The Discovery Channel has a new television program called “Backyard Oil.” It depicts the supposedly modern day oil boom in the hills of south central Kentucky. Astoundingly enough, environmental concerns are never mentioned during the show. It seems as though oil production is as easy as using a dousing rod to find a likely spot in your backyard, and then calling up the drilling rig to start work the next day.

Here in highly regulated California, this is not the case. While pushing San Benito County to develop new regulations controlling oil and gas development in its jurisdiction, local environmental group Aromas Cares for Our Environment (Aromas Cares) has stated that they are focused on “ensuring that sufficient safeguards are in place to protect our water supply and air quality.” Aromas Cares has told the San Benito County Board of Supervisors that it is in favor of local control. Sounds reasonable, right?

Unfortunately, Aromas Cares has made the mistake of getting into bed with an extremist activist group called the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). The CBD is a Tucson-based radical environmental group that its hometown newspaper calls a “multi-million dollar environmental litigation factory.” Also unfortunately, there is reason to believe that San Benito County is targeted as one of the well-heeled CBD’s next litigation victims.

While it is admirable that Aromas Cares has taken a stand regarding the safety of San Benito’s backyard, I have no such admiration for the group they have mistakenly partnered with. The CBD is seeking the end of oil and gas development in San Benito County and California, and all the jobs, tax revenue, and economic activity that accompany it.

How do we know this? Because this is what the CBD exists to do. Whether suing the Bureau of Land Management or California’s oil and gas regulators, the CBD files repeated nuisance lawsuits against government agencies and regulators in an admitted attempt to weaken the morale of those agencies and to wear them down.

It was the CBD that helped contribute to the crippling unemployment in the San Joaquin Valley in its fight to protect the infamous Delta smelt. The central valley farmers that provide the food we eat weren’t as important as the Smelt. Clearly, the CBD isn’t about local control. CBD wants to further their agenda – consequences be damned.

The CBD is duplicit in opposing regulations in California that it supports in other states. It employs false claims about water use in hydraulic fracturing in California in its efforts to ban hydraulic fracturing outright with its litany of demonstrably false claims. It focuses on hydraulic fracturing, it says, because it “would risk a great disaster for California’s wildlands, wildlife, water, and air quality.” Never mind that there is no evidence that this “disaster” could occur. Indeed, hydraulic fracturing has been going on in California since the 1950s with none of the ill-effects about which the CBD seeks to scare the public.

San Benito County can’t stomach a protracted legal fight with one of the most radical and tenacious activist groups in the United States. Residents should understand that, like agriculture, the energy industry has been part of the backbone of our economy for more than a century, and everyone from Gov. Jerry Brown to President Obama, to state regulators and scientists understand that we can safely develop our domestic energy in an environmentally-friendly and sustainable way.

If Aromas Cares simply wanted to ensure that energy development is done safely, it could have done itself and our county a big favor by not partnering with the CBD. Modern energy development is already being done with the safety of the environment in mind, and has been done safely in the county and California’s highly regulated environment for decades. County supervisors still have an opportunity to escape from the quagmire created by Aromas Cares and the Center for Biological Diversity and apply true local control. Let’s not end oil production and its accompanying tax revenues in San Benito County because of Aromas Cares’ poor judgment.

Bob Frusetta is a rancher and member of the California Independent Petroleum Association.

Decades of research by climate scientists confirm that we must change the way that we consume our natural resources in order to protect our planet for generations to come. This transformation does not take place in a vacuum. In fact, this change must happen against the backdrop of a global economy still struggling to recover. Our energy future must be built on innovation and a commitment to both environmental stewardship and economic viability.

Natural gas is the foundation fuel for our clean energy future. Working alongside renewables and energy efficiency, our domestic abundance of natural gas provides an incredible opportunity to deliver the essential energy that will help drive economic growth while protecting the environment.

A report by the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES) says the expanded use of natural gas offers significant opportunities to help address global climate change and help grow the economy. Entitled Leveraging Natural Gas to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the report also points to the efficient use of natural gas for space and water heating as offering opportunities for substantial near-term, low-cost carbon emissions reductions.

As called for in the report, America’s natural gas utilities are working to expand the efficient use of natural gas for space and water heating – a near-term means of reducing GHG emissions while also helping consumers save money on their utility bills.

Our natural gas delivery system is extraordinarily efficient with 92% of the natural gas produced at the wellhead being delivered to customers as usable energy. With high-efficiency appliances and equipment, the natural gas value chain offers a well-tested and cost-effective tool to reduce emissions. As AGA noted in our report Squeezing Every Btu, a household with natural gas for space heating, water heating, cooking and clothes drying on average spends almost 30% less than a household with all-electric appliances, and leads to 37% lower greenhouse gas emissions.

The C2ES report also echoes AGA’s commitment to better understand and more accurately measure the methane emissions from natural gas systems. While methane emissions from the natural gas delivery system have been reduced 16 percent since 1990 according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2013 Greenhouse Gas Inventory released in April, America’s natural gas utilities are committed to lowering them even further.

AGA and several of its members are joining the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) to sponsor a nationwide field study to better understand methane emissions associated with the distribution and delivery of natural gas.

Advanced technologies using natural gas, such as microgrids, distributed generation and combined heat and power, are also recognized in the report as having considerable potential to reduce emissions in both the buildings and manufacturing sectors. By using less overall energy than separate heat and power generation, CHP systems can substantially reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution while providing customers an affordable, resilient energy solution.

AGA’s recent study The Opportunity for CHP in the United States, indicates that more than 40 GW of potential CHP could achieve a 10-year payback or less. The 40 GW of potential represents about one-third of the total technical potential and corresponds to nearly 3 Tcf of annual natural gas demand.

Our nation has the resources and the technology to use the clean energy provided by natural gas as the foundation for centuries of growth and a lasting legacy for our planet.

Paula Gant is vice president of regulatory affairs for the American Gas Association. This blog post originally appeared on the American Gas Association’s True Blue Natural Gas blog at www.truebluenaturalgas.com.

As a parent of two young children, my wife and I have tried to teach them integrity. They may be too young to grasp the concept, but they do understand – tell the truth, be nice to others, and love each other.

For those of us in political and policy battles, we must deal with a large amount of information. Assessing how to best convey that information is critical. We must be careful not to try to fit broad general facts into a small hole. Put another way: We must guard against conveying correlation as causation. We see this play out when discussing air emissions in oil and gas development.

Air quality is a complicated issue, but one that is a concern for us all. No one has the moral high ground when it comes to wanting our kids, grandparents, family, and friends to breathe clean air. However, we lose ground when we misuse facts as a means to gain our political and policy ends.

Recently, the American Lung Association put out an interesting study entitled, State of the Air 2013. The study grades the levels of ozone pollution in Colorado counties. The study gave Arapahoe, Douglas, Jefferson, and Larimer counties F grades, while Boulder and Weld counties received D’s. On the other hand, Garfield and Mesa were the only two counties to receive A’s.

While the study is interesting, problems arise when people with good intentions argue the D and F graded counties of Arapahoe, Larimer, Weld, and Boulder is solely due to oil and gas development.

The argument goes like this: These counties have bad air, and the reason is oil and gas development. Period! No discussion on urban-suburban environments – or the proximity of roads or major highways where stop-and-go traffic is the norm. No, the argument simply reasons these counties’ ozone pollution is due to oil and gas.

The problem with this causation argument is the correlation is flawed. First, as Dr. Urbina, executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE), has stated, we live in a “soup of air.” There are many pollutants that cause bad air and to try to single out one culprit without a 1-to-1 correlation is difficult. Second, CDPHE has noted that mobile sources – our cars and trucks – are the largest source of ozone-causing pollutants.

And third (and this is where the argument completely fails), if we agree the study’s grades are true (no reason to question that here) and correlate ozone pollution grades to oil and gas development – you should actually conclude the opposite.

Arapahoe, Douglas, Jefferson, and Larimer counties all received F grades. However, since 2008, Arapahoe has had only 66 new well starts; Larimer 49 new starts, while Douglas and Jefferson have zero… none at all. Combined, these four counties have had 115 new starts, yet still received an F grade. Are you wondering whether 115 new starts is a lot? Keep reading.

On the other hand, two counties that aced the study, Garfield and Mesa counties, have had 5,072 new well starts since 2008: Garfield County 4,783 and Mesa County 289. Thus, the two grade A counties have developed over 43 times more wells these last 5 years than the grade F counties.

This scenario plays out the same when we compare CDPHE data. The average ozone levels over the same five-year period are highest (and above the safe ozone levels) in Larimer, Jefferson, Douglas, and Boulder counties. However, all four combined account for only 51 new wells starts.

So, if we use the correlation-causation logic above, we should be able to deduce that oil and gas is responsible for the clean air in Garfield and Mesa counties and, if the F graded counties desire clean air, they should develop more oil and gas!

Of course that logic is just as flawed as the other. We know there are over 6,000 new well starts in Weld County, which received a D grade – the same grade as Boulder County, supposedly one of the “most progressive and green counties,” with only three new wells.

Why go through all this? Simplification and manipulation of facts and figures make us think our arguments are valid, but in reality it is a disservice to the public and those who are actually trying to fix the problem. The end is clean air. And the means should not be to misinform or manipulate data. For our facts to have integrity, we must recognize that air quality is complicated with many factors and simple solutions and sound bites will not lead to the results we all desire.

COGA and the oil and gas industry understand industry operations impact air quality, and we are continually striving to improve and embrace technological advancements. For example, the new OOOO EPA regulations and existing COGCC regulations mandate green completions. Also, COGA supported the CDPHE’s request for additional infrared cameras in the budget this year, which are intended to assist in tightening up emissions at well sites and production facilities. We are witnessing how natural gas use is actually reducing US carbon dioxide emissions by 12% from the peak in 2007. This is twice the amount of reduction that the rest of the world has achieved.

We live, work, and play in these neighborhoods. Let’s strive to do better – by the air we breathe and the words we say. To blame one segment of society for its ills, when they aren’t responsible, is disingenuous at best and lacks integrity at worst. As a wise woman has been known to espouse: To divide people into us-versus-them is easy, but when it comes to energy use – it’s all of us. Together.

Doug Flanders is director of policy and external affairs at the Colorado Oil and Gas Association.

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) released a new draft of its so-called fracing rule. To be fair, the proposed rule does represent a level of progress compared to sorely outdated rules on the books. But we’re dealing with critical issues here – not the kinds of things we can afford to only get half right. And unfortunately, “half right” is about all we got here.

The most significant failings of the proposed rule have to do with well integrity – the way an oil or gas well is constructed and operated to minimize risks to the environment and public safety. Proper casing, cementing, and pressure management are critical to protecting groundwater resources and the lives of the men and women who work the rigs. The rule takes steps in the right direction, but it doesn’t include nearly the level of detail necessary to ensure casing is set where it’s needed, operators are getting good cement jobs and the whole system is checked for mechanical integrity at critical points in the well development process.

The rule also falls short on chemical disclosure. We’re pleased to see the agency propose the same basic disclosure framework that has already been established by leading states – including requirements that operators disclose all chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids (not just chemicals subject to OSHA reporting), and requirements to post the information on a user-friendly, publicly accessible website like FracFocus. But the proposal is far too weak on trade secrets. For the public to have confidence trade secret protections aren’t being abused, there needs to be a clear path for challenging trade secret assertions and policing the system.

Finally, while we recognize that you can’t address every issue in a single rule, it’s still worth noting two areas where agency rules are in glaring need of an overhaul. First, BLM needs to improve its rules for the handling, storage, and disposal of the huge volumes of wastewater produced by unconventional oil and gas operations (the proposed rule merely asks operators to submit a plan). Second, BLM needs to adopt requirements to minimize emissions of methane – a highly potent greenhouse gas – and other contaminants that create local and regional air quality problems like they’re seeing in Colorado and Wyoming. There’s long been talk of dealing with methane emissions at BLM, but so far we’ve yet to see action. We hope that changes soon.

Moving forward, EDF will submit detailed comments on this rulemaking; and we’ll keep pressing for new and better rules on methane, waste, and other key issues. We’ll work with other NGOs, state and federal regulators, forward-thinking companies, and anyone else who’s willing to come to the table in good faith and help BLM complete their assignment and improve their grade. As the nation’s largest land holder – with almost 40 million acres leased for oil and gas development, and more than 12 million already under production – it’s critical that BLM set the highest standards for operations on these important public lands. Nothing less than excellence will do.

Like any industry, resource exploration and recovery is evolving as its environment, challenges, and opportunities change. However, one thing remains constant: at some point any extraction project will require boots on the ground.

Whether exploring prospective claims or extracting established reserves in the Arctic, outback, rain forest, ocean, or Beverly Hills, workers in the field are an essential resource. These workers in turn need to be in contact with their colleagues back at head office. Previously a letter or telegraph may have sufficed. In the 21st century, with more information available to workers and organizations than ever, nothing less than uninterrupted broadband communication will suffice.

These communication channels need to carry a wide range of information. Voice communications, GPS coordinates, surveillance video, and a multitude of E&P and other data need to flow both ways. This isn’t simply a luxury. Any break in communications or incomplete information can result in competitive failure and serious safety threats. As a result, providing a consistent high-speed connection to workers in the field is a holy grail for a large number of organizations. This has then raised the question of how to provide this coverage.

Cable, particularly fiber optic, would provide the fastest speeds. Yet providing a cable connection to every possible location workers could find themselves is a wildly unrealistic prospect, especially when considering locations such as offshore platforms.

Wireless or cellular connections are similarly limited. Workers must be within range of a suitable signal generator to benefit, again restricting them to those areas covered by networks. This leaves satellite broadband as the most reliable way to provide the communication workers need. Historically, despite its obvious advantages, there have been a number of perceived issues with satellite. However, it is very much a technology whose time has come.

Risks Or Rewards?

There have been a number of criticisms made about satellite broadband, some with more basis in fact than others.

First, there is speed. A simple domestic fiber landline can offer connection speeds of over 160mbs; when faced with this a number of users may start to feel that other connection methods are somewhat constrained. Second, there is accessibility: not simply the challenge of transporting unwieldy communications equipment where it needs to go but the costs of providing a service that, as mentioned, might not match up to alternatives. Third is consistency of service: organizations cannot rely on communications that they believe could be lost in heavy weather or other atmospheric conditions. Fourth, and last, is security: any organization will understandably be unwilling to share its business sensitive information over any channel that could be compromised.

However, these dangers are often overstated.

How Much Is Enough?

While a satellite connection is unlikely to provide 160 mbs to any location – in general this is far more than any organization needs – sharing data, communicating, and offering live video can be done on a fraction of this. Current high-speed satellites use Ka-band frequencies, covering a narrower area with much higher connection speeds than the older Ku-band technology. As a result, speeds of 12 mbs or more are quite attainable. While workers won’t be streaming high-definition, 3-D, 60 frames-per-second live video, they can still make sure that all the information they need, from voice comms to video feeds to production and research data, is shared quickly.

Less Than You’d Think

When people count the costs of satellite, it is often an unfair comparison. It is placed alongside land-line or wireless services that are often heavily subsidized by governments or individual service providers. Even so, the comparative costs are falling all the time. Currently, a high-speed home satellite service costs around US $50 per month, offering the same capabilities as an ADSL service for a similar price.

Since satellite is not simply piggybacking on existing infrastructure as other communications do, there is also a cost involved in obtaining the transmission and reception technology required and transporting it to the relevant site. However, this infrastructure is still relatively low-cost, certainly compared to laying a dedicated cable or building a wireless or cell transmitter.

Equipment is also becoming much smaller. Ka-band transmissions require a dish less than a foot across, making transport and setup an easy process.

Keep The Flag Flying

One of the greatest fears for those in the field, regardless of their industry, is losing contact with home. In this sense, satellite is a lot more resistant than many might expect. While dishes may be knocked down by heavy weather or other unpredictable events, they are also easy to resurrect. As long as a satellite is still in the air, communication can be quickly re-established. This is often demonstrated during natural disasters such as Hurricane Sandy. When other forms of communication have been cut off by the force of nature, satellite links can be quickly set up in the affected areas.

There is also a large degree of redundancy. While an area might only be served by a single fiber cable, there are 30 communications satellites over the Continental United States alone. The ownership of satellite also provides an extra degree of security for organizations. Other forms of communication will be owned by governments or other local bodies who may not always have an energy company’s best interests at heart. Satellite provides an alternative conduit which cannot be so easily cut off by a third party.

Secure Beneath Watchful Eyes

Lastly, there is the issue of security. Satellite communications are essentially open. This is, after all, the principle that allows satellite TV to work. However, any communication is ultimately a balance between security and accessibility. The most secure conduit is a single, fixed link between two points that would be next to impossible to set up, maintain and guarantee assurance. Instead, organizations should assume that any means of communication they use can be compromised. Satellite is no exception.

Before transmission, all data should be encrypted. This way anybody intercepting it will find it worthless. There are a number of tools available to encrypt (and decrypt) data in this way. Whichever solution chosen, organizations should ensure it is accredited to the appropriate level by a body such as FIPS. This will help provide peace of mind that the solution has already been tested and found acceptable to the relevant standard that organizations’ sensitive data requires.

Going Nowhere

It’s a simple fact that, in many locations from the Belize rain forest to the North Sea, satellite communication is the only method available to organizations. However, this doesn’t mean that they should resign themselves to a second-tier service. Regardless of location, workers need data and swift, reliable communications to do their jobs. Satellite is easily capable of meeting these demands. As long as organizations can look beyond often inaccurate stories and plan appropriately.

Chris McIntosh is CEO of ViaSat UK.

Earlier this week, a gaggle of activists published a report under their umbrella group – the Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC). The report, titled “Gone for Good,” strikes an expectedly dramatic tone about the water usage of oil and gas operations in the West.

But, before we start debunking the claims in the report, let’s take a quick look at the authors.

The Western Organization of Resource Councils is made up of smaller, state-focused anti-oil and gas activist groups – Dakota Resource Council, Dakota Rural Action, Northern Plains Resource Council, Oregon Rural Action, Powder River Basin Resource Council, and Western Colorado Congress.

Lest you think we are unfairly labeling them as activists, note that these groups have called hydraulic fracturing and the oil and gas industry “dangerous,” “uncontrollable,” “hazardous,” “a major threat,” “exempted from regulation,” and accused the industry of “fouling the air, drying up home wells, polluting groundwater, and poisoning livestock.” Heck, the Western Colorado Congress even proudly touted their association with the Bucket Brigade and Gasland’s Josh Fox.

Doesn’t sound like a group of unbiased researchers, does it?

Because no one should be forced to read though yet another repackaging of talking points and debunked claims, Energy in Depth took one for the team and read the report. Here are a few of the worst claims:

Claim: “[I]t seems clear that water use for fracking is reaching a crisis point in the region. There is mounting evidence that the current level of water use for oil and gas production simply cannot be sustained…”

Fact: The press release accompanying the WORC report claims the total annual water use for hydraulic fracturing across Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and North Dakota is “at least seven billion gallons.”

Now, let’s assume that estimate is accurate (given the associations mentioned above, we know “facts” are not something these folks typically worry about, but just for argument’s sake, let’s pretend otherwise). According to the US Geological Survey, those four states use roughly 33,250,000 acre-feet of water in a year. That’s approximately 10.8 trillion gallons.

So, 7 billion gallons represents roughly 0.06% of the combined water use of those four states. That’s even lower than the 0.08% finding in a report last year by three Colorado state agencies who specifically estimated hydraulic fracturing water use, and much lower than the Department of Energy (DOE) and Ground Water Protection Council’s (GWPC) estimated range of “less than 0.1% to 0.8% of total water use,” depending on the basin. Of course, there’s nothing scary about those percentages, so the WORC report simply throws around the term “billions of gallons” again and again without any context to frighten as many people as possible.

It turns out that DOE and GWPC officials anticipated this kind of alarmism, and included the following passage in the water use section of their report on hydraulic fracturing:

“While these volumes may seem very large, they are small by comparison to some other uses of water, such as agriculture, electric power generation, and municipalities, and generally represent a small percentage of the total water resource use in each shale gas area.”

In Colorado, for instance, while hydraulic fracturing accounts for about one-tenth of 1% of water use, the recreation industry uses almost 6%, municipal and industrial users account for more than 7%, and the agriculture sector consumes more than 85%.

Claim: “With few exceptions, the rest of the water used for fracking is gone for good from the hydrological cycle.”

Fact: Here’s another major flaw – the report completely ignores the water that’s added to the hydrological cycle as a result of oil and gas development.

For example, Gov. John Hickenlooper recently pointed out that when natural gas is burned, it produces “far more than the water used in fracking,” because “when you burn natural gas, it gives off CO2 and H2O that goes into the air and into the hydrologic cycle.”

Based on estimates from DOE and the Colorado Oil & Gas Association, every billion cubic feet of natural gas burned produces more than 11 million gallons of water:

US Department of Energy, January 2012 - “All hydrocarbon fu¬els release significant quantities of water vapor as a combustion byproduct. … When one molecule of methane is burned, it produces two molecules of water vapor. When moles are converted to pound/mole, we find that every pound of methane fuel combusted produces 2.25 lb. of water vapor, which is about 12% of the total exhaust by weight.”

Colorado Oil & Gas Association, June 2012 - “Since a volume measurement of H2O is easier to interpret than pounds of water, we want to convert our 2.25 lb yield of H2O into gallons. … Our calculations show the combustion of 1 pound of methane results in the production 3.71 gallons of water and that 1 BCF of methane produces over 11 million gallons of water.”

Claim: “Congress exempted fracking, other than fracking with diesel, from the Safe Drinking Water Act
in 2004. Federal agencies have
not yet identified a means of
regulatory leverage adequate to
address looming conflicts over
water quantity.”

Fact: First of all, you simply cannot get oil or natural gas out of shale rock without complying with overlapping state and federal environmental laws, and the many regulations that are issued under those state and federal laws. As the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported last year:

“As with conventional oil and gas development, requirements from eight federal environmental and public health laws apply to unconventional oil and gas development.”

The DOE and GWPC leave no uncertainty about this, saying, “The development and production of oil and gas in the U.S., including shale gas, are regulated under a complex set of federal, state, and local laws that address every aspect of exploration and operation.”

As for SDWA specifically, in 2005 (not 2004) Congress passed the Energy Policy Act, which did not “exempt” hydraulic fracturing from any law, period. It simply affirmed the regulatory system already in place: states regulate hydraulic fracturing. This has been the established structure since the first hydraulic fracturing job was completed in southwest Kansas in 1947. SDWA, meanwhile, became law in 1974, and it has never covered hydraulic fracturing, because it was never designed to cover hydraulic fracturing. How can you be “exempt” from something that never applied to you in the first place?

Activists, it’s time to put this talking point to rest.

Same recycled activist groups, same recycled talking points. The only “crisis” here is a crisis of credibility for environmental activists, who will do or say anything to manipulate the fear of drought in the West into fear of the oil and gas industry. This so-called report is just another chapter in that irresponsible fear campaign, masquerading as “science” and research.

Loper is field director for the mountain states for Energy In Depth.

Environmentalists hope President Obama will kill the Keystone XL pipeline. But, privately, many expect to lose this battle. They worry: what’s next for the movement?

Win or lose, the next step needs to include a bold left-to-right alliance that unites the two halves of the sustainability movement: economic and social/environmental sustainability.

Conservatives are right: as a nation, we are out of money and deep in debt. Progressives are also right: we cannot pay off our debt by extracting it from the poor, the middle class, or the environment. But, because the political process leaves them no other choice, the solution each offers makes the problems worse.

The right’s solution is to drill baby, drill – and liquidate our ecological capital. The left’s solution is to spend baby, spend – and liquidate our financial capital. The solution of vested interests – corporations, unions, professionals, governments – is to do both. They like both the right and left agendas – more drilling, and more spending.

The combination of drill-and-spend just reinforces yesterday. It locks in status quo interests. That’s because the past has powerful lobbyists, but the future has almost none. In Washington DC, right now, there are probably 10,000 meetings happening, in which advocates are figuring out how to play the left and right against each other, to get one little policy advanced.

They play the left and right against each other all the time – it’s second nature. Here’s how they do it:
To hook the right, they play the conservative narrative: government power is running amuck. We need free enterprise to save us. Here’s how you can support free enterprise: oppose these mandates, and support these giveaways. To hook the left, they play the progressive narrative: corporate power is running amuck. We need democratic government to save us. Here’s how you can support democratic government: support these handouts and these mandates.

But there is a big difference between private enterprise and entrenched corporate power, and there is a big difference between democracy and entrenched government power. The left thinks this is all done by Charles Koch and a small powerful group of corporate conspirators. The right thinks it’s all a plot by George Soros and big government socialist conspirators.

But it’s not. It’s done by us – not as a whole, but in all our parts. Parts of us are represented really well in DC. The companies, unions, professional and governmental groups that we work for or depend on – these parts of us are all well-represented. The gun lobby is the most visible to play the game right now. To hook the extreme right, they play the “government is taking over” narrative – and attach that fear to even the most sensible ideas, like background checks. To hook the left, they give them an alternative corporate demon: Video game manufacturers.

But the same game is played by “good guys” and “bad guys” in every field – associations of teachers, doctors, nurses, hospitals, energy, finance, insurance, homebuilders, veterans, lawyers, consumers – hundreds of groups, all representing us – pieces of us – legitimate interests. The base on the left and right don’t intend for this. But because they are fighting each other, this is what they get.

Now, we’re not saying we shouldn’t ever drill, and we shouldn’t ever spend. If we’re smart in how we do it, we’ll be drilling and spending for hundreds of years. But what we need to do even more is to innovate – to actually create value. Drilling and spending are both ways to liquidate value, and spend our wealth. They are OK, only if we are also restoring that wealth and well-being, banking it. That takes not just conservation, but also innovation.

Future 500 is engaging business, social and environmental stakeholders, to craft a very simple agenda for doing that. We call it The Innovation Agenda. Seven policies that, according to McKinsey Global Institute and others, would pay off both our ecological and economic debts, and restore genuine, economically and environmentally sustainable growth.

The policies are not yet politically realistic. But they, or something like them, will be, because over time, the necessary always becomes possible. Barriers to change ultimately fall, sometimes in time, sometimes too late.

The question is: when will we be ready? We believe we’re ready right now. Our polls show there is a plurality on the left and the right – and even within the corporate, labor, professional, and government sectors – who support these changes, but the institutions that represent these parts of us are often slow moving.

These interests need to be able to come together across institutional and ideological borders, to work together. That is why Future 500 is helping to bring them together, behind a seven-point Innovation Agenda:

• First: Set a National Innovation Goal. Increase to increase the productivity of energy, materials, and carbon by four percent, every year;
• Second: Stop Taxing Jobs and Prosperity. Cut payroll and income taxes on both individuals and corporations;
• Third: Wind Down Resource Subsidies. Shift to real prices for energy, water, and food. This won’t increase real prices – it will reduce them;
• Fourth: Drive Radical Efficiency. Especially through information, telecommunications, and smart materials – which can deliver ten-fold gains;
• Fifth: Tax Pollution, Not Prosperity. Put a price on fossil fuel pollution, set at the rate that will drive the four percent annual resource productivity gain. Make the net cost zero by cutting taxes on prosperity in various forms: payroll, income, and profits; and
• Sixth: Use Border Adjustments to Cut Taxes More. Apply the same price on pollution to imported goods – including oil imports – so the price on domestic pollution does not inadvertently subsidize China, Venezuela, or Iran. Use 100% of the proceeds to cut other taxes.

An agenda like this could drive a resource revolution in the US, based on the McKinsey data. As other nations follow our lead, it could help the world meet 30% of its total resource needs in 2030, and cut projected oil demand by up to 27 MMb/d, reducing global climate risk.

The bad news is that to achieve these gains, we need a massive increase in one extremely scarce resource: political courage and collaboration. Government and its industrial-era partners on the right and left must unwind more than US $1 trillion in global subsidies that supersize energy, agriculture, water, and other resource consumption beyond sustainable levels.

That investment will pay off nicely. McKinsey projects a $3.7 trillion annual gain in global prosperity, through a combination of a $30 per ton carbon price and removing key subsidies. From 70% to 90% of the productivity investments have an internal rate of return of over 10%.

But it won’t happen now. In the marketplace, low prices on quality products generate the fastest sales. In politics, the opposite is true. The best policies – the ones that cost little and accomplish much – don’t sell as quickly as the expensive ones, those that pass money around to a long list of dependents. The political process deadlocks. In deadlock, the status quo has the advantage in power.

But there is a way out.

That brings us to Innovation Agenda #7: Business and NGO’s need to lobby for the future. Specifically, corporate leaders need to break open their government affairs silos. Right now, the purpose of government affairs is to insulate operations from potential effects of legislation or regulation. This is the biggest driver of anti-corporate activism on the planet. It ties the company so fundamentally to the past that, over time, it sets it up for collapse.

Activists need to change their practices too. They have been too shy about pressing companies to collaborate to change public policy. Activists have the capacity to motivate companies to advocate policy that is good for the public. Companies don’t fear the capacity of activists to pass federal legislation. They do fear their capacity to spoil consumer acceptance of their brands. Activists should use this power, with integrity.

Inside corporate America, there is wide understanding that the political system is broken, and that corporate government affairs practices are part of the reason. But internal politics make it difficult to change. More than one executive has asked me to help activists encourage companies to make their political and operational commitments consistent – to use their political power to create a level playing field in which social responsibility is consistent with profitability.

It is time for corporate and NGO leaders to engage on a higher plane. As former global Shell chairman Mark Moody Stuart has said, CEOs and environmentalists need to walk into Congressional offices together, and place their joint proposals on the desks. If politicians won’t lead, we need to.

The past and present are well-represented in Washington D.C. and all state capitals. But the future is not. It needs a good lobbyist, and a powerful coalition that crosses all the borders, and represents us whole: business, labor, professionals, government – not as we are, but as we can be, together.

Bill Shireman is president and CEO of Future 500.

The independent Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) recently released an economic impact study of the Utica natural gas discovery in Quebec.

In my last blog “Quebec Development penalized,” I suggested that Quebec should, temporarily at least, be allowed to keep more of the benefits of resource development. I suggested a reform of equalization along the lines of the deal that worked so well for the Newfoundland economy.

Stereotypes about Albertans are so strong that Le Devoir and many others assumed incorrectly that I was repeating an old refrain about cutting equalization. Actually I was saying the opposite which is that we need a positive and incentive based approach. It turns out this idea might mean even more than I thought for Quebec’s tax revenues.

According to the study by CERI, the Utica natural gas discovery has bigger potential impacts on the economy and taxes than previously reported.

They considered two, 25-year development scenarios. One is developing to a production level of 500 MMcf of natural gas per day. This is about equal to the current average daily demand in Quebec. The other is for 1.5 Bcf per day, which would likely involve Quebec exporting natural gas.

The report also estimates break even prices under three different productivity scenarios. Under the better scenario, break even prices are only $4.14 per mcf, which is lower than the current price of natural gas in Quebec. If confirmed, this case would mean the Utica discovery is economic today.

Under the 1.5 Bcf/day scenario GDP impacts nationally are $112 billion, with over 44,000 peak jobs and $31 billion in new tax revenue. The vast majority of that impact would be felt in Quebec.

Even under the lower scenario impacts are very significant: $37 billion in GDP, 14,000 peak jobs, and over $10 billion in new tax revenue.

The miracle is that local development of Utica natural gas is cleaner for our shared environment than the sources Quebec currently uses.

Can you imagine – a cleaner environment, bigger economy, more jobs, and greater government revenues? Under a Newfoundland style equalization deal, Quebec would keep even more of the revenue to develop its economy. It’s more than I thought.

Michael Binnion is the president and founding shareholder of Questerre Energy Corp.

As the debate in the US over whether or not to expand exports of LNG unfolds, it is worth underlining the significant benefits abundant US resources will bring to the global energy market. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), natural gas will be a key component of the global energy portfolio for decades to come. Indeed, just this month the American Gas Association, alongside the Potential Gas Committee estimated that the US has reserves of 2,384 Tcf of available natural gas.

From an environmental standpoint, natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel. Natural gas has roughly half the carbon emissions of coal when used to generate electricity. IEA data shows that increased natural gas use could reduce CO2 emissions by 740 million metric tons by 2035 – more than is currently emitted each year by France, Brazil, the UK, or Canada.

The benefits of natural gas do not simply end with the environment. Study after study has concluded that natural gas exports represent a major opportunity for international trade. Numerous countries, including some of America’s closest allies, are in need of reliable energy supplies. Increased natural gas trade via LNG shipments and pipelines will provide a clean-burning fuel source for consumers while making energy supplies more affordable for importing nations.

Allowing natural gas exports to reach the shores of US trade partners would create a more competitive LNG marketplace, and erode some of the power of those who use energy resources as a geopolitical weapon. Moreover, the US International Trade Administration (ITA) found that each US $1 billion of exports could result in more than 5,000 new jobs, many of which would be permanent manufacturing jobs.

In order to further participate in the global LNG market, regulatory hurdles must be met. Importing or exporting natural gas requires authorization from the US Department of Energy (DOE), which makes its determination based upon the public interest. Selling natural gas to countries with which the United States has a free trade agreement (FTA) is automatically deemed to be in the public interest, assuming all applicable environmental standards are met. However, selling to countries outside of existing FTAs must undergo further regulatory review.

Independent experts, Congress, DOE, and the general public have engaged in a thorough, public dialogue about the benefits of selling some of our abundant natural gas supply to our trading partners and there is a growing momentum of support across the country to export LNG. The bottom line remains: increased US LNG exports will benefit the environment, countries in need of energy resources, and the US economy. Now is the time for the US government to approve all pending LNG export applications so that the US and global economies can reap the benefits.

Bill Cooper is president of the Center for Liquefied Natural Gas.

A recent University of Texas poll asked respondents what they thought about a variety of energy issues, not the least of which was hydraulic fracturing. Interestingly, the poll actually shows how anti-energy activists are losing in their misinformation campaign against responsible shale development.

Regarding the issue of hydraulic fracturing in general, the UT poll (full cross-tabs here) found that a plurality supports its use — 45% support to 41% oppose. Since September 2012, support has actually increased by four points, while opposition has remained unchanged. In three separate polls over the past year conducted by UT, opposition has never exceeded support. Averaged out among the three polls, support exceeds opposition by six points, 45% to 39%.

In the current poll, those who said they wanted to promote hydraulic fracturing specifically on public lands also outnumbered those who want to ban it, 41% to 36%.

Sheril Kirshenbaum, director of the UT energy poll, observed that the polling shows “steady support for the expansion of domestic natural gas development.” Indeed, an amazing 62% of respondents support more natural gas production in the United States. That matches the findings of a recent Gallup poll, which showed that 65% of Americans want more emphasis placed on domestic natural gas development – including clear majorities among Republicans, Independents, and Democrats.

The UT poll also made it clear that anti-energy groups’ attempts to demonize natural gas as some sort of dirty fuel that’s not worth being produced are backfiring – big time. When asked if the benefits of domestic natural gas development outweigh the costs, 41% said “Yes” and only 18% said “No,” an amazing 23-point spread. Asked about specific benefits of natural gas, the results were even more stunning:

§ 75% believe job creation is a benefit of natural gas (only 4% disagree);

§ 70% believe natural gas production provides energy security (only 5% disagree);

§ 69% say natural gas boots US manufacturing (only 5% disagree); and

§ By a margin of 53 to 11, Americans say natural gas development is lowering carbon emissions.

The upshot is that Americans overwhelmingly view natural gas development as both an economic and environmental boon to the United States.

Regulation?

Naturally, media reports have either ignored or buried the good news listed above, focusing instead on the poll’s finding that more than 60% of respondents support more regulation for hydraulic fracturing or stronger enforcement of existing laws (the university’s news headline emphasized a “divide on fracing”). The implication is that not enough is being done to protect the public, and that the industry is avoiding proper oversight. The reality, however, is much different – even if it’s not convenient for the media to discuss it.

The industry worked with environmental groups in Colorado and Texas to establish disclosure regulations that have been touted as the gold standard. In California, the industry is supportive of similar disclosure regulations, and it’s actually certain environmental groups – some of whom supported those provisions in Colorado – who are now strangely opposing their implementation.

In Illinois, the industry teamed with labor, business groups, farm organizations, and environmentalists on legislation that would add new regulations for shale development. In Pennsylvania, the industry supported Act 13, which created a new fee that is generating hundreds of millions of dollars in new public revenues.

Notice the trend here? Despite what opponents have claimed for years, and to which too many in the media have provided a forum, the oil and gas industry does not oppose regulation. On the contrary, the industry has actively supported new regulatory measures in the states as a way to provide public assurances that responsible shale development will continue to be protective of the environment.

It is worth noting, however, that many of the same problems we identified with a Bloomberg poll last year (which found a similar percentage of respondents supportive of “more regulation”) also appear in similar form in the UT poll.

For instance, the Bloomberg poll included a question about global warming immediately before the question about “more regulation or less regulation” of hydraulic fracturing. The UT pollsters, however, asked several questions that could have “primed” the respondents to make what they perceived to be the more environmentally conscious option (i.e. more regulation or stricter enforcement). Prior to the questions on hydraulic fracturing, the UT poll asked, among other things:

§ A question about “the impact that US energy production and consumption has on the environment;”

§ A question regarding how public policy “will affect your clean energy choices;”

§ A question on whether climate change is occurring. If respondents answered in the affirmative, they were read a list of possible contributing factors, including specifically oil and natural gas; and

§ A question on how they could best be incentivized to reduce water consumption.

To be clear, there is nothing inherently wrong in asking these questions. That’s what pollsters do, after all. But preceding a question about regulation of an activity used in oil and gas development with statements that frame the debate in terms of impacts from that development is, at the very least, a caveat worth highlighting as we interpret the meaning of the results.

Of course, that “priming” also raises another important point. Even with respondents geared toward what was clearly an environmental bent, a plurality still said it supports hydraulic fracturing. In that sense, it would be difficult to find a better example of how anti-fracing activists are losing the debate: even their “base” is abandoning them.