Structuring the shale gas controversy: Policy options & Scenarios

The controversy analysed in this case study relates to divergent and clearly-cut options regarding the exploitation or non-exploitation of shale gas. It is important for the assessment process to give a clear and complete description of each option. In other words, costs and benefits will be obviously different for each option, making it necessary to describe those thoroughly, especially in their contrasting features.

We will proceed in two steps in this section, first describing policy options, which are decisions aiming specifically at allowing or forbidding shale gas exploration and exploitation and its associated technique, and second scenarios, which refer to long-term options regarding energy and their implications on shale gas exploration and exploitation.

A first way to consider the official regulations regarding exploration and exploitation of shale gas is suggested by table 1 above. Those regulations refer to policies for or against the development of the shale gas industry. These policies are usually supported by statements or judgments referring to issues such as those identified above, and have the support of specific stakeholder groups, according to the issues that seem the most important to them. These positions can be discovered in the deliberation phase, when the assessment is done in a participative and deliberative way, or be induced by stakeholders’ statements and publications.

Policy options

The main options available locally in operational terms for the short term seem to be one of two main options. A third option can be evoked, if we consider a larger time range, and the possible development of new techniques.

1. Exploiting unconventional gas deposits.

This option involves using the only existing technique available today: hydraulic fracturing, despite all the known issues and risks. This highly complex technique is described in several documents and documentaries in the list below.

2. Leaving unconventional gas deposits in the ground (in their geological layers).

This option is straightforward. At a larger scale, it is consistent with alternative energy policies, including the development of renewable sources of energy, as well as energy efficiency and sobriety measures.

3. A third option could be: not exploiting shale gas until an alternative technique, proven clean and harmless, is developed for exploiting them. This means prohibiting hydraulic fracturing, like France did in July 2011.

This option could have immediate implications, such as: inciting energy company to research new, harmless, techniques, for exploiting shale gas.

The three options considered above are what straightforward, or “no-brainer” alternatives. A deeper investigation into policies show a range of options in terms of accepting or not fracking at national, state or local level: moratorium, banning; prior public consultation could also be an option.

If we consider the full description of the controversy, as well as the issues at stake, we can image wider policy options, which we chose to call “scenarios”. These scenarios can allow us to link the controversy on shale gas and fracking with those on other energy sources, for example: exploiting oil from different areas (rainforest, tar sands, etc.). They are closely linked to the social dimension of the energy debate, involving societal choices at local and national level for a period of time longer than usually contemplated by the political agenda. Each of these scenario is underpinned by a choice of values, which is in its turn related to some fundamental parameters of social metabolism, such as per capita energy consumption, the evolution of which can only take place on the long term.

Scenarios

The three following scenarios are usually mentionned:

1/ The modernist and technical approach

This scenario is similar to the GAS scenario of the WEO, and involves exploiting all available gas deposits, trying to mitigate negative impacts for environmental and health. It considers the energy sector alone, setting energy availability as a top priority.

2/ The environmentally conservative approach

This scenario sets the preservation of environment as top priority. It involves not exploiting gas deposit that pose environmental and health problems. It implies assessing the consequences in terms of energy or economic development, but answers those issues as they come along at local or national level.

3/ The energy efficiency and sobriety approach

This scenario follows an integrated approach, not setting a single area of priority, but rather a set of priorities tending to well-being in harmony with nature. This set of priorities includes: protection of the environment, availability of energy and economic development. It takes into consideration the interactions between sectorial policies, as well as societal changes induced by policy as well as spontaneous evolution of values in society. For our matter, its main components are: downsizing production and consumption of fossil fuels, developing energy efficiency as well as energy sobriety.

While energy efficiency relates to the technical objective of minimizing the energy input for the production of a same good or service, energy sobriety is a multidimensional perspective that sets as shared objective the reduction of energy consumption and needs, adjusting it to a sustainable level acknowledging local and planetary boundaries.