07 Aug If the kids should be more civil, the oil majors should be more up front

Contrarian reader, journalist, playwright, and communications smart guy Ryan Van Horne thinks the lack of civil discourse by some youthful fracking opponents is only half the problem:

I do get a kick out of the notion that oil companies are getting bullied by young kids; it sort of has that man bites dog kinda feel to it. The trouble with this is that bullies are often wrong or can’t back up their position with facts.

I am all for civil debate on this issue and more science to explore the risks—and verify the safety—of hydraulic fracturing. Let’s have an open and balanced discussion though, one that requires oil companies to disclose the chemicals they are using, and one that incorporates all of the costs associated with doing this. Let’s look at all the fresh water that is used, let’s look at what is done with that tainted water when it’s removed from ground, and let’s do something that Prof. Duck failed to do in his portrayal of the elephant. Let’s look at the problem of methane leaks, because climate change is not just about carbon, it’s a two-headed monster that includes methane. If oil companies weren’t fracking, they’d be using conventional methods get oil from other reservoirs to feed the world’s seemingly insatiable demand for fossil fuels. The carbon emissions from those would be the same as the carbon emissions from the fuels extracted via fracking. More pertinent to the climate debate then is methane leaks caused by fracking operations. How extensive are they? Do we even monitor this?

Let’s stop assuming that fracking is safe, or take oil companies word for it, just because they say the’ve been doing it for years. The process of fracking has changed as technology has improved. Let’s have more scientific study—the kind of scientific study that proves that it is safe—because the stakes are high. The oil companies and energy department officials also need to remember that the less forthcoming they are with the public, the more they will raise suspicion.

This free bit of PR advice just might be the best kind they get because it will do more to help build the trust they are sorely lacking.

For what it’s worth, I agree with most of this, and nothing I heard or read from the independent fracking review panel leads me to think it disagrees. What’s galling is that the panel’s seemingly honest effort to have “an open and balanced discussion,” one in which all sides have every opportunity to be heard, and to respond to draft reports, has been met with anger, hostility, and disruptive tactics by some fracking opponents. These individuals don’t seem to want an open and balanced discussion. They will only be satisfied with a rote regurgitation of views they held before the review began. Their cheerleaders in the media, like Andrew Nikiforuk and Tim Bousquet, do the public a disservice.

I also agree that the oil companies damage their already slender credibility by treating fracking chemicals as trade secrets. Sooner or later, governments will give into public pressure and force these companies to disclose what they are pumping into gas-bearing rock seams to stimulate flow. Why not make the disclosure voluntarily before being dragged, kicking and screaming, to the same result?