Energy in Depth

Shale Goes Global

State Dept. forum seeks to export promise and potential of shale gas to markets around the world – but will Administration apply same lessons, encouragement here at home?

Col. Edwin Drake is widely credited with developing the world’s first commercial oil well in Titusville, Pennsylvania in 1859. But here’s something you might not have known about the guy: He wasn’t actually a colonel.

Here’s something else: According to Chinese and Polish historians, Drake didn’t actually drill the first oil well either. In Poland, that honor rests with Ignacy ?ukasiewicz, who described his discovery in 1854 as the advent of a “new branch of industry which shall bear plentiful fruit.” Of course, from China’s perspective, both Drake and ?ukasiewicz arrived on the scene about 1,500 years too late. In their record books, 4^th century monks are credited with developing the first-ever oil well, employing cutting-edge technology in the form of bamboo shoots to produce the oil needed to heat water from which deposits of salt could be distilled. Turns out even back then Chinese food had plenty of salt.

But while friendly disagreements may persist when it comes to assigning credit and location for the discovery of oil, when it comes to the discovery of clean-burning natural gas from shale, no ambiguity exists: We found it. And much more important: We invested the time, talent and resources in developing the technologies needed to make its production possible. The upshot? A veritable shale gas “revolution” taking place right here, right now, all across America — with hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions in state, local and federal revenue currently being generated in its wake.

Not yet, anyway. But an event organized by the U.S. Department of State earlier this week sought to begin the process of changing all that. Presided over by David Goldwyn, State’s coordinator for International Energy Affairs, the two-day Global Shale Gas Initiative Conference held in Washington on Monday and Tuesday brought together representatives from 20 countries (including the United States) to share news, views and technical insights related to the business of producing natural gas from shale. What interest does the State Department have in promoting a phenomenon like that? Mr. Goldwyn took on this question directly in his opening remarks:

[O]ur motivation as the State Department to engage on this issue should be clear for foreign policy and energy security reasons. Countries around the world need diversity of energy supply. There are countries with millions of people – in fact, tens and some hundreds of millions of people – without access to electricity services. They need a feedstock and they need it for base load energy. …So it’s understandable that they want to develop shale gas, but we have, in our country, an umbrella of laws and regulations that makes sure this is done safely and efficiently.

But just as no two shale plays are exactly the same, no one nation holds the exclusive rights to producing abundant resources from shale that underlies its land. Just about everybody’s got the stuff, geologists tell us. But not everyone has access to the best and most innovative technologies needed to convert the opportunity of shale into the reality of a stronger economy, a cleaner environment, and a higher standard of living for all who call that country home.

Of course, this conference didn’t exactly come out of left field; according to the White House, the president and his administration continue to be actively involved in spreading the good news of shale gas far and near, even using it as a tool of diplomatic engagement in promoting a clean, sustainable and growth-oriented energy future for some of our closest and most important trading allies across the globe. Back in November, the White House described its efforts to export the promise and potential of shale to our friends in China in the following way:

[The] Shale Gas Initiative will allow the U.S. and China to use experience gained in the United States to assess China’s shale gas potential, promote environmentally-sustainable development of shale gas resources, conduct joint technical studies to accelerate development of shale gas resources in China, and promote shale gas investment in China through the U.S.-China Oil and Gas Industry Forum, study tours, and workshops.

According to Reuters, the Chinese have been more than happy to accept our insight and technical advice in this space, with the country just last week launching a national shale gas research center and announcing a series of goals that include: 1) finding one trillion cubic meters of shale gas, 2) building 15-30 billion cubic meters of production capacity, and 3) ultimately using shale to meet as much as 12 percent of China’s total natural gas demand by 2020. Don’t think they can get there? Smart money says not to bet against them. According to reports, China’s total shale gas potential may soon be measured in quadrillions of cubic feet, not trillions. All they need is the technology and infrastructure to bring these resources to market.

Same goes for our friends in Poland, who view the prospect of shale gas development as a national security imperative more than anything else. You see, as it currently stands, a large portion of the natural gas upon which the Polish economy depends is piped in each day from Russia – and it doesn’t take a Ph.D. candidate in European history to understand the tensions and uncertainties inherent in that arrangement.

Earlier this month, the first-ever application of hydraulic fracturing technology was introduced at the Markowola-1 exploratory well in Kozienice, Poland. How much natural gas will they find? No one can say for certain. But according to one report from Wood Mackenzie, the Polish people may have more than 47 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas trapped in shale deposits beneath their feet – or nearly half the entire proven natural gas reserves in Europe. Who’s laughing now, right Poland?

The story, of course, goes on and on from there: South Africa’s got lots of shale potential; so too does Sweden, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Morocco, Pakistan, India and Armenia – just to name a few. But while the depths and temperatures and technical requirements will vary from play to play to play – one thing will always remain constant: the continued need to use cutting-edge fracturing technology to tap into resources that would be too deep, too diffuse and too difficult to get at otherwise.

As was made clear in Washington this week, the U.S. government understands this reality – at least in an international context. Left to be determined is whether it will apply these same lessons to shale gas exploration here in the United States. Let’s promote shale gas globally, but let’s act locally on it as well. That was the message delivered by the State Department in Washington this week. Any chance the good folks over at EPA heard it?

Let’s Talk About Cleavage

Or why the foliation perpendicular to stress in the context of subsurface ductile deformation matters in the debate over shale and hydraulic fracturing 

We’ve spent some time over the past couple months taking a critical look at some of the key assertions made in the HBO documentary GasLand, putting forth in that time two separate rebuttal documents that we believe address in a substantive way a number of the misconceptions upon which the film, and its broader political message, is based.

But one of the issues we haven’t tackled yet is the suggestion that fissures made in the process of fracturing a shale formation are so long, and so upwardly vertical, that they have the potential to create conduits (or cleavages) through which fracturing-related fluids can travel to water-bearing formations thousands of feet above – including the water table. In his brief explanation of what the fracturing process is all about, GasLand director Josh Fox includes the following image in his film:

According to Fox, the fracturing process “is like a mini-earthquake,” and “blasts a mix of water and chemicals 8,000 feet into the ground.” At least he gets the depth right. But according to New York Department of Environmental Conservation (page 127 of this document), “No blast or explosion is created by the hydraulic fracturing process. The proppant holds the fractures open, allowing hydrocarbons to flow into the wellbore after injected fluids are recovered.” Guess there’s no need to call in the bomb squad after all.

But basic mechanics aside, the message the director is attempting to advance through the image above is simple: Hydraulic fracturing completely decimates the shale formation, creates massive gaps in the underlying rock, and produces vertical chasms that travel all the way up to the surface. Within that context, it becomes a lot easier to understand how the technology could lead to the drinking water contamination – as long as pathways and pressure exist, who can say for sure what’s actually happening down there, or up here?

Serious geologists have known since time immemorial that such a phenomenon is a virtual impossibility – and so has the EPA, which wrote in 1995 that “given the horizontal and vertical distance between the drinking water well and the closest methane production wells, the possibility of contamination of endangerment of USDWs [underground sources of drinking water] in the area is extremely remote.” And that letter, keep in mind, was in reference to a coalbed methane well – which reside thousands of feet closer to the water table than shale wells.

But thanks to the good folks over at Pinnacle Technologies, we now have some solid data to express this separation in quantitative terms. As reported by Pinnacle general manager Kevin Fisher in July’s edition of the American Oil & Gas Reporter, the following graphs plots actual field data from tens of thousands of fracturing operations conducted over the past decade – this first one, in the Barnett Shale, which shows quite clearly that even the most shallow fissures created through the hydraulic fracturing process remain separated from the water table by more than 3,500 feet:

But that’s just the Barnett, right? Everyone knows there’s no problem out there. Isn’t the real area of concern the Mighty Marcellus – where activists continue to claim that gas, chemicals, salt, metals, and Lord knows what else regularly get dredged up from the depths and beamed into every well, sink and stream in sight? Well, Pinnacle ran the numbers on the Marcellus as well, and although the data set isn’t quite as robust as what you’d find in the Barnett (remember: we’ve been developing that one a bit longer), the story in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio is remarkably similar. To wit:

Here we see an even greater separation between fractures in the underlying rock and sources of potable water above – with the closest the two shall ever meet clocking in at roughly 4,300 feet.

In other words, the deepest formations holding drinking water and the most shallow depth in which you’ll find a fracture in the Marcellus Shale are still separated by the equivalent of three-and-a-half Empire State Buildings – or three Petronas Towers, for our Malaysian friends. And by the way: they’re not exactly separated by air either. Between the two, you’ll find millions of tons of solid, impermeable rock – rock that has for literally hundreds of millions of years acted as an immutable barrier preventing salty water below from communicating with fresh water above.  

But just to be sure we got this right, we sent these graphs and data up to Williamsville, N.Y. so that Ph.D. geologist Michael P. Joy might give them a gander and share some technical insights into what makes this phenomenon possible. Below is a (small) excerpt from the email he sent us in reply:

The hydraulic fracturing process creates fractures that are very small, usually an 1/8th inch or less in width. There is not enough pressure that could be exerted on the column of water to create a fracture matrix long enough to reach anywhere close to near surface aquifers. … The gas and water in these deep shale formations exist in hydrostatic equilibrium; the pressure acting down on the formation fluid is equal to the pressure being exerted from the bottom upward and the formation fluids act under the immutable laws of physics and stay in place.

Right. Exactly what he said.

No Place Like Dome?

Budget, air conditioning (?) play role in EPA decision to move Binghamton HF forum to Syracuse – but tight logistics force agency to postpone event ‘til next month

Two county lines and a 73-mile stretch of Interstate 81 are all that separate Binghamton from Syracuse, N.Y. But judging by the reaction lodged by anti-Marcellus activists upon hearing news of EPA’s change of venue for its upcoming forum on hydraulic fracturing, you would’ve thought the agency was trying to move the thing instead to the Syracuse, Sicily.

Now comes word that the forum itself will need to be rescheduled for sometime in September – a public safety decision announced today after the hosts consulted with local police and county officials. Of course, if you thought anti-energy activists were angry about the change of venue for the event before, imagine what they’ll be saying today about its outright postponement. Actually, here’s an early preview:

“EPA has been bought and paid for!” – declared one commenter on the website of the Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin this morning. “[F]or months this was the location, as far as i’m [sic.] concerned the gas companies pulled this stunt with a pay-off to someone!” Actually, the real story here appears to be about a pay-off that didn’t quite happen – specifically, a payment from EPA to Binghamton University to rent the space needed to host the forum in the first place.

According to local media, EPA and BU originally agreed to (but never signed a contract stipulating) a $6,000 hosting fee – based on an assumption that several hundred folks, at most a thousand or two, would be coming. Then came news that 8,000 people were planning to attend – along with a full-slate of musical acts, jugglers, a couple face-painters, and a petting zoo.

Again, according to reports, all BU did was ask EPA for some extra funds to handle the logistics associated with providing a safe and civil atmosphere in which the forum could take place. EPA, for its part, balked. Spend $1.9 million on the first phase of the second study we’ve done on hydraulic fracturing in the past 70 months? No problem, says EPA. Fork over a couple grand extra to ensure we’ve got enough Job-Johnnies available on-site in Binghamton? That’s a bridge too far.

Of course, money aside, the other issue that had anti-Marcellus activists in an absolute panic was a report surfacing last week (most prominently in the Press & Sun-Bulletin) indicating the forum might be held in a venue without a sufficient air-conditioning system in place. Here’s an excerpt from the call-to-action that Katherine Nadeau of the pressure group Environmental Advocates of New York sent around to her followers on Aug. 6:

[T]he university is trying to move the hearing to an un-air conditioned, acoustically-impossible gym. … You should call [BU] President McGraw at 607-777-xxxx.  … [Tell him that] due to the size of the crowd, the age diversity (children and seniors) and the likelihood that it will be a very hot day, holding the hearing in an air-conditioned venue is critical.

Funny thing about air-conditioning in New York – it’s powered by electricity, nearly a third of which in the state is derived directly from clean-burning natural gas. And according to the friendly dispatcher with whom we spoke at NYSEG (the major Southern Tier utility), a larger share of Binghamton’s electricity comes from natural gas than the average community in the state. So again: Activists oppose natural gas and the means for producing it. But they support the electricity derived from natural gas that makes air-conditioning possible. So in other words: They oppose being denied the latter, especially if it impacts their level of comfort in protesting the former. Got it?

Of course, lost in the recriminations over the decision to move the EPA forum from Binghamton to Syracuse – and then today’s news, to move the event itself to the month of September – is the broader realization that this “public information session,” as the agency calls it, won’t play a role in determining the scope and scale of EPA’s future study on the safety and performance of hydraulic fracturing – the second such study (as we mentioned) that EPA is doing on this general subject in the past six years.

Those decisions were made late last year by Congress, and confirmed earlier this year by the agency’s Science Advisory Board – instructing EPA to study the relationship between the use of fracturing technology and the safety and quality of underground sources of drinking water. The good news is that the science on this phenomenon is about as straightforward as it gets – which is why even EPA has been forced to admit (repeatedly) that not a single case of groundwater contamination has ever been tied to hydraulic fracturing in the 60 years it’s been in use.

Unfortunately, if the previous three “public information sessions” over which presided EPA this summer are any indication, the event in Syracuse next month won’t focus all that much on the factual history associated with hydraulic fracturing’s safe and efficient use in New York State over the past half-century. Nor will the panels or participants spend much time considering the enormous job-creating and broader economic potential that responsible Marcellus exploration can leverage for a state with 900,000 residents on the unemployment rolls and a $9 billion gap in the budget.

No, it probably won’t have much of that. But according to one invite we received in the (electronic) mail, there will be plenty of bands on hand — The Sim Redmond Band, the Tioga County Heymakers, and a group called “Sophistafunk,” just to name a few. And who knows? Maybe these guys feel the same way about the promise and potential of clean-burning natural gas for New York as we do (their guitars aren’t powered by wind, after all).

Guess we’ll eventually have the opportunity to find out. Just have to wait ‘til September to do it.

House Call on the FRAC Act

Sen. Casey asks Colo. congresswoman to help him make the case for jobs-killing anti-HF bill in Philadelphia paper – EID takes a closer look

U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) represents the only congressional district in Colorado where hydraulic fracturing technology is not currently used; Philadelphia represents the only major city in Pennsylvania where the geology suggests it’s likely the technology will never be used.

So of course it made perfect sense for Rep. DeGette to choose the Philadelphia Inquirer to lodge her latest broadside against the 60-year-old energy technology known as hydraulic fracturing, teaming up with FRAC Act battery mate and Pennsylvania senator Bob Casey (D) on a column that does its level best to tie onshore natural gas exploration to the oil spill in the Gulf – notwithstanding the fact that hydraulic fracturing had nothing to do with the incident offshore.

But for those who continue to oppose the generations-old, 1.1-million-served-and-counting procedure of “fracking” a well, admitting to that fact would be tantamount to letting a once-in-a-lifetime crisis go to waste. After all: Opportunities to re-write a 37-year-old statute for the explicit purpose of assigning EPA unprecedented new authority over something that’s always been regulated by the states don’t come along every day. Rep. DeGette, a perennial FRAC Act introducer, knows it – and Sen. Casey likely does too. So maybe that’s why their column on hydraulic fracturing in Tuesday’s paper includes three separate allusions to the spill in the Gulf – three references in a column that only runs 580 words.

We’ll get to the errors in that piece in just a second. But let’s start by giving credit where credit’s due: Nowhere in the op-ed do Sen. Casey and Rep. DeGette attempt to advance the notion that fracturing was previously regulated under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, but now – magically – is not. The reason, presumably, is that it’s not true. Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped folks like Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) from peddling their own alternate reality in support of the FRAC Act.

In Hinchey’s world, EPA had been regulating hydraulic fracturing for 30 years right up until Dick Cheney rammed through legislation in 2005 that “exempted” the procedure from federal oversight.  But wait, that bill had the support of nearly three-quarters of the U.S. Senate? Wait, hydraulic fracturing had never in its history been regulated under SDWA prior to 2005, or after it? Wait! Did Rep. Hinchey just tell a committee of Congress that a nurse in Colorado “died after being exposed to fracturing fluids” – even though that’s not true? Of course he did. Silly to sweat the details when no one holds you accountable for them.

Again, to their credit, the inaccuracies found in Tuesday’s DeGette/Casey column can be considered minor compared to the whoppers that Hinchey and his friends let fly just about every week. But they still should be considered. Below we identify and correct just a few:

Six Reasons to Oppose Stowaway HF Provisions Tucked Into Reid Energy Bill

Undermines the states, stifles energy development in America, asks for things we might not even own … Energy In Depth counts down the ways

Last night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid released the text of energy legislation that reports indicate could be brought up for debate on the floor as early as this week.  Unfortunately, although described as a “scaled-back” and “non-controversial” iteration of previous legislative attempts, the bill includes sections explicitly targeting the safe and steady use of hydraulic fracturing — reminiscent of language found in the so-called FRAC Act, which has yet to generate a single committee hearings or markup since first being introduced in the previous Congress.

Here’s how Energy In Depth executive director Lee Fuller characterized those provisions today:

“The entire universe of additives used in the fracturing process is known to regulators and the public, as is mandated as such under federal rules enforced by OSHA. The problem with this provision is that it has the potential to create a series of legal responsibilities that operators, and even service companies, might not be able to fulfill, especially under a scenario where folks are asked to post information that doesn’t even belong to them. The amazing thing is this provision appears to be moving ahead even as EPA and Congress continue to study the issue. It raises the question of why they’re doing the study in the first place if policymakers don’t appear to be all that interested in learning anything from it.”

Below, EID counts down the reasons that Reid’s HF provisions should be opposed by anyone who supports the economic, strategic and environmental imperative of producing shale gas resources in America:

1)     Section 4301 would undermine existing state regulatory authority, be inconsistent with federal environmental laws that balance disclosure issues against confidential business information, chill technology innovation and investment related to hydraulic fracturing, and restrict the development of the nation’s enormous reserves of shale gas.

2)     Section 4301 places unrealistic burdens on producers. Operators and service companies currently provide full chemical disclosure in accordance with all applicable federal and state authorities. In contrast to the assertions on which this section premised, these materials are well known to state regulators, and are generally available to members of the public upon a quick search of the Internet, or by request to the state. 

Unfortunately, this section would compel producers to disclose detailed information that they may neither have nor have the legal right to disclose.  Additives used in the fracturing process are manufactured by companies that determine the amount of information they can post on Material Safety Data Sheets.  Service companies and producers purchase these materials from manufacturers. That use does not either provide information such as CAS registry numbers or create a legal right to disclose such information publicly.  Consequently, producers could be in a position where they cannot meet these new requirements and would either be subject to $10,000/day fines under EPCRA, or limit their ability to fracture natural gas formations.

3)     Section 4301 is inconsistent with federal statutes. The language is inconsistent with the key Congressional policies set up in EPCRA and other federal environmental laws for attempting to balance disclosure issues against confidential business information.  For example, in EPCRA Congress recognized the need to strike a balance between reporting on additive use to local authorities and the need to protect confidential business information. However, the language does not extend these protections for valuable information related to hydraulic fracturing.

4)     Section 4301 will adversely impact energy development in the U.S. with no tangible benefits to show for it. It would provide a strong disincentive to service companies to engage in further innovation with respect to the development of new fracturing solutions. The loss of these new and innovative products would greatly reduce energy production in the U.S., and ratchet up our reliance on imports. Even though state regulatory programs have effectively managed the environmental considerations associated with fracturing, companies are actively working to produce new HF systems that are even more environmentally benign than they are today. The Reid language would undermine this technology development and innovation.

5)     Isn’t EPA in the middle of doing a study on this exact thing right now?  In the FY2010 Appropriations bill, Congress directed EPA to undertake a study focusing on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water. In 2004, the agency published a report finding hydraulic fracturing to be a safe and well-regulated technology. Notwithstanding those findings, EPA is honoring the Congressional request to study the technology once again. Legislative efforts such as this one should wait until the results of that study are released. Otherwise, why should the time, energy and resources be spent on doing the study in the first place?

6)     States’ record of enforcement/oversight proves they know how to regulate the process better than the feds. States have effectively regulated hydraulic fracturing for over 40 years with no confirmed incidents of groundwater contamination associated with HF activities. Section 4301 would undermine existing state regulatory authority, be inconsistent with federal environmental laws that balance disclosure issues against confidential business information, chill HF technology innovation and investment, and restrict the development of the nation’s shale gas resources.

You Sent Out the Wrong List?

AP story on “potentially harmful” chemicals used in fracturing process runs everywhere in Pennsylvania – two days later, we learn DEP sent AP the wrong list (!)

Here’s how the argument against the decades-old process of fracturing a natural gas well tends to be structured: In one breath, an anti-gas activist will tell you the materials used in fracturing procedure are “secret.” And then in the next breath, he’ll recite a specific list of materials used in the process and declare them to be a danger to public health and welfare. Never mind the contradiction. Never mind that fracturing solutions are composed almost entirely (99.5%) of water and sand. Never mind that the formations being fractured are thousands (and thousands) of feet below the water table.

But this week, activists were dealt a serious blow when the Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP) released a comprehensive listing of the additives used in the fracturing process – effectively rendering moot all future claims of secrecy. But the news wasn’t all bad for these folks: Having secured a copy of the list from DEP, the Associated Press reported on Monday that among the items found on the sheet were naphthalene, toluene and xylene – all chemicals associated with a barrel of oil. So why exactly were shale producers using oil to produce natural gas?

Turns out they weren’t. According to an item in today’s Scranton Times-Tribune, the list supplied to the Associated Press by DEP contained a pretty significant boo-boo: Instead of listing all the materials used to access the shale gas, DEP’s list of chemicals included “not just the chemicals pumped deep underground, but also those stored or used on a well site, including fuel for vehicles and brake fluid,” according to the Times-Tribune.

Translation: The diesel fuel in the gas tank of the truck that carried the worker to the wellsite was included on the list. Looking for a good analogy? It’d be like compiling a list of materials used in baking a cake, and then including chemicals like toluene and xylene on that list simply because the dessert was delivered by a truck.

Here’s how the mistake went down:

The original list was a compilation of the chemicals identified on safety documents … but [DEP] did not realize that it included substances the contractors use both above and below ground on a well site. The second list was winnowed by a DEP chemist … Of the 83 chemicals on the list published by the AP and the 78 on the list posted by the DEP, only 37 items are in common. …

“You can blame it on me,” Scott Perry, the director of DEP’s Bureau of Oil and Gas Management, said on Wednesday.

Essentially what we have here is an honest mistake – made by a regulator who hasn’t been shy when it comes to defending the record of his Department against the likes of U.S. Sen. Robert Casey (D-Pa.). Back in April, Casey told Mike Soraghan of E&E News (link here, subs. req’d) that he planned to “look at whether state regulation is enough” in managing the fracturing process, stating further that if language was included in a Senate bill reaffirming the good work states have been doing over the past 60 years in safely regulating fracturing, “they will make me mad.”

Those words, incidentally, drew a strong rebuke from Democratic governor Ed Rendell’s DEP office, with Department spokesman Neil Weaver telling that same reporter that his office “would be more than willing to sit down and talk with Senator Casey about what we’re doing and how we’re moving forward.” Snap.

All of which brings us back to DEP’s Scott Perry, who told the Scranton paper to “blame it on me” for the mistakes in the AP story. Here’s what he told that same paper back in April when DEP first announced its intention to make its updated list public:

“If I honestly thought that fracking was causing a direct communication with groundwater resources, I wouldn’t be talking about how we have a chemical list. That is the ultimate half-measure. I would be saying, ‘This cannot occur.’ ”

“There has never been any evidence of fracking ever causing direct contamination of fresh groundwater in Pennsylvania or anywhere else,” [Perry] said.

Just so you have it handy, here’s a great list of the Top 10 quotes from DEP officials on the importance of responsible natural gas development – as compiled by the folks over at the Marcellus Shale Coalition. And here’s the video from a speech that DEP’s Scott Perry gave recently in the Northeast part of the state. Take a look at some of his quotes:

On the misconceptions he continues to encounter across the state:

• “When I’m talking to folks about the Marcellus, they try to point out some of its unique characteristics: ‘Well, Marcellus is different than all of these other wells; these are the deepest wells we have in the state.’ Well, that’s actually not true. We have over 11,000 permitted deeper wells in the Commonwealth; we have an entire statute devoted to regulating those wells.”

• “Some of the other things they say … ‘It’s the fracking. Fracking is what makes the Marcellus Shale different than all other wells in Pennsylvania. But [fracking] has been standard operating procedure in Pennsylvania since the ‘50s and … almost 100 percent of the wells drilled in Pennsylvania have been hydraulically fractured using the same [materials] that are being used with the Marcellus today.”

On Marcellus producers’ commitment to sound well construction and integrity:

• “I will tell you that the Marcellus operators have been building their wells to exceed our current regulatory standards; they’re building their wells in a manner that exceeds the [new] standards that we have actually proposed here, in many respects.”

On putting Marcellus water use in the proper perspective:

• “While five million gallons [of water] sounds like a lot, in the overall scheme of things, it’s not. And in fact, this industry at its peak, the Susquehanna River Basin Commission estimates, it will be using less water than our golf courses and ski resorts; it’s going to be using less water than recreation.”

On the record of safety and performance associated with hydraulic fracturing:

• “Just a note about fracking: First of all, it’s standard operating procedure in Pennsylvania. And it’s important to point out that we’ve never seen an impact to fresh groundwater directly from fracking.”

• “If there was fracturing of the producing formations that was having a direct communication with groundwater, the first thing you would notice is the salt content in the drinking water. It’s never happened. After a million times across the country, no one’s ever documented drinking water wells that have actually been shown to be impacted by fracking.”

• “A lot of folks relate the situation in Dimock to a fracking problem. I just want to make sure everyone’s clear on this – that it isn’t. What happened in Dimock was that a company was drilling in the Marcellus, and they encountered a shallow gas producing formation … which is common in this area of Pennsylvania. … It wasn’t a fracking problem.”

• “How many wells has fracturing damaged? I assume you’re referring to ‘how many drinking water wells.’? And in our experience, it’s been zero.”

No Second Acts for GasLand

Anti-gas shock-u-mentary makes nationwide debut on HBO – but latest version of the film no better or more accurate than previous cuts

GasLand director Josh Fox is certainly a busy man these days, but apparently not too busy to review a 4,000-word rebuttal to his film organized and sent around two weeks ago by Energy In Depth.

So what’d he think of the write-up? According to one columnist for a major national daily with whom we both spoke, Fox’s primary critique of the EID fact-check was that we had based it off an “earlier print of the film,” not the new and improved version purchased by HBO. The pay-channel iteration was going to be different, we were told — different from the film he had previously screened in dozens of cities, towns and villages all across the country. After all, it was an HBO product now. And certainly a network with more than 30 million U.S. subscribers couldn’t be expected to just run any picture show it got its hands on without conducting a thorough job of vetting and reviewing it first. Right?

Our curiosity was officially piqued. What would Fox decide to change? The possibilities were endless. He could decide to strike the portion of the film on Dunkard Creek, which even the local press in the area have derided as a “glaring error.” Maybe he’d decide to toss-in a quick mention of the report from Colorado regulators on the Markham well in Fort Lupton, which found the methane in the water had nothing to do with oil or gas development.

But then again, adding in that little disclaimer would sort of ruin the flammable faucet scene, wouldn’t it? How about that bit about the endangered species in Wyoming? That part’s factually incorrect as well, and easily confirmable as such. Would that segment make HBO’s final cut? EID had to find out – even if it meant staying up well past its bedtime to do it.

So we watched the film, again. And what do you know? Dunkard Creek’s still in there. And so is the flammable faucet. And so is the phantom claim that natural gas exploration in Wyoming is rendering the sage grouse extinct. Incidentally, if that’s true, someone should tell the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission. It might want to discontinue its sage grouse hunting season. Ditto for the mule deer. We shouldn’t be hunting endangered species.
So what did he actually change, then? In the final analysis, unfortunately, not a whole lot. Take a gander for yourself:

Previous version: “In 2004, the EPA was investigating a water contamination incident due to hydraulic fracturing in Alabama. But a panel rejected the inquiry, stating that although hazard materials were being injected underground, EPA did not need to investigate.” (31:32)

HBO version: “In 2004, the EPA was investigating water contamination incidents due to hydraulic fracturing across the country. But a panel rejected the inquiry, stating that although hazard materials were being injected underground, EPA did not need to investigate.” (30:17)

• Mercifully, someone informed the director that the 2004 EPA investigation in Alabama he cites in previous versions of the film did not actually take place. His new version for HBO excludes the mention of Alabama, but unfortunately still mischaracterizes EPA’s course of study in this area.

• In the new version, Fox says that EPA “was investigating water contamination incidents,” but then the agency apparently decided it “did not need to investigate” those incidents. Which one is it? Did EPA conduct an investigation associated with hydraulic fracturing in 2004, or didn’t it?

• Here’s what actually happened: In June 2004, EPA released the conclusions of a nationwide study on the relationship between the fracturing of coalbed methane wells and underground sources of drinking water. What did it find? “In its review of incidents of drinking water well contamination believed to be associated with hydraulic fracturing, EPA found no confirmed cases that are linked to fracturing …”

• More on the scope of research involved in the EPA study: “In addition to reviewing more than 200 peer-reviewed publications, EPA also interviewed 50 employees from state or local government agencies and communicated with approximately 40 citizens who were concerned that CBM production impacted their drinking water wells. EPA made a draft of the report available for a 60-day public comment period in August 2002.”

Previous version: “What I didn’t know was that the 2005 energy bill pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney exempts the oil and natural gas industries from Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Superfund law, and about a dozen other environmental and Democratic regulations.” (6:05)

HBO version: “What I didn’t know was that the 2005 energy bill pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney exempts the oil and natural gas industries from the Safe Drinking Water Act.” (5:03)

• Once again, kudos to Fox for at least having the decency to convert what was previously an outright falsehood into a respectable distortion for the HBO premiere. As conceded here, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 contains no such exemptions to the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Superfund law, or any of the other “dozen” statutes he cites.

• The 2005 energy bill does, however, contain language relating to hydraulic fracturing and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Here’s what it does: It makes crystal clear Congress’s long-standing position that hydraulic fracturing was never intended to be regulated under SDWA, and further: that it’s best regulated by state experts and officials on the ground, and not by EPA staff in Washington, D.C. Is that what you would call an “exemption” to the law? Not exactly. It was simply a restatement of current law: how it is, how it was, how it’s always been. For the past 36 years.

• As for the claim that the Vice President of the United States “pushed” the bill through Congress, consider: The Energy Policy Act of 2005 earned the support of nearly three-quarters of the U.S. Senate (74 “yea” votes), including the top Democrat on the Energy Committee; current Interior secretary Ken Salazar, then a senator from Colorado; and a former junior senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. In the U.S. House, 75 Democrats joined 200 Republicans in supporting the final bill, including the top Democratic members on both the Energy & Commerce and Resources Committees. That’s quite a push.

Two minor changes; that’s all we noticed in watching the “new” version of the film on HBO last night. Of course, we did pick up on a few things we missed during previous screenings. For instance, Fox does an interview with one woman in Colorado, who coughs on camera and tells him that natural gas exploration is the reason “I’m never healthy.” In the next scene, she’s shown holding a cigarette. The woman also blames natural gas development for the occurrence of methane in her water well. For what it’s worth, Colorado regulators disagree: “COGCC sampled the McClure water well on 3/25/09. Sample results show naturally occurring biogenic methane gas in well and no impact from O&G [oil and natural gas] operations.”

Next up for GasLand? An encore airing on HBO slated for Thursday afternoon at 1 p.m. EST. Check back at energyindepth.org for updates and additional points of debunkery from the film.

Debunking GasLand

Josh Fox makes his mainstream debut with documentary targeting natural gas – but how much of it is actually true? 

For an avant-garde filmmaker and stage director whose previous work has been recognized by the “Fringe Festival” of New York City, HBO’s decision to air the GasLand documentary nationwide later this month represents Josh Fox’s first real foray into the mainstream – and, with the potential to reach even a portion of the network’s 30 million U.S. subscribers, a potentially significant one at that.

But with larger audiences and greater fanfare come the expectation of a few basic things: accuracy, attention to detail, and original reporting among them. Unfortunately, in the case of this film, accuracy is too often pushed aside for simplicity, evidence too often sacrificed for exaggeration, and the same old cast of characters and anecdotes – previously debunked – simply lifted from prior incarnations of the film and given a new home in this one.

“I’m sorry,” Josh Fox once told a New York City magazine, “but art is more important than politics. … Politics is people lying to you and simplifying everything; art is about contradictions.” And so it is with GasLand: politics at its worst, art at its most contrived, and contradictions of fact found around every bend of the river. Against that backdrop, we attempt below to identify and correct some of the most egregious inaccuracies upon which the film is based (all quotes are from Josh Fox, unless otherwise noted):

Misstating the Law

(6:05) “What I didn’t know was that the 2005 energy bill pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney exempts the oil and natural gas industries from Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Superfund law, and about a dozen other environmental and Democratic regulations.”

• This assertion, every part of it, is false. The oil and natural gas industry is regulated under every single one of these laws — under provisions of each that are relevant to its operations. See this fact sheet for a fuller explanation of that.
• The process of hydraulic fracturing, to which Fox appears to be making reference here, has never in its 60-year history been regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). It has, however, been regulated ably and aggressively by the states, which have compiled an impressive record of enforcement and oversight in the many decades in which they have been engaged in the practice.
• Far from being “pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney,” the Energy Policy Act of 2005 earned the support of nearly three-quarters of the U.S. Senate (74 “yea” votes), including the top Democrat on the Energy Committee; current Interior secretary Ken Salazar, then a senator from Colorado; and a former junior senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. In the U.S. House, 75 Democrats joined 200 Republicans in supporting the final bill, including the top Democratic members on both the Energy & Commerce and Resources Committees. 

(6:24) “But when the 2005 energy bill cleared away all the restrictions, companies … began to lease Halliburton technology and to begin the largest and most extensive domestic gas drilling campaign in history – now occupying 34 states.”

• Once again, hydraulic fracturing has never been regulated under SDWA – not in the 60-year history of the technology, the 36-year history of the law, or the 40-year history of EPA. Given that, it’s not entirely clear which “restrictions” in the law Mr. Fox believes were “cleared away” by the 2005 energy bill. All the bill sought to do was clarify the existing and established intent of Congress as it related to the scope of SDWA.
• Interest in developing clean-burning natural gas resources from America’s shale formations began to manifest itself well before 2005. The first test well in the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, for example, was drilled in 2004. In Texas, the first wells in the prolific Barnett Shale formation were spudded in the late 1990s. But even before natural gas from shale was considered a viable business model, energy producers had been relying on hydraulic fracturing for decades to stimulate millions of wells across the country. The technology was first deployed in 1948.
• The contention that current energy development activity represents the “largest … drilling campaign in history” is also incorrect. According to EIA, more natural gas wells were developed in 1982 than today. And more than two times the number of petroleum wells were drilled back then as well, relative to the numbers we have today. Also, while it may (or may not) be technically true that fracturing activities take place in 34 states, it’s also true that 99.9 percent of all oil and gas activity is found in only 27 U.S. states (page 9, Ground Water Protection Council report)

(32:34) “The energy task force, and $100 million lobbying effort on behalf of the industry, were significant in the passage of the ‘Halliburton Loophole’ to the Safe Drinking Water Act, which authorizes oil and gas drillers exclusively to inject known hazardous materials, unchecked, directly into or adjacent to underground drinking water supplies. It passed as part of the Bush administration’s Energy Policy Act of 2005.”

• Not content with simply mischaracterizing the nature of existing law, here Fox attempts to assert that the law actually allows energy producers to inject hazardous chemicals “directly into” underground drinking water. This is a blatant falsehood. Of course, if such an outrageous thing were actually true, one assumes it wouldn’t have taken five years and a purveyor of the avant-garde to bring it to light.
• The subsurface formations that undergo fracture stimulation reside thousands and thousands of feet below formations that carry potable water. These strata are separated by millions of tons of impermeable rock, and in some cases, more than two miles of it.
• Once again, to characterize the bipartisan 2005 energy bill as having a “loophole” for hydraulic fracturing requires one to believe that, prior to 2005, hydraulic fracturing was regulated by EPA under federal law. But that belief is mistaken. And so is the notion that the 2005 act contains a loophole for oil and natural gas. As stated, hydraulic fracturing has been regulated ably and aggressively by the states.

(1:32:34) “Diana DeGette and Maurice Hinchey’s FRAC Act [is] a piece of legislation that’s one paragraph long that simply takes out the exemption for hydraulic fracturing to the Safe Drinking Water Act.”

• Here Fox is referring to the 2008 iteration of the FRAC Act, not the slightly longer (though equally harmful) 2009 version of the bill. The legislation does not, as its authors suggest, “restore” the Safe Drinking Water Act to the way it was in 2004. It calls for a wholesale re-writing of it.
• Here’s the critical passage from the FRAC Act: “Section 1421(d)(1) of the Safe Drinking Water Act is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting: (B) includes the underground injection of fluids or propping agents pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil and gas production activities.”
• Why would you need to “insert” new language into a 36-year-old statute if all you were looking to do is merely “restore” it?

Misrepresenting the Rules

(1:00:56) “Because of the exemptions, fracking chemicals are considered proprietary … The only reason we know anything about the fracking chemicals is because of the work of Theo Colborn … by chasing down trucks, combing through material safety data sheets, and collecting samples.”

• With due respect to eminent environmental activist and former World Wildlife Fund staffer Theo Colborn, no one has ever had to “chas[e] down a truck” to access information on the materials used in the fracturing process.
• That’s because there’s actually a much easier way to obtain that information: simply navigate to this website hosted by regulators in Pennsylvania, this one from regulators in New York (page 130; it will take a few moments to download), this one for West Virginia, this one maintained by the Ground Water Protection Council and the U.S. Department of Energy (page 63), and this one on the website of Energy In Depth.

(1:03:33) Dr. Colborn: “Once the public hears the story, and they’ll say, ‘Why aren’t we out there monitoring’? We can’t monitor until we know what they’re using. There’s no way to monitor. You can’t.”

• According to environmental regulators from Josh Fox’s home state of Pennsylvania, “Drilling companies must disclose the names of all chemicals to be stored and used at a drilling site … These plans contain copies of material safety data sheets for all chemicals … This information is on file with DEP and is available to landowners, local governments and emergency responders.”
• Environmental regulators from Fox’s adopted state of New York also testify to having ready access to this information. From the NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation (DEC) information page: “The [state] is assessing the chemical makeup of these additives and will ensure that all necessary safeguards and best practices are followed.”
• According to the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC), “[M]ost additives contained in fracture fluids including sodium chloride, potassium chloride, and diluted acids, present low to very low risks to human health and the environment.” GWPC members include state environmental officials who set and enforce regulations on ground water protection and underground fluid injection.

Mischaracterizing the Process

(6:50) “[Hydraulic fracturing] blasts a mix of water and chemicals 8,000 feet into the ground. The fracking itself is like a mini-earthquake. … In order to frack, you need some fracking fluid – a mix of over 596 chemicals.”

• As it relates to the composition of fluids commonly used in the fracturing process, greater than 99.5 percent of the mixture is comprised of water and sand. The remaining materials, used to help deliver the water down the wellbore and position the sand in the tiny fractures created in the formation, are typically components found and used around the house. The most prominent of these, a substance known as guar gum, is an emulsifier more commonly found in ice cream.
• From the U.S. Dept. of Energy / GWPC report: “Although the hydraulic fracturing industry may have a number of compounds that can be used in a hydraulic fracturing fluid, any single fracturing job would only use a few of the available additives [not 596!]. For example, in [this exhibit], there are 12 additives used, covering the range of possible functions that could be built into a fracturing fluid.” (page 62)
• In the documentary, Fox graphically depicts the fracturing process as one that results in the absolute obliteration of the shale formation. In reality, the fractures created by the procedure and kept open by the introduction of proppants such as sand are typically less than a millimeter thick.

(50:05) “Each well completion, that is, the initial drilling phase plus the first frack job, requires 1,150 truck trips.”

• Suggesting that every well completion in America requires the exact same number of truck trips is absurd. As could be guessed, the number of trips required to supply the well site with the needed equipment and personnel will vary (widely) depending on any number of factors.
• As it relates to a source for Fox’s identification of “1,150 truck trips,” none is given – although it appears he may have derived those numbers from a back-of-the-envelope calculation inspired by a chart on page 6-142 of this document from NY DEC. As depicted on that page, the transportation of new and used water supplies, to and from the wellsite, account for 85 percent of the trips extrapolated by Fox.
• Unrepresented in this chart is the enormous growth in the amount of produced water that is currently being recycled in the Marcellus – with industry in Pennsylvania reusing and recycling on average more than 60 percent of its water, according to the Marcellus Shale Coalition.
• According to GWPC: “Drilling with compressed air is becoming an increasingly popular alternative to drilling with fluids due to the increased cost savings from both reduction in mud costs and the shortened drilling times as a result of air based drilling.” (page 55)

(51:12) “Before the water can be hauled away and disposed of somewhere, it has to be emptied into a pit – an earthen pit, or a clay pit, sometimes a lined pit, but a pit – where a lot of it can seep right back down into the ground.”

• The vast majority of energy-producing states – 27 in total, including all the ones to which Fox travels for GasLand – have explicit laws on the books governing the type of containment structures that must be used for temporarily storing flowback water. A number of producers today choose to store this water in steel tanks, eliminating all risk of that water re-entering the surrounding environment.
• GWPC (May 2009) “In 23 states, pits of a certain type or in a particular location must have a natural or artificial liner designed to prevent the downward movement of pit fluids into the subsurface. … Twelve states also explicitly either prohibit or restrict the use of pits that intersect the water table.” (page 28-29)
• GWPC (April 2009): “Water storage pits used to hold water for hydraulic fracturing purposes are typically lined to minimize the loss of water from infiltration. … In an urban setting, due to space limitations, steel storage tanks may be used.” (page 55)

Flat-Out Making Stuff Up

(53:36) “The Pinedale Anticline and the Jonah gas fields [of Wyoming] are directly in the path of the thousand year old migration corridor of pronghorn antelope, mule deer and sage grouse. And yeah, each of these species is endangered, and has suffered a significant decline of their populations since 2005.”

• 0 for 1: Three species of the pronghorn antelope are considered “endangered,” none of which are found anywhere near the Pinedale Anticline. Those are: the Sonoran (Arizona), the Peninsular (Mexico), and the Mexican Pronghorn (also of Mexico). According to the Great Plains Nature Center: “The great slaughter of the late 1800s affected the pronghorns … Only about 12,000 remained by 1915.  Presently, they number around one million and the greatest numbers of them are in Wyoming and Montana.”
• 0 for 2: Only one species of mule deer is considered “endangered”: the Cedros Island mule deer of Mexico (nowhere near Wyoming). The mule deer populations are so significant in Wyoming today that the state has a mule deer hunting season.
• 0 for 3: The sage grouse does not currently have a place on the endangered species list, according to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) – and “robust populations of the bird currently exist across the state” of Wyoming, according to the agency. Interestingly, FWS recently issued a press release identifying wind development as a critical threat the sage grouse’s habitat.
• That said, producers in the area have taken the lead on efforts to lessen their impact and reduce the number of truck trips required to service their well sites. As part of that project, operators have commissioned a series of independent studies examining additional steps that can be taken to safeguard the Anticline’s wildlife.

(31:32) “In 2004, the EPA was investigating a water contamination incident due to hydraulic fracturing in Alabama. But a panel rejected the inquiry, stating that although hazard materials were being injected underground, EPA did not need to investigate.”

• No record of the investigation described by Fox exists, so EID reached out to Dr. Dave Bolin, deputy director of Alabama’s State Oil & Gas Board and the man who heads up oversight of hydraulic fracturing in that state. In an email, he said he had “no recollection” of such an investigation taking place.
• That said, it’s possible that Fox is referring to EPA’s study of the McMillian well in Alabama, which spanned several years in the early- to mid-1990s. In 1989, Alabama regulators conducted four separate water quality tests on the McMillian well. The results indicated no water quality problems existed. In 1990, EPA conducted its own water quality tests, and found nothing.
• In a letter sent in 1995, then-EPA administrator Carol Browner (currently, President Obama’s top energy and environmental policy advisor) characterized EPA’s involvement with the McMillian case in the following way: “Repeated testing, conducted between May of 1989 and March of 1993, of the drinking water well which was the subject of this petition [McMillian] failed to show any chemicals that would indicate the presence of fracturing fluids. The well was also sampled for drinking water quality, and no constituents exceeding drinking water standards were detected.”
• For information on what actually did happen in Alabama during this time, and how it’s relevant to the current conversation about the Safe Drinking Water Act, please download the fact sheet produced last year by the Coalbed Methane Association of Alabama.

(1:28:06) “Just a few short months after this interview, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection suffered the worst budget cuts in history, amounting to over 700 staff either being fired or having reduced hours and 25 percent of its total budget cut.”

• DEP press release, issued January 28, 2010: “Governor Edward G. Rendell announced today that the commonwealth is strengthening its enforcement capabilities. At the Governor’s direction, the Department of Environmental Protection will begin hiring 68 new personnel who will make sure that drilling companies obey state laws and act responsibly to protect water supplies. DEP also will strengthen oil and gas regulations to improve well construction standards.”

Recycling Discredited Points from the Past

Weston Wilson (EPA “whistleblower”): “One can characterize this entire [natural gas] industry as having a hundred year history of purchasing those they contaminate.” (33:36)

• Mr. Wilson, currently on staff at EPA’s Denver office, was not part of the team of scientists and engineers that spent nearly five years studying hydraulic fracturing for EPA. That effort, released in the form of a landmark 2004 study by the agency, found “no evidence” to suggest any relationship between hydraulic fracturing and the contamination of drinking water.
• Wilson has a well-documented history of aggressive opposition to responsible resource and mineral development. Over his 35-year career, Mr. Wilson has invoked “whistleblower” status to fight dam construction in Colorado, oil and gas development in Montana, and the mining of gold in Wyoming.  
• Wilson in his own words: “The American public would be shocked if they knew we make six figures and we basically sit around and do nothing.”

Dunkard Creek: Fox includes images of dead fish along a 35-mile stretch of Dunkard Creek in Washington Co., Pa.; attributes that event to natural gas development. (01:23:15)

• Fox’s attempt to blame the Dunkard Creek incident on natural gas exploration is contradicted by an EPA report – issued well before GasLand was released – which blamed the fish kill on an algal bloom, which itself was fed by discharges from coal mines.
• EPA report: “Given what has been seen in other states and the etiology of this kill, we believe the toxin from this algae bloom led to the kill of fish, mussels, and salamanders on Dunkard Creek. … The situation in Dunkard Creek should be considered a chronic exposure since chloride levels were elevated above the criteria for long periods of time.” (issued 11/23/09)
• Local PA newspaper calls out Fox: “One glaring error in the film is the suggestion that gas drilling led to the September fish kill at Dunkard Creek in Greene County. That was determined to have been caused by a golden algae bloom from mine drainage from a [mine] discharge.” (Washington (Pa.) Observer-Reporter, 6/5/10)

Mike Markham: Fox blames flammable faucet in Fort Lupton, Colo. on natural gas development

• But that’s not true according to the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC). “Dissolved methane in well water appears to be biogenic [naturally occurring] in origin. … There are no indications of oil & gas related impacts to water well.” (complaint resolved 9/30/08, signed by John Axelson of COGCC)
• Context from our friends at ProPublica: “Drinking water with methane, the largest component of natural gas, isn’t necessarily harmful. The gas itself isn’t toxic — the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t even regulate it — and it escapes from water quickly, like bubbles in a soda.” (Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica, 4/22/09)

Lisa Bracken: Fox blames methane occurrence in West Divide Creek, Colo. on natural gas development.

• That assertion has also been debunked by COGCC, which visited the site six separate times over 13 months to confirm its findings: “Stable isotopes from 2007 consistent with 2004 samples indicting gas bubbling in surface water features is of biogenic origin.” (July 2009, COGCC presentation by Margaret Ash, environmental protection supervisor)
• Email from COGCC supervisor to Bracken: “Lisa: As you know since 2004, the COGCC staff has responded to your concerns about potential gas seepage along West Divide Creek on your property and to date we have not found any indication that the seepage you have observed is related to oil and gas activity.” (email from COGCC’s Debbie Baldwin to Bracken, 06/30/08)
• More from that email: “These samples have been analyzed for a variety of parameters including natural gas compounds (methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, hexanes), heavier hydrocarbon compounds including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), stable isotopes of methane, bacteria (iron related, sulfate reducing, and slime), major anions and cations, and other field and laboratory tests. To date, BTEX compounds have not been detected in any of the samples.”

Calvin Tillman: Fox interviews mayor of DISH, Texas; blames natural gas development, transport for toxins in the air, benzene in blood.

• Tillman in the press: “Six months ago, nobody knew that facilities like this would be spewing benzene. Someone could come in here and look at us and say, ‘You know what? They’ve sacrificed you. You’ve been sacrificed for the good of the shale.’” (Scientific American, 3/30/10)
• A little more than a month later, Texas Dept. of State Health Services debunks that claim: “Biological test results from a Texas Department of State Health Services investigation in Dish, Texas, indicate that residents’ exposure to certain contaminants was not greater than that of the general U.S. population.” (DSHS report, May 12, 2010)
• More from the agency: “DSHS paid particular attention to benzene because of its association with natural gas wells. The only residents who had higher levels of benzene in their blood were smokers. Because cigarette smoke contains benzene, finding it in smokers’ blood is not unusual.”

Anything we miss? Guess we’ll be seeing you at the movies. Maybe not this one, though.

Kanjorski: Jobs, Revenue and Opportunity from Marcellus Shale “A Big F’n Deal” for PA

Good Thing Science Doesn’t Read Blogs

Texas Dept. of State Health Services: “The only residents who had higher levels of benzene in their blood were smokers. Because cigarette smoke contains benzene, finding it in smokers’ blood is not unusual.”