What fracking can learn from mixed martial arts (The Fracking Debate, Part 3) By Scott Nyquist

When mixed martial arts (MMA) began in 1993, it wasn’t a sport, it was a gruesome made-for-TV spectacle. The only rules were no eye-gouging or blows below the belt, and these were sporadically enforced. In 1996, when Senator John McCain referred to MMA as “human cockfighting,” it was hard to disagree. Indeed, for some of its fans, that was a compliment. But state regulators were not amused. MMA began to be banned in state after state, and cable stations—the economic lifeblood of MMA, then and now—refused to air the fights.

Beginning around 2000, the sport changed course, establishing weight classes, outlawing some of the more vicious practices, such as headbutting and orifice-pulling, and mandating safety protocols, such as mouth-guards and regular medical testing. In short, said one of the early leaders in the sport, Dana White, in 2007, “We ran toward the regulation, not away from it.” On this basis, state athletic commissions were willing to license MMA bouts again, and the cable stations came back. Now legal in all 50 states and wildly popular in many overseas markets as well, MMA may be the fastest-growing sport in history.

I’m sure there are some rules White and MMA fighters could do without—that they consider costly, intrusive, or just plain dumb. But such is life. The fact is, by running toward regulation, MMA secured what became a huge future.

And I think something of the same could occur with fracking. If the US oil-and-gas industry were to work with state and maybe in some specific instances federal regulators, researchers, and other experts to define priorities, and then implement high-quality rules, that might well blunt a good deal of the criticism fracking faces. Daniel Raimi, author of The Fracking Debate, singles out Ohio’s seismic safeguards; Colorado’s well-leakage rules; Texas’s research on health impacts; and Pennsylvania’s wastewater disposal and stray gas census. Some states require oil and gas companies to test water before, during, and after drilling to better monitor drinking-water quality; that sounds like the kind of scrutiny that would go far to soothe fears and bolster public confidence more generally. It surely makes sense to invest in ways to identify and plug methane leaks, which undermine the environmental benefits of natural gas.

It’s also worth noting that whether the concern is methane or water or earthquakes, the vast majority of the problems come from a few low-quality producers. The industry as a whole, then, has a strong interest in regulations that take aim at the bad actors.

The Houston Chronicle, which leans slightly left of much of Texas and is hardly a shill for Big Oil, agrees. In a November 2017 editorial, it criticized the Trump administration for weakening regulations on methane emissions, arguing “If natural gas is going to be part of the future energy mix, the industry and regulators must work to emphasize its green characteristics.” On that basis, the paper argued that it would be good for the industry for the government to play an active role in curbing bad practices, often among small-scale wildcatters. “If Texas wants the world to buy our LNG exports, a sign of environmental good faith would go a long way.”

And there is real-life evidence that strict, sound regulation can help to build broad support and address public concerns. Take Colorado, which has both considerable fossil fuel resources and a lively green lobby.

In 2014, Colorado became the first state to require the industry to find and fix methane leaks, and to install mechanisms that prevent them from happening. And guess what? On the whole, energy producers in the state, such as Encana, Anadarko, Noble Energy Inc. and DCP Midstream Denver, were fine with that. Indeed, they actively worked with  regulators to come up with the rules. Producers in the state must also publicly disclose all chemicals used during fracking. Colorado, says Raimi, is “really are trying very hard to rely on the best research to craft the regulations.”

Yes, compliance has cost the industry money. But the rules also responded to genuine public concerns; provided a degree of regulatory certainty; and helped to create a space in which the industry can operate. (See the image below of Colorado’s oil and gas wells. There are about 6,000 of the former and 40,000 of the latter, as of May 2017.) Think of it this way: Could fracking survive in Colorado without such rules? I think not. All in all, to use a term beloved of my colleagues in consulting, I’d call this a win-win. Along the same lines, the Environmental Protection Agency could play a useful role if it were to undertake and sponsor research on the health effects of fracking, particularly for those who live and work near the sites.

Source: BallotPedia.org

I’d also like to call it a precedent, but that is not the case. There is an effort, by the Center for Responsible Shale Development, to develop performance standards that are independently verified by third parties. State governors have also shared best practices on related water issues. Neither effort seems to have made much of a dent.

The lesson of MMA is that reasonable regulation can help to build an audience, and broaden public acceptance. I understand that fracking and MMA is not an obvious analogy, but in this sense, I think they have something important in common.