Environmental Knowledge Cartographies: Evaluating Competing Discourses in U.S. Hydraulic Fracturing Rule-Making

Abstract

In this article, we evaluate competing environmental knowledge claims in U.S. hydraulic fracturing (HF) regulation. We conduct a case study of the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) rule-making process over the period from 2012 to 2015, which was the first attempt to update federal oil and gas regulations in thirty years. Our study addresses a gap in the energy geographies and environmental governance literatures, which have yet to evaluate systematically HF-related decision-making processes at the policymaking scale. We mobilize theoretical insights from science and technology studies on boundary objects and critical environmental discourse analysis to conduct a “cultural cartography” of the BLM’s rule-making process. Our analysis of a subset of 1.4 million public comments submitted to the BLM, combined with fifteen stakeholder interviews, focuses on (1) who participated in the rule-making process; (2) the types of knowledge claims advanced in support or opposition of the rule; and (3) how these claims affected the rule-making process. In contrast to recent literature that finds increased “horizontality” of environmental knowledge production, we find a clear hierarchy that privileges government knowledge—including federal government–sponsored research and existing laws—above all other categories of evidence cited. As such, we argue that government knowledge—which in this case brought disparate stakeholder groups together to debate HF regulation—functions as a key boundary object in the rule-making process. We conclude with a discussion of implications for both research and policy. Key Words: boundary work, Bureau of Land Management, hydraulic fracturing, regulation, rule making.

我们于本文中评估美国水力压裂（HF）管理规则中相互竞争的环境知识宣称。我们对土地管理局（BLM）自2012年至2015年间的管理规则制定过程进行案例研究, 这是三十年来首度尝试更新联邦石油与天然气管理规则。我们的研究处理能源地理学与环境治理文献中的缺口, 这些文献尚未在政策制定尺度上系统性地评估有关HF的决策制定过程。我们运用科学与科技研究对于跨界物件的理论洞见, 以及批判环境论述分析, 对BLM规则制定过程进行“文化製图”。我们对提交给BLM的一百四十万条公众评论分组之分析, 结合与十五个利害关系者的访谈, 聚焦（1）谁参与规则制定过程；（2）推进支持或反对该规则的知识宣称种类；以及（3）这些宣称如何影响规则制定过程。与晚近文献发现环境知识生产逐渐增加的“水平性”相反的是, 我们发现偏好政府知识——包含联邦政府赞助的研究与既有法律——之于其他所有引用的证据类别的明确阶层关系。于此, 我们主张政府知识——在本案例中集合不同利害关系群体来辩论HF管理规则——作为规则制定中的关键跨界物件。我们于结论中探讨对研究与政策的意涵。关键词：跨界工作, 土地管理局, 水力压裂, 管理, 制定规则。

En este artículo evaluamos afirmaciones de conocimiento ambiental que compiten entre sí sobre la regulación de fractura hidráulica (HF) en EE.UU. Condujimos un estudio de caso del proceso de adopción de normas de la Oficina del Manejo de Tierras (BLM) para el período 2012–2015, primer intento en treinta años de actualizar las regulaciones federales de petróleo y gas. Nuestro estudio aboca un vacío en las literaturas sobre geografías de la energía y gobernanza ambiental, en las que todavía están por evaluarse sistemáticamente los procesos de toma de decisiones referidas al HF en la escala del diseño de políticas. Movilizamos perspectivas teóricas desde los estudios de ciencia y tecnología sobre objetos fronterizos y análisis del discurso ambiental crítico para conducir una “cartografía cultural” del proceso de adopción de normas de la BLM. Nuestro análisis de un subconjunto de 1.4 millones de comentarios públicos enviados a la BLM, combinado con quince entrevistas de interesados, se enfoca en (1) quiénes participaron en el proceso de adopción de normas, (2) los tipos de afirmaciones de conocimiento presentadas en respaldo u oposición de una determinada norma, y (3) cómo afectaron estas afirmaciones el proceso de adopción de normas. En contraste con la literatura reciente que encuentra creciente “horizontalidad” en la producción de conocimiento ambiental, encontramos una clara jerarquía que privilegia el conocimiento del gobierno––incluyendo la investigación patrocinada por el gobierno federal y las leyes existentes––por encima de todas las otras categorías de evidencia citadas. Por nuestra parte, sostenemos que el conocimiento del gobierno––que en este caso unió grupos de interesados discrepantes para debatir la regulación sobre la HF––funciona como un objeto fronterizo clave en el proceso de adopción de normas. Concluimos con una discusión de las implicaciones para la investigación y la política.

Palabras clave:

• adopción de normas
• fractura hidráulica
• Oficina de Manejo de Tierras
• regulación
• trabajo de límite

Acknowledgments

We thank Chandra Christmas-Rouse, Donna Liu, Jessica Hepburn, and Andrea Lucy for research assistance.

Notes

1 Some interviewees objected to our use of the term hydraulic fracturing, arguing that it is only one stage in the life cycle of a well and that it signals implicit opposition to the drilling technique. Their preferred phrasing, oil and gas development, however, is too vague for the purposes of our analysis. Moreover, the rule making examined in this article specifically uses HF in its title. Thus, we have chosen to use the term.

2 HF is a technique for developing unconventional energy sources that combines horizontal and vertical drilling with high-pressure water injection to extract oil and gas from shale deposits.

3 There were 1,818 petitions filed, but each signature to an individual petition is counted as one comment.

4 Sentiment analysis evaluates attitudes toward a topic within a specific context. As such, sentiment analysis is distinct from opinion polling, because it does not aim to assess overall societal attitudes toward a topic (Pang and Lee 2008).

5 We selected this sample size because it represented the variation in sentiments across the commenter types. This was determined based on our sentiment analysis of all of the letters (Figure 2), which allowed us to identify stratification categories based on commenter types (Table 2).

6 Numerous stakeholders, particularly government officials at federal, state, and local levels, declined interview requests because of ongoing litigation related to the rule. In brief, before the rule could be implemented, it was stayed in district court after two industry associations, four states, and one Indian tribe sued (IPAA and WEA 2015). In July 2016, a U.S. District Court judge set aside the rule on the grounds that the BLM lacked the necessary regulatory authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act, a regulation administered by the EPA (U.S. District Court of Wyoming 2016). Environmental organizations appealed and in the fall of 2017 a federal appeals court upheld the BLM’s authority to regulate (U.S. Court of Appeals 10th Circuit 2017). In December 2017, the Trump administration rescinded the rule. Within days the state of California and a coalition of environmental groups working on behalf of tribes filed two separate lawsuits arguing that the BLM was failing to fulfill its responsibility to protect federal and tribal lands (Grandoni 2018). These lawsuits are ongoing.

7 The EPA released the final report in December 2016.

8 We used document-level sentiment scores to assign sentiment values to citations.

9 The text in parentheses is the document identification number for the specific public comment. The full public comment can be downloaded from http://regulations.gov/ using this document identification number.

10 Regulatory capture is an economic concept used to describe instances whereby a regulatory agency becomes more responsive to the interests of the industries that the agency regulates than to the concerns of ordinary citizens.

11 The type well provision would have approved drilling on all wells within a designated region based on tests of a representative or type well.

12 In separate lawsuits, the state of California and a coalition of environmental groups have sued the Trump administration for rescinding the rule arguing that the administration violated the Administrative Procedures Act due to the short five-month comment and review period that preceded the decision to overturn the rule (Passut 2018).

Additional information

Funding

The authors gratefully acknowledge funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Grant 435-2016-0564).

JENNIFER BAKA is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography at the Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802. E-mail: [email protected]. Her research interests include environmental governance, political–industrial ecology, the energy–water nexus, and extractive industries.

ARIELLE HESSE is a postdoctoral research fellow on the WISDOM Project in the Department of Geography, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland. E-mail: [email protected]. Her research interests include human and environmental health, environmental governance, and extractive industries.

ERIKA WEINTHAL is the Lee Hill Snowdon Professor of Environmental Policy at the Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708. E-mail: [email protected]. Her research interests include global environmental politics and governance, environmental peace building and security, the water–energy nexus, and the resource curse.

KAREN BAKKER is a Professor and Canada Research Chair at the Department of Geography, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z2, Canada. E-mail: [email protected]. Her research interests include environmental governance, political economy, political ecology, the water–energy nexus, and extractive industries.