Home » Archive » How Earthworks Missed the Mark on State Regulation

How Earthworks Missed the Mark on State Regulation

Thursday, October 4th, 2012 | 1 Comment | Tagged in: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Steve
Spokesman

 

Last week, Earthworks released a report that attempted to show lax state regulation of oil and gas development. The purpose was clear: build a case for more federal regulation, and by extension delay approval for additional production – if not ban it outright. Unfortunately for Earthworks, anyone with an Internet connection has access to information that proves Earthworks’ goal was not to shine on a light on a problem, but rather to repeat its old talking points in a new way.

That objective was hardly buried or hidden in the document, either. On the second page of the report, Earthworks says, “this work could not have been undertaken without the generous support of The Heinz Endowments.” For those unfamiliar with Heinz, they – along with the Park Foundation – have been one of the chief financial backers of efforts to stop natural gas development. To put this in poker terms, Earthworks revealed its hand before the betting even began.

What’s more amazing, though, is the sheer lack of understanding of the oil and natural gas industry that Earthworks put on display for everyone who read their report. From mischaracterizing state regulatory systems to failing to account for the fact that well pads often have multiple producing wells, Earthworks’ latest report stands high as a monument to mediocrity in the world of anti-drilling activism.

Below you’ll find a list of some of the biggest problems with Earthworks’ report. Feel free to add any other discrepancies or problems in the comments section at the end of the post.

PROBLEM 1: Manipulates and misstates data to achieve predetermined result.

FACT: A single inspection of a particular well pad can include multiple wells, and an honest look at the appropriate numbers tells a different story than the narrative Earthworks wants us to believe.

PROBLEM 2: Claims state regulatory bodies are ill-equipped and “unprepared” for future or even existing development.

FACT: Experts have confirmed that state regulatory bodies are well-managed and have the tools necessary to do their jobs – and do them right.

PROBLEM 3: Pushes for legal system defined by guilty until proven innocent.

FACT: Evidence doesn’t support accusations made by opponents, and the presumption of innocence has been a hallmark of the American legal system for more than 100 years.

PROBLEM 4: Claims spills and violations are increasing.

FACT: Spills in Colorado are decreasing, while violations in Ohio and Pennsylvania are on the decline.

PROBLEM 5: Wants to punish oil and gas development for government deficits.

FACT: Rules and regulations are designed to prevent problems, not merely to increase government funding. Additionally, oil and gas development is already a major source of public revenue.

So, in summation, the Earthworks “report” was essentially a rehash of common talking points used by critics of oil and gas development, many if not all of which have been widely debunked. Given that lack of seriousness, it’s unsurprising that the report arrived at conclusions contradicted by easily accessible data.

Did Earthworks think those who read the report would be unable to find that information, or were they merely hoping that readers wouldn’t?

The report is riddled with transparently baseless accusations, and its central recommendation that those accusations be considered valid by decree is absurd by any legal standard. Given these facts, perhaps the bigger question is how so many news outlets allowed themselves to be used as a promotional vehicle for Earthworks’ activism, all without giving the report the kind of critical analysis – or even cursory review – that one would expect.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One Response

Leave a Reply


5 + 8 =