#niklavsbarbars

In 2011, Gov. Kasich signed a law passed by Ohio's Republican-controlled legislature allowing drilling companies to frack in state parks. In November 2011, the United States Forest Service (USFS) withdrew more than 3,000 acres of public lands in southern Ohio from a federal oil and gas lease sale scheduled for December 7, 2012. The USFS announced that it needed more time to review the potential effects of fracking after receiving petitions and letters from concerned local leaders (1).

1.  Mike Ludwig, "Kasich, Koch and Big-Industry Bucks: Why Ohio Is the Next Fracking Frontier," truthout, Nov. 29, 2011.

Comment #14

Niklavs Barbars

           Scientific: To science, this is incredible. Engineers, geologists, and chemists have thought of a way to extract natural gas, in cheaper, faster and more efficient ways. It’s also incredible because with some precautions, the process has a low risk of failure and a high valued outcome. Scientifically, we, as humans, are now capable of extracting material from miles beneath us and convert it into the fastest growing energy resource in the USA, which heats 56 million residences and work-spaces, and still holds the potential for massive usage-increase. It’s a huge step forward for human exploration of geology and energy.

        Political: The lack of regulation and democracy in the natural gas business creates great tension in local, and national politics. More ideas come up of cheaper, faster, and more efficient ways to acquire this energy, and more issues in the public arise, creating tension and distrust between the industry, government, and the people. The national level has set up guidelines that decrease failure risks of natural gas extraction to a minimum, with minimal costs in maintaining the regulation. However, the local, smaller governments lack the resources of fully implementing these regulations, while find it profitable to continue extraction, allowing more room for failure in the process.

        Social: The fracking industry is very disruptive of the social norms in the community. From polluted air and water, to dying crops and livestock, fracking is killing off farming and environmental stability anywhere they dig. Gasland interviewed some farmers, and asked about their concerns with fracking, showing how disruptive it really can be to drill for gas. Frakcing also has the potential to disrupt communities with huge pollution, traffic and construction. It’s important to address the social consequences of farcking when making a decision.

        Public: The public is mainly concerned with the pollution and normal lifestyle disruption. Gasland showed how many adjustments people have to make when fallen victim to fracking pollution, like hauling water weekly from a nearby town. The public is also concerned with regulations and governance, when not being able to speak out or heard. It is a concern that industries have exemptions in regulations and standards approved by the government.

Niklavs Barbars

Section 0002

 1.     What are the ‘legal ground rules’ that dictate where a pipeline might go?

In Virginia, the main operating government organizations overseeing the pipeline construction and gas extraction are the DMME (Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy), the DEQ (The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality), and the SCC (Virginia State Corporation Commission). “DMME is the regulatory authority for statewide gas and oil permitting and operations. Interstate pipelines and gas storage fields are under the jurisdiction of the State Corporation Commission” (dmme.virginia.gov).  The webpage also states that the DEQ is in charge of proper water management, and can restrict the DMME to grant construction permits. As a minimum safety standard, “The Commission has adopted Parts 191, 192, 193, 195, and 199 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations,” according to the VA SCC website (scc.virginia.gov). Part 195.11 of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations sets the regulations for the pipeline site (GPO), however, these parts of the Title contain many, vague exemptions to design, material, substance-matter and other factors in pipeline-design.

 2.     What decisions about the pipeline can be made at the individual level, the county level, the state level, and the national level? Which decisions trump other?

There are federal regulations for interstate pipeline design and maintenance, under Title 49. These are regulations that local governments take model from, adapting the regulations to the specific needs of the state at the local level. So the local government (State) sets all the main decisions when a pipeline project is proposed. The article “Exposing Fracking to Sunlight” (Rosenberg) points out that the best way to implement such decisions is through mutual trust between the government, the industry, and the people, but it is not so in most cases. More available information to the public, prioritizing public safety in these matters, and opportunities for people to have their voice heard and questions answered. The individual, at this point, can collect data about the pipeline and it’s contents from online resources, such as fracfocus.org, the Virginia SCC website, EPA website, etc, and other media of resource to gain an understanding of the matter.

 3.     How can the cons of Unconventional Hydraulic Fracturing be eliminated by the government?

According to the Department of Energy’s brochure on this system (DoE), the obvious pros are impressive, substantial and very beneficial for the community and nation. However, the cons are very disruptive. The exemptions granted to gas-refining industries are taking a toll on the communities and environment we live in. These companies take certain actions to lower costs of their business, sometimes jeopardizing safety in return. The government can take proactive action against these risks. The documentary “Gas-land” paints a dramatic picture of the worst-case scenarios of gas extraction gone wrong. These facts should be analyzed by regulating agencies, to prevent any further harm to people and the planet, long-term and short-term. Better regulation is the key for this question, as it is stressed in the article “Exposing Fracking to Sunlight”.

 References:

1.     “DMME - Division of Gas and Oil - Hydraulic Fracturing.” Accessed October 31, 2014. http://www.dmme.virginia.gov/dgo/HydraulicFracturing.shtml#DMME.

 2.     Commonwealth of Virginia State Corporation Commission, (SCC) https://www.scc.virginia.gov/SCC-INTERNET/urs/pipe/index.aspx

3.     United States Government Publishing Office, (GPO)                                              http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=4b4809090437bd688d8e3d78d583aeda&mc=true&node=pt49.3.195&rgn=div5 - se49.3.195_11

4.     Rosenberg, Andrew A., Pallavi Phartiyal, Gretchen Goldman, and Lewis M. Branscomb.  “Exposing Fracking to Sunlight.” Issues in Science & Technology 31, no. 1 (Fall 2014): 74.

           Articles “Do Artifacts Have Politics” by Langdon Winner and “Amish Technology: Reinforcing Values and Building Community” by Jameson Wetmore both shine light on the political and social capabilities of technology. Both authors agree that technology has always affected our society, throughout history. The struggle that the Amish are fighting to maintain their culture against technologies, or the original design of Long Island, NY is an example of how technology can create social gaps. Both articles also talk about the meaning of the object, beyond its designed function. For example, the tomato harvester and how it changed the course of agriculture forever. The Amish are weary of this, as they tend to hold serious talks of letting technology in their community, focusing on the social consequences of the object and it’s use. Another similarity between the two authors is their common opinion that technology has authoritarian or democratic principles within the objects. The Amish are afraid that new technology can put power in an individual and brake apart the community, the same way as an atomic bomb puts pressure on nations.