Provided is a link from the Marcellus Earth First movement which is based out of the Eastern region of the US. This group has banned together to fight against the exploration and production industry because they feel that the environment is at great risk with this activity going on. The mishap that took place this 2012 summer, actually took place at a location that was being drilled on by a company called EQT Corporation. One of the first key words to take from this segment is that it was a DRILLING site. Already this movement has some what discredited themselves by not even knowing the correct operation that was taking place at this site. In the video mention of disrupting a frac job is incorrect because really the Pioneer 70 rig was there to drill, not to do the proceeding action of completing the well by means of fraccing. The other detail which is fortunate for EQT but less fortunate for the movement is that the rig was actually in a maintenance phase meaning no work, or drilling ahead was not even disrupted.
This points out an essential issue that brings about a lot of the controversies against the oil and gas industry, and that point is that people are simply ill-informed or just not educated enough on the process. A lot of out-landish remarks are often made about either the drilling process or the completions phase without even having proper knowledge on what is taking place. It is very clear that once the land is moved in on by a drilling company that it does not look as it did prior to this operation and that some inhabitants of the land are temporarily removed, but many efforts are made once the well is complete to return the land to original quality if not better.
The even more unfortunate part of this movement is that the individuals were putting their own lives at risk by hanging themselves from poorly supported systems up in the trees and one man even attached himself to a line and bike lock by the neck. Protesting has gone on since the beginning of time but when violence or dangerous measures are taken to get a point across, the integrity of the movement is greatly compromised. On the topic of integrity though, it is true that not all companies throughout history have operated with the safest or most diligent standards so with that being said, the producers of this blog do not think that these protesters have no right to be upset. Fortunately though, state wide regulations are constantly being improved upon to make sure that the exploration and production industry are being held accountable for their actions. So lets leave it to the majority voters and government to implement limitations or higher standards to operate by and not try to make a statement by hanging oneself in a tree or doing other things to put lives at risk.
-Bill Mercer
-Bill Mercer
What do you guys think is an appropriate setting for the public to raise issues they have with fracking (with a c and a k)? And is it the public's responsible to get the information correct or is some of the responsibility on the drilling and fracking companies? I'm interested in how you guys as petroleum majors will answer these questions.
ReplyDeleteHi Ali, we spell fraccing with two c's because that is one of the ways it is spelled in the oil and gas industry, the other being fracing. There is no 'correct' spelling for the term though since it is just slang used in reference to hydraulic fracture stimulation.
ReplyDeleteI personally don't believe that the public should be held accountable for having an expansive knowledge about reservoir stimulation, but I do believe that anyone who is taking a stance on a subject should do research and have standing knowledge on the subject. Communicating the process, benefits, and side-effects of this stimulation technique is an extremely important topic in the industry right now; the industry is working on creating ads and other outlets to help spread information on the process of hydraulic fracturing.
I don't believe that protests are necessarily an 'inappropriate setting' for voicing opinions, but in this situation, it did not allow the protestors to accomplish what they wanted to. They were trying to stop completion operations, or the hydraulic fracture stimulation of the well. They were unsuccessful in doing so, since the company was not even done drilling the well at the time of the protest. This process was not even delayed since there was already a stop of work to fix machinery at this time. I understand what the objective was, but it could have had more of an impact if done at the appropriate time, or even in an environment where the opinions of the protestors could have a lasting voice, such as with their government officials.
I think you will enjoy reading more about this in tomorrow's post! Thanks for the great question.
-Kelsi