The dilemma the oil and gas industry faces with the public is that nobody is going to love it just because the lights go on and gasoline is cheap. It’s not enough.

Why not? To non-industry panelists at the recent Colorado Oil and Gas Association Energy Summit, the answer is simple: the industry’s lack of credibility.

“One of the things that I’ve been able to exploit over the years in my dealings with the oil and gas industry in the more adversarial context is being able to exploit lapses in credibility,” said Dan Grossman, senior director of state advocacy for the Environmental Defense Fund’s energy program. “That starts with companies or industries not being transparent about issues that are important, from what companies are putting downhole as part of the fracking process to what the real climate risks are from the oil and gas industry.”

Taking a defensive stance and denying responsibility can backfire.

“When we try to approach these issues from a scientific and economic perspective and our ‘adversaries’ are taking a different tack, it’s pretty easy for us to poke holes in what they’re saying,” Grossman said. “It’s actually led to a lot of success on my part and I think that’s good for everybody, but I’m sure there are a lot of bruises and hard feelings around some of those issues that we’ve done over time.”

But Grossman wasn’t gloating. He said he considered the areas in which he was able to work in a non-adversarial, constructive way with industry among the proudest accomplishments of his career. Success, he said, has meant pursuing policies that are both reasonable for industry compliance and important from an environmental perspective to protect communities and the planet from the impacts of oil and gas development.

Credibility Gap

One example that panelists pointed to was the connection between earthquakes in Oklahoma and disposal water injection wells.

“When I was a reporter in Oklahoma in 2009 to 2013, we had earthquakes and the line was, it is not related to oil and gas activity,” said Megan Schrader, editor of the Denver Post opinion pages. “The industry was adamant—‘no, it’s not us.’ And now we all know that it is related. At least some of those earthquakes are related to those injection wells…. It hurts the public perception of the industry.”

The frustration wasn’t limited to the public. Moderator Chris Wright, CEO and chairman of the board of Denver-based Liberty Oilfield Services, did not care for the disingenuous response. Wright was among those who spoke out early about how the increased injection of disposal water into a poorly chosen target contributed to the Oklahoma quakes.

“It was crazy and embarrassing for me and our industry that we would tell everyone that there’s nothing bad in frac fluids,” Wright said, describing a missed opportunity to inform the public. “‘They’re not dangerous, but we’re not going to tell you what’s in them, but trust us, they’re OK.’ To me, that was a terrible failure.”

Another example is whether methane emissions have truly been reduced. Many in the oil and gas industry maintain that because methane emissions have been declining, more regulation is not needed. On Aug. 20, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced a rollback of late Obama-era methane rules.

The rule enacted in May 2016 added emissions of methane to those of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) regulated at natural gas fracking wells. The rule required the use of reduced emissions completions (RECs), or “green completions,” to ensure that methane was captured and put to use rather than vented into the atmosphere. The result has been a reduction in methane emissions—but only at the wellhead.

“Green completions regulations have worked and we are seeing dramatic reductions in emissions from completions, not just in Colorado but across the country because of the green completion rule,” Grossman said. “If you look across the supply chain, the statement that methane emissions are going down is just simply and verifiably not true. And as a matter of fact, the best science is telling us it’s grossly underestimated and it is a magnitude higher of what operators are reporting to regulators.”

It is frustrating to Grossman that, while some energy companies have spoken out against the rollbacks, trade associations have not supported what he called reasonable restrictions. That’s where cherry-picking facts can harm the industry’s credibility.

“What’s difficult to do is stick to the facts, acknowledge where people bring up things that are verifiably right and contrary to something that you said or maybe a matter of nuance,” he said. “Acknowledge that publicly. That helps you build credibility and it helps you stick to the facts.”

Bridging the Credibility Gap

The industry has made strides in incorporating transparency into its approach, Schrader said.

“Disclosure that occurs after the fact is great,” she said. “So let me say the industry has come a long way from those days of denial, denial, denial.”

But it could do more, and a good start would be to get in front of potentially troublesome issues. For example, companies are required to submit forms on their venting and flaring to state regulatory agencies. Schrader suggested that operators include that information on their own websites so that people who live near those operations can access it. It’s not required, she said, but it would increase trust.

Grossman would like all sides in energy and climate issues to ditch the hyperbole and walk away from the temptation to demonize a company or industry because of their positions. He said he has used them and they have been used against him and, while they might offer a short-term gain, they always ultimately fail.

Finally, Grossman said, follow through on what you promise.

“Do what you say,” he said. “It’s one thing to put something on your website to say we care about the environment. It’s quite another to put yourself on a limb and support policy changes that address climate change, for example.”

And Grossman has learned that credibility and transparency are his responsibility, as well.

“I can’t hide the ball. I can’t cherry pick data,” he said. “I have to be true to what our scientists and our economists tell us and I can’t advocate positions that don’t have a basis in science or economics. And so, I find myself engaging in these same struggles that I’m sure many of you in the industry do, as well.”