One of the greatest bones of contention about extracting fossil fuels — in the industrialized world anyway — is the damage it can or will do to the environment. The industries resist the idea.
Do the costs of environmental protections cripple the production of newer, more unconventional fields, as the industry has long proclaimed?
Apparently not. For example: the Associated Press reported this week that Chevron, a partner in the joint venture, had agreed to meet the 28 environmental conditions Australia set for the development of the offshore Gorgon gas field, worth $41 billion in gas exports to China. One of the condition is a safeguard for a rare turtle.
Similarly, in northern Pennsylvania, Hess has just signed a deal with a large group of farmers, in the Marcellus shale play. Their environmental demands included much stronger safeguards for their farmland and water supplies than required by state or federal law, and stringent demands on waste disposal. Responding to public pressure, the regional water authorities there have also set much tougher regulations to limit water use.
In the contracts offered by extraction companies, environmental protections are played down, although according to energy lawyers I have talked to, these contracts are still infinitely better than those signed years ago. These lawyers also say that the worst offenders aren’t the energy super-giants, but the smaller scrappier companies who have leaner margins and are willing to take greater risks in developing small or questionable fields.
Unsurprisingly, all these contracts serve the financial interests of the company. Meaningful environmental considerations, especially site specific ones, are conveniently limited. A number of developing countries seem to just accept this — perhaps they lack capacity or perhaps they are ill-informed or, for some of the worst dictatorships, they just don’t care. But they don’t have to accept these terms and shouldn’t.
Similarly, the landmen who travel through the US seeking unsuspecting homeowners in resources-rich areas willing to sign over their mineral rights for a pittance also offer environmentally inadequate terms.
Most companies will start with the gambit that strong environmental protections make any given project economically unfeasible. Occasionally, this is true. However, increasingly, though, this argument seems like a negotiating tactic — untrue and dishonest. The rationale that it’s just business to glean every penny even at the cost of environmental damage is even worse than ripping people off financially. It ruins their homes, their lives.
Fortunately, more and more, it seems that if a country or group of contiguous landowners sitting on a sizeable deposit worth extracting comes up with its own thought-out and locally appropriate environmental demands and sticks to them, sooner or later an energy company will come along willing to meet the terms.
Oil and gas companies have historically managed to develop truly astonishing technology to get oil under the conditions that they face. Some of these will be the environment and they can and do rise meet these challenges — but only if they must. It is up to the governments that set the environmental laws to make them.
