Interview with the Centre for Sustainable Shale Development's Executive Director
The difference between European and American environmental groups could be a far greater hurdle for the shale gas industry than legislation and geology. Generally speaking, the green culture in Europe is far more extensive in reach and deep-seated than in the States, potentially closing the doors to unconventional exploration in the Old Continent. A standoff between the industry and environmental groups could indeed increase exploration costs and create detrimental delays.
In this sense, experiments in the United States can be a point of reference for Brussels, but intrinsic cultural differences have to be carefully considered. Simply transposing the US shale experience in Europe would be like to ask Germans to replicate the majesty of Japanese manga, or to force Italians to eat fish and chips instead of their pasta. It would simply not work. These cultural differences clearly create an additional layer of difficulty for the European industry, which can move on only experimenting while keeping an eye on the best American practices.
CENTRE FOR SUSTAINABLE SHALE DEVELOPMENT: ONE AMERICAN SUCCESS
The Centre for Sustainable Shale Development (CSSD) is an independent non-profit organization whose mission is to support continuous improvement, providing a forum for diverse groups of stakeholders in the Appalachian Basin. The lesson that can be learnt from the organization based in Pittsburgh is that environmental interests have to be taken into account.
“The best way forward is one that involves getting the two sides to sit down at the table and talk about what they are worried about and actually try to identify what the risk is, what we are really concerned about, and what are there measures that we know can be taken to limit the risk,” CSSD’ Executive Director Susan Packard LeGros told Natural Gas Europe in a telephone interview.
The process implemented by the organization – to bring together all the stakeholders – would be easily replicable in Europe, argued Packard LeGros. If a similar forum for discussion is feasible in the Old Continent, this cannot be anything but the main lesson to draw from their experience. A cautious and slow approach would mitigate the on-going frictions and the oppositions to shale gas.
The Appalachian basin stretches from Alabama to New York. According to the US Geological Survey National Assessment of Oil and Gas, it contains 75.8 Tcf of undiscovered technically recoverable hydrocarbons.
CSSD'S ACTIVITIES: 15 STANDARDS AND BUREAU VERITAS CERTIFICATION
The organization has also developed 15 initial performance standards that are protective of air quality, water resources and climate. According to the Executive Director of the organization, those could be applied also in Europe, thus increasing the positive sentiments towards shale developments.
On top of it, CSSD has recently started a new program.
“In addition to the standards, to check that those standards have been met, we have retained Bureau Veritas for an independent, third party verification,” said Packard LeGros, referring to the firm hired as its initial auditor. Bureau Veritas is a global company active in independent testing, inspection and certification. The third-party certification and verification program started in January 2014.
“Right now the certification process only applies to companies and producers operating within the Appalachian basin, but there is really no reason why the standards and the whole certification approach couldn’t be adapted for other locations, both in the States and outside the States as well,” Packard LeGros said.
SO WHAT? IS THIS REPLICABLE IN EUROPE?
This experience is clearly a good starting point to understand how to promote an interests convergence. But not everything is straightforward. Difficulties are out there also for the CSSD.
“I think that particularly when the group was founded there were a number environmental groups who do not like the idea of developing shale gas at all, because although the gas emits far less greenhouse contaminants than oil or coal, they would prefer an immediate switch to non fossil fuels and a full adoption of renewables and solar in particular. People who are of that point of view have been particularly critical of the organization,” said Packard LeGros.
If the opposition is something marginal in the United States, European green groups are more sceptical about shale gas now than a few years ago. There are no green leaders speaking out in favour of shale gas regulations - all of them simply want a ban on unconventional gas, claiming that hydrocarbons have to remain in the soil.
“The main difference between American and European green groups is that in America they work with the industry. Some of them are in favour of regulation of shale gas,” said Geert Decock, Policy officer of the European program of food and water Europe Watch, which focuses on climate and environmental health impacts of unconventional fossil fuel.
In this sense, the main experiment in the United States could be difficult to replicate in Europe. European laws can change in some years, but culture is something different. Environmentalists are grounded in the European society.
The case of Jose Bove stands out. The French Radical Green MEP has pledged to help British communities resist fracking, arguing for a moratorium at the European level. His commitment and the attention paid by green groups in Brussels is a clear warning for the industry.
Probably, a European ban will never come into force, but culture and the relevance of green groups are difficult to change and challenge. Options are that shale gas will happen in Europe, but the costs could be so high that significant subsidies would be required to offset the impact of protests and demonstrations. Are governments willing to do so? Would that be justifiable?
LESSONS FROM THE CSSD
All in all, the CSSD’s experience cannot be rejected as useless for Europe. That is for two reasons.
Firstly, their experience in the Appalachian basin remains an example for the approach used. For any energy project, all the different interests have to be taken into account. Secondly, international companies involved in the CSSD’s debates already acquired some understanding of the potential concerns raised by green groups. This could help them to address concerns and minimize risks in other parts of the globe, Europe included.
“A couple of our member companies are operating internationally. Chevron and Shell operate around the world. So I would think that to the extent that they have lessons learnt from their activities in this basin and with the Centre for Sustainable Shale Development that it will inform what they do elsewhere,” Packard LeGros concluded.
What remains to be seen is whether sensible and rational facts could mitigate the cultural differences between the pragmatic North America and the more ideological Europe. The CSSD’s experience is probably not a recipe of success, but a good way to avoid (other) major failures.
Sergio Matalucci