What You Said Isn't What I Heard: Miscommunicating in the Marcellus

Considering all of the different perspectives and experiences people have, it’s amazing sometimes to think humans are able to communicate with one another at all. Perhaps most frustrating can be situations where it seems everyone is singing from the same song sheet, but some factor that is difficult to see is causing problems that don’t need to exist.

In the development of the Marcellus Shale, there may be a number of such factors at work – particularly between the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and industry – that if remedied in some fashion could smooth things out. Assuming of course that all parties involved actually want relationships that work better.

Here are some observations that could help to facilitate smoother regulatory and operational processes:

On permitting. This one falls primarily on industry. It’s important to remember that the permitting process is not a rubber stamp. When a company submits an application for any necessary permit to PA DEP, what comes back is not necessarily exactly what was submitted. Or in other words, DEP just doesn’t read the app and say yes or no. Sometimes they add conditional language specific to the site or project. It may seem like a no-brainer to think the permit is read in full before work starts, but that may not always be the case. Documents can get held up in in-boxes, piled under other things, prematurely filed, and slowed in distribution to all necessary staff. If there’s even a possibility that final permit language is not read in house by someone in the company’s permitting/regulatory group, it’s even less likely that the site manager and workers have read it in full. They should be reading them – or at least those parts that deal directly with site work and conditional language. And DEP inspectors visiting those sites should have read them as well. Simple fix – anyone responsible for what happens on a drill site should read all applicable permits if they aren’t doing it already.

On inspections and notices of violation. Communication issues are likely to arise during and after inspections for a variety of reasons. First, let’s face facts. A DEP inspector isn’t likely to always be a welcome presence on a well site. Inspectors know this. Teamed with DEP’s continual staff fluctuations due to agency layoffs, reassignments due to seniority and new hires, many current inspectors are somewhat inexperienced in oil and gas. Considering the rush to add new staff to the Oil and Gas Program to appease those screaming for more oversight, many of the inspectors out there have likely not even read the Oil and Gas Act, let alone have the ability to site it or understand when it takes precedence, or when another environmental rule can be applied. There’s also the fact that changes in policy seem needlessly slow in reaching DEP’s field staff – many company site teams, who learn a great deal through the Marcellus Shale Coalition, have incredibly found themselves telling inspectors that DEP has changed its stance on various items. Needless to say inspectors are going to make nice while on site. And it’s unlikely that, unless a violation is a major emergency, there will be much said about it. That is until the inspection report lands on a desk back at headquarters with more detail and some additional notes of “this needs to be fixed/changed/reconfigured.”

On inspections and notices of violation 2. Company site staff needs to be a little more forward with inspectors who visit their sites. Its common, after the site team hears about some violation listed on the inspection report, to have someone say “But the inspector didn’t say anything about that when he/she was here.” Again, see above on inspector behavior. Or realize that DEP has the right to take notes back to its office, review the permits, talk to supervisors and colleagues, and add violations to the report that we’re not discussed on site. Inspection report documents go from DEP to the person listed as “responsible” for the site in the permit – usually a regulatory senior staffer or corporate counsel for the company, not the people on site carrying out the permits. In the time that it takes for information to filter down to the site manager, DEP could be back for another inspection, and note the company’s failure to comply with the last report. A two-prong solution here. Inspectors, read up on the regs you’re enforcing, and try to be a little more upfront with people working on site. They may resent your presence, but in the future, they’ll be happy you confronted them directly with any problems you’ve witnessed. For the companies, make sure mail from DEP is read the moment you receive it, and that the information within makes a quick trip to the people on site who fix problems.

On “Can’t we all just get along?” There are likely many cultural issues that make communication between regulators and operations people confusing or strained. The “Texas” thing needs to go away. To those who say “We don’t do it this way in Texas,” you are right. But you’re not in Texas. Pennsylvania residents and politics vary significantly from those of the Lone Star State. Don’t fall back to Texas rules when in doubt, ask how it’s done here. You’ll alleviate many problems. To those who say “These guys are all from Texas – they don’t get it.” Like it or not Pennsylvanians, we need our friends from Texas in this tenuous early stage of the Marcellus play. They’ve done this – they have the institutional knowledge to help us do it right for the benefit of our state economy. Have some respect for their experience and pride in the work they do.

The Marcellus Shale is a politically charged issue throughout the Commonwealth. At times, it seems that the various parties involved use the simple human tendency to mis-communicate to their advantage. If that’s the case, it helps no one. To paraphrase Pennsylvania State Representative David Levdansky’s recent comments to KDKA-TV, the industry is here and isn’t going anywhere. It’s our responsibility to make sure they are doing their job correctly, and that they are able to do their job correctly. There will be enough complications and controversies as Pennsylvania develops this amazing resource. The inspection process needs to be one in which collaboration leads to the very best practices. Not one in which everyone’s waiting for the “Gotcha” moment.