduri

Deep Freeze: Halt In Arctic Ocean Drilling

The recent announcement by the Department of Interior regarding the two year halt in Arctic Ocean oil drilling was not entirely unexpected but is a victory for environmental protection just the same. The decision effectively ends oil production in that region even though several companies still hold leases for exploration. I have followed this issue closely over the past few years and the decision by the Obama Administration last week indicates the cumulative effect of a confluence of factors which impacted the timing of this announcement.

 

The decision by the federal government to halt oil exploration in Alaska comes on the heels of the announcement by Shell Oil that they have cancelled their exploration efforts in the Arctic Ocean due to poor results from test wells and the steep costs for those projects in a marketplace where oil prices remain low. In fact, according to several mainstream news sources, Shell spent $7 billion on the Arctic region exploratory project and it yielded zero oil.

 

The elected representatives of Alaska are obviously unhappy with this decision but the handwriting was on the wall in this situation with several oil companies suspending exploration efforts there due to limited light hours as the Alaskan winter approaches and the harsh weather conditions. These factors combine to make drilling expensive and potentially dangerous for these companies to undertake.

 

However, it is yet another blow to the already struggling Alaskan state economy which has been impacted by a number of issues including the rise of fracking. The practice of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has changed the supplier side of the equation for oil production in the United States. The increase in fracking throughout the “lower 48” has decreased the strategic importance of Alaska to the oil producing companies. It has also created conditions were the U.S. has a bloated supply of oil amid a time of decreased demand for the resource, we are essentially overproducing oil and the market has not reset itself.

 

The Kayakers

 

The environmental groups and the “kayakers” as they are known in Alaska are thrilled at the announcement that oil production will be halted for the foreseeable future. The rationale is simple: the halt to drilling protects wildlife as well as protects against the release of carbon reserves from the excavation process which have been linked to climate change.

 

Some scientific studies already display an increase in the ocean temperatures without the excavation efforts going on in that region. This warming of the ocean has a direct impact on the rates of polar ice melt. Any disruption to the environment from external sources creates a domino effect on the rest of the ecosystem.

 

Environmental groups, both locally and nationally, have been working to raise the awareness of the potentially negative consequences to drilling in the Arctic and the direct correlation they would have on a number or natural resources.

 

Cost Benefit Analysis

 

Unfortunately, even the idealists and the environmentalists understand that the decision by Shell and other oil companies to suspend operations in Alaska was not made as a result of environmental stewardship. It was made out of a cost benefit analysis which also, very importantly, took into account employee safety amid difficult or dangerous conditions in that region of the world.

The decision was also driven by market conditions where the supply and demand curve for oil is unfavorable at this point for the supplier. Shell and the other big players in the energy industry could not justify the expenditure with oil prices being as stagnant as they are currently. These companies have the reverse problem, they have to determine strategies to cope with an abundance of supply of oil domestically at this point.

 

The decision to suspend operations in the Arctic Ocean may have been driven primarily by economic reasons but it invariably provides a benefit to environmental protection. The excavation of that region could have triggered negative consequences for our natural resources and our ecosystem which would have impacted us for generations to come.

by Frank Maduri

Superfund: Cleaning America – Part 5

This article series has reviewed the EPA and their Superfund program from the start of the program in response to the Love Canal environmental emergency, through the new protocols of the program, through to the most recent Superfund efforts at the Gowanus Canal site in Brooklyn.

 

This final section of the series on the Superfund will focus on the feedback I received before writing these articles as well as while I was in the process of writing them. It will also look at the future of the Superfund program with its role in an evolving American industrial landscape.

 

The future

 

The future of the Superfund program, in my view, appears to be very robust because the number of sites and proposed sites continues to grow each year. The economic climate and the extreme disapproval of the American public toward new forms of taxation of any kind will continue to funnel more environmental cleanup responsibilities to the federal level.

 

The Superfund, as stated earlier, utilizes the funds from the potentially responsible parties or (PRP) to pay for the remediation functions required to fully clean the respective site. In the cases where the PRP cannot be found, or they no longer exist, the Superfund used to receive funds from a tax levied on the oil, gas, and petroleum industry.

 

That tax is no longer utilized, though many environmental groups think it should be restored, and the Superfund receives the funds in those cases from a general spending fund through Congress. They also have a trust fund in place to handle certain aspects of the functionality of the program.

 

In my experience with the EPA, I have found them to be very professional and they have the right expertise needed to solve some very difficult pollution or contamination issues. Their approach is not the “quick fix” solution, rather it is the big picture, long term solutions that they favor to adequately address the pollution to insure that the affected area remains clean for a sustained period in the future.

 

Their approach also works, in my opinion, because it has several steps involved which account for changes in the priorities of a given site remediation project. It also incorporates the community in the decision making process and has set protocols that work very well for that exchange of ideas. This portion of the process is particularly important in today’s world of interactivity and social media, so the general public and the business community feel involved in the project, which creates a scenario where effective changes to the site can take place.

 

Furthermore, in my research and in my past interactions with the EPA, I view the Superfund as an example of a federal government program that is well thought out and actually works effectively. It is essentially the public’s check and balance against the potential for corporate or industrial disregard for environmental safety protocols.

 

I also understand the criticism of the Superfund, that it can be a cumbersome process filled with “red tape” and that it is costly to clean the sites to their standards. However, the central task I see being posed to both the EPA and the Superfund is concerning the public safety and the safety of our natural resources.

 

If you view the Superfund through that prism, with the public safety aspect as well as the safety of our resources such as drinking water; then I pose to those critics: How much money is that worth to you and the future of your family?

 

The future of the Superfund is one where it will likely take on an important role in the changing landscape of American industry. Anyone watching the evening news or checking out the CBS News website on their laptop or mobile device knows that America has seen the manufacturing sector shipped overseas to Asia and other emerging markets.

 

However, as the push back of the American public for more “made in America” products continues to gain traction, the EPA has to be ready to insure that the return of manufacturing is not correlated with the return of heavy industrial pollution.

 

The other major area for Superfund involvement is the before mentioned fracking, and other energy or mining activities which could perilously endanger our drinking water and other natural resources. I predict a future where the EPA will, through Superfund, play a vital role in the restoration of areas used for energy or mining development.

 

I wrote this article series because in many conversations I was having, I realized that many people were not aware of what the Superfund was, or what it was designed to achieve. I covered a great deal of information, and I feel like I only scratched the surface. The program has so many layers and sub-sections associated with it, that you can certainly feel free to visit the EPA website for further information on the role of the Superfund.

 

The other question which I was asked often when I told people that I was working on this article series was: which state has the fewest Superfund sites?  I presume it is out of curiosity because New Jersey has the most sites on the list (113 sites). However, some of those people told me that they wanted to look into moving their families to that state. Other states with a large number of Superfund sites are California with 97 and New York with 95.

 

 

The answer to that question is North Dakota with 0 sites on the list, though that could change in subsequent years based on the recent increase in fracking activities there by big energy producing corporations.

 

Some other states with very small numbers of sites are Nevada with 1, South Dakota with 2, Wyoming with 2, and Hawaii has 3.

 

The future for the Superfund will be marked with increasingly difficult potential chemical remediation projects, projects which feature sites that have seepage of pollutants deep into the ground as a result of new technologies such as fracking for natural gas or in the mining of other resources. In any case, the EPA will be ready and prepared for the complex challenges ahead as they strive to keep our land and water clean and safe both today and for the generations to follow.