Energy

A qualified decision by the President Barack Obama administration to deny, at least for now, a permit to construct the Keystone XL pipeline, which would originate in Canadian tar sands and go through Oklahoma, was met with incredulous, political hyperbole by Gov. Mary Fallin.

Her reaction ignores any potential environmental impact caused by the pipeline’s construction, the possibility of a catastrophic spill here in Oklahoma and the country’s overwhelming need to reduce its dependence on foreign fossil fuels and develop clean and renewable energy sources.

The Obama administration actually favors a pipeline from Cushing to the Gulf Coast and was forced to make a quick decision by recalcitrant Congressional Republicans, who made the pipeline decision a part of an unrelated bill to extend the payroll tax.

Here’s part of Fallin’s statement:

The decision by the president to block construction of this pipeline is more evidence this administration is beholden to radical environmentalists and does not care about real job creation or the plight of tens of millions of unemployed Americans. I am outraged by President Obama’s obstructionism, poor judgment and lack of regard for a project that would help secure America’s energy independence, boost our economy and create hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Note “radical environmentalists,” as if trying to prevent a devastating oil spill is somehow “radical,” and the argument that Obama practices “obstructionism” is ridiculous, given the theatrical antics of Congressional Republicans over the last year.

Consequently, the statement could be viewed as simple pandering to the Republican base this election year, but it’s highly unlikely, at this point, Oklahoma voters would give Obama a majority over any Republican candidate. The anti-Obama hysteria, stoked by prominent Republicans, from Fallin to U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe, has become a formulaic trope. It lacks meaning, and, unfortunately, has the potential to further isolate the state if Obama is reelected, which grows more likely by the day.

The editorial page of The Oklahoman, for a change, was less hyperbolic than Fallin about the issue but still unreasonable. Anticipating the administration’s decision to deny the permit, an editorial lamented that the “president has advanced green initiatives at every turn,” as if there’s something wrong with that, and argued environmentalists use a “worst-case scenario” in their opposition to the pipeline.

There is nothing wrong with believing in the importance of the environment nor is there anything wrong with looking at the history of major oil spills in the country, including the recent BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico and taking time to appropriately determine risk factors. Ironically, if there were a major pipeline oil spill in Oklahoma, the state’s leaders would demand an immediate and costly response from the federal government no matter who was president, including Obama.

But perhaps even worse than the editorial was the newspaper’s immediate coverage of the administration’s decision. In an article on NewsOK.com titled, “Oklahomans respond to Keystone XL decision,” six congressional Oklahoma Republicans, including outgoing U.S. Rep. Dan Boren, a Democrat, predictably criticized the decision and only one opponent, local Sierra Club director David Ocamb, was given space to praise it. This is what passes for “journalism” in this state these days. Can The Oklahoman at least broaden is “reaction” pool to better reflect the diversity of argument over the pipeline and other issues?

Much of the local hyperbole misses key points:

(1) The Obama administration noted that its primary concern was with the pipeline’s path through Nebraska, which initially included the state’s Sandhills region. There’s nothing preventing TransCanada, the company which would build the pipeline, from reapplying once this issue is clearly resolved. The point is that the decision was limited, not “radical,” prudent, not political.

(2) Republicans failed in their political gambit to force Obama to make a snap judgment about the pipeline. The administration has now expressed its concerns about Nebraska, said it favors a pipeline through Oklahoma and has presented itself as both a protector of the environment and in favor of new delivery platforms for fossil fuels.

(3) By continuing to label as “radical” anyone who has a concern with the human impact on the environment, the Republicans alienate millions of younger people and others. It might not seem like it this year, especially in Oklahoma, but the current ideals of the Republican Party are obsolete and ignore basic demographics. The fact that the environment is important is a viable, mainstream idea.

(4) The Republicans have tried to make the pipeline issue about jobs. The pipeline, according to those who favor it, is supposed to create 1,200 jobs in Oklahoma. But most of those jobs would be temporary. The financial impact here would be large, yes, but fleeting. It’s not the panacea held up by the Republicans. It’s quick money for a potential risk to our drinking water and for other environmental disasters.

It’s difficult not to see all the political screeching as a result of the last belch of the Oil Age in which profiteers squeeze every last ounce of oil out of the ground without regard for the future. It’s simply a no-brainer that developing clean, renewable energy sources should be at the forefront of American policy.

Is fracking related to the recent earthquakes in Oklahoma?

Well, it’s worth an extended discussion, but don’t count on the conservative corporate media here to go out of its way to cover the story just like it declines to discuss at any length whether climate change is responsible for the recent drought. In Oklahoma, as we all know, energy companies can do no wrong and there’s no such thing as global warming.

Last Saturday, an earthquake with a magnitude of 5.6 literally rocked Oklahoma and even surrounding states. Located near Sparks, in central Oklahoma, it was the biggest earthquake ever recorded in the state. This was followed by approximately 22 aftershocks. On Monday evening, the earth moved again, this time with a magnitude of 4.6. Homes shook, people tried to find their footing and there was damage.

Is this the new “normal” in Oklahoma? Will the coming earthquakes get even stronger. If so, why?

Some geological experts point to the Wizetta Fault, also called the Seminole Uplift, just east of Oklahoma City, which has experienced an uptick in seismic activity recently for supposedly unknown reasons. Others question whether the relatively new technology of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, might be responsible for an increase in earthquakes here and in Arkansas.

Fracking is a process in which pressured fluid is injected into rock layers to release fossil fuels, such as a natural gas. Some consider it a “dirty” process, with the potential to harm water supplies and the environment. Now, it has been tentatively attributed to earthquakes. According to a Planetsave post:

While it seems fracking doesn’t cause earthquakes immediately, it lowers the barriers to earthquakes happening, loosens up the rocks enough that it is more likely to happen. In Arkansas, they noticed that it was especially the wastewater disposal wells that seemed to be setting the stage for earthquakes. As quoted above, when these wastewater disposal wells were shut down — high-pressure injection of wastewater was stopped — the number of earthquakes diminished back down to a more normal level soon after.

Is this happening in Oklahoma, too? According to the same Planetsave post:

In Oklahoma, the situation is quite similar (though, of course, the investigation has not been completed yet). The largest earthquake that hit Oklahoma this weekend, a 5.6-magnitude tremor near Sparks, was the largest on record in the state. Dozens of earthquakes hit Oklahoma on the weekend.

Oklahoma has seen the same rise in earthquake activity that Arkansas saw. Going from about 50 earthquakes a year up until 2009, the state got 1,047 last year! I’m sorry, but did no one there or studying the matter notice? Or did they just not make the connection to fracking? Or did they just have no influence over the matter, so no one heard them?

Obviously, it’s too soon to make a direct connection between fracking and an increase in earthquakes, but isn’t it at least worth studying or at least worth some discussion. How much fracking is going on in or near the state, and where is it located? Does fracking create unstable rock foundations that can lead to more earthquakes and more intense earthquakes?

Geological experts here should not hesitate to study the issue despite the opposition they might face from the corporate power structure, including the media, particularly The Oklahoman.

Chesapeake Energy Corp. Chief Executive Officer Aubrey McClendon and his company have been in the local and national news lately.

On Saturday, The New York Times ran a story that cites evidence questioning whether gas companies have overstated how “easy and cheap” it is to extract from shale formations using hydraulic fracturing. Chesapeake and its drilling in the Barnett shale formation in Fort Worth are mentioned prominently in the story. Later, McClendon, pictured right, criticized the article.

Last week, the Oklahoma Gazette ran a story outlining how McClendon was able to overcome a recommendation from an advisory firm that he not be retained as chairman of CEO’s board by the company’s shareholders. The story mentioned the advisory firm, Institutional Shareholder Services Proxy Advisory Services, also recommended that former U.S. Sen. Don Nickles not be retained on the board. The Gazette article also noted the paucity in coverage on McClendon’s board issue in The Oklahoman when compared to other media outlets.

Each story speaks for itself, but here are two observations:

(1) Undoubtedly, oil and gas drilling methods have improved with technology and reduced risk over the years, but there will always be some element of uncertainty, especially when fluctuating prices that determine profit are factored into the business equation.

(2) The stories show that Oklahoma needs to continue to diversify its economy. Chesapeake is obviously a major employer in Oklahoma and contributes heavily to the economy. I don’t necessarily see that ending anytime soon, but what about 25 or 50 years from now? The state’s major reliance on the oil and gas industry to fuel its economy will eventually become outdated as new and improved technologies emerge using renewable energy sources.

Unfortunately, a major player in the corporate media here, The Oklahoman, sees it as just the opposite. A Tuesday editorial (“Oil, gas extraction pushes Oklahoma income growth,” June 28, 2011) points out the importance of agriculture here but notes how “every Oklahoman” ought to essentially give up common sense concerns about the environment and energy sustainability to get behind Big Energy:

… Every Oklahoman ought to be concerned about the anti-fossil fuel movement, from the attack on hydraulic fracturing to the assailable claims that renewable energy will soon run the world.

What runs this state (and indeed runs agribusiness) is petroleum. Be glad we have so much of it.

That’s the prevailing line from the corporate power structure here; it remains short-sighted and unbelievably dogmatic.