Cornell Veterinarians Go Into “Beast Mode” on Shale
When it comes to the issue of responsibly developing oil and natural gas resources from shale, we’ve seen a lot of wacky things come out of Ithaca, New York over the past couple years. So it was no surprise when a pair of veterinarians associated with Cornell wrote an article attacking shale development...
When it comes to the issue of responsibly developing oil and natural gas resources from shale, we’ve seen a lot of wacky things come out of Ithaca, New York over the past couple years.
The primary recipient of millions of dollars every year of anti-shale advocacy provided by the Park Foundation (also based in Ithaca), Cornell University has become to anti-energy activists what “Linebacker U” was once to Penn State — with the debunked-ad-nauseum Howarth paper on shale emissions serving as the movement’s main playbook. Ithaca also happens to be the place from which outlets like the New York Times pull “data” on mineral leasing, notwithstanding the fact that no actual Marcellus development even takes place there.
So it was no surprise when a pair of veterinarians associated with Cornell wrote an article attacking shale development for its supposed link to animal health impacts. (One of the authors, Robert Oswald is a professor at Cornell’s College of Veterinary Medicine; the other, Michelle Bamberger, received her doctorate from Cornell.)
Now, needless to say, we don’t have any bones to pick with veterinarians, and in fact the scientific research they provide on a daily basis is without question critical to us better understanding the natural world (plus, we love dogs). But the authors here did not produce a scientific assessment, a fact they freely admit in their article. Instead, Oswald and Bamberger chose to highlight a handful of personal testimonials that cannot be independently assessed or verified because they decided to keep all relevant details anonymous. Thus, we’re left with a 27-page unscientific article making bold assertions about oil and gas development, without a single shred of data or independent corroboration to back any of it up.
While the article contains many flaws, we’ve highlighted a few of the key problems below, all of which should raise serious doubts about the “scientific” nature of this particular article.
- Right off the bat, the paper leads with a philosophical quote from Sandra Steingraber, who has described hydraulic fracturing as “the tornado on the horizon” that will destroy people’s ability to do everything, from local gardening to even riding a bicycle (Orion Magazine, Sept./Oct. 2010). Ms. Steingraber has also called for an end to all fossil fuels to “avoid human calamity.” With respect to shale development, Ms. Steingraber has stated: “If we mitigate fracking to kill fewer people, we’re still killing people” (The Vindicator, Jan. 10, 2012).
- The authors assert that developing natural gas from shale is “moving forward without benefit of carefully controlled studies of its impact on public health” (p. 52). Aside from the fact that the authors readily admit in the paper that their own conclusions are not the result of controlled experiments, their claim is simply not true. For example, a study from earlier this year by the city of Fort Worth, TX, concluded there were “no significant health risks” from nearby shale development (July 2011).
- A separate scientific assessment of the Barnett Shale in north Texas concluded: “[E]ven as natural gas development expanded significantly in the area over the past several years, key indicators of health improved across every major category during those times” (Oct. 19, 2011). The Barnett Shale is one of the most productive shale fields in the United States, with more than 15,000 producing wells.
- Instead of seeking out the answer to a legitimate question – what, if any, are the health impacts of developing natural gas from shale? – the authors simply accuse the industry of taking a position “similar to the tobacco industry that for many years rejected the link between smoking and cancer” (p. 52). The report goes on to suggest that “epidemiologic studies [that] linked smoking to human health impacts…could be used to assess the health impacts of gas drilling operations on human beings” (p. 53). It seems the authors have already made up their minds.
- The authors clearly admit that the study is not sound science: “This study is not an epidemiologic analysis of the health effects of gas drilling, which could proceed to some extent without knowledge of the details of the complex mixtures of toxicants involved. It is also not a study of the health impacts of specific chemical exposures related to gas drilling” (p. 53).
- Later in the article the authors further concede: “By the standards of a controlled experiment, this is an imperfect study, as one variable could not be changed while holding all others constant” (p. 55). Instead, the article is merely a compilation of unsourced and unverifiable case studies.
- The report conceals names and locations, which means independent review of the claims and parties involved cannot be completed; statements from the researchers about their findings are simply asserted as fact. Ironically, much of the paper is committed to critiquing the industry for not disclosing enough information to independently verify data.
- Despite its lack of scientific bent, the authors nonetheless conclude definitively that their assessment “strongly implicates exposure to gas drilling operations in serious health effects on humans, companion animals, livestock, horses, and wildlife.” They go further and, without any scientific evidence, state that “a ban on shale gas drilling is essential for the protection of public health” (p. 72).
Calling for a ban on responsible oil and gas development without any scientific basis? Wait, we’ve heard this one before…
Again, those interested in the supposed health impacts of developing natural gas from shale should reference this assessment from October, in which two public health professionals studied conditions in the Barnett shale region of north Texas. Their conclusion? Even though the area has been one of the highest gas producing regions of the country, “key indicators of health improved across every major category.” That followed a study from last summer for the city of Fort Worth which “did not reveal any significant health threats” from shale development.
Bountiful Barnett Continues To Churn Out Jobs, Revenues
In 1981, Mitchell Energy – led by legendary oilman and wildcatter George Mitchell, who’s widely considered the father or shale gas development – started drilling the Barnett Shale in an effort to unlock its enormous natural gas reserves. Today, thanks to the tireless efforts of Mitchell and others, the Barnett remains a powerful job creation machine and economic catalyst for Texas.
And it’s no surprise that a Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce-commissioned study released yesterday finds that the Barnett Shale has produced 9 trillion cubic feet of natural gas while enabling the creation of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in investment over the past decade. The study — entitled “The Impact of the Barnett Shale on Business Activity in the Surrounding Region and Texas: An Assessment of the First Decade of Extensive Development” — takes an in depth look at the Barnett’s positive effect on the Lone Star State. Here are key findings from the study:
JOBS
- Regionally, Barnett Shale-related activity has created 100,268 jobs. For Texas as a whole, more than 119,200 jobs have been created. Over the 2001-2011 period, local taxing entities received an estimated $5.3 billion in tax receipts. The state received $5.8 billion.
SALARIES
- Personal income in the region is almost 8.5% higher than it would be in the absence of Barnett Shale-related activity. Wage and salary employment in the region is about 8.7% higher than it would be without the Barnett Shale.
TAX REVENUES
- Over the entire 2001-2011 period, The Perryman Group estimates that local taxing entities received an additional $5.3 billion in tax receipts, with another $5.8 billion to the State.
SCHOOLS GET MAJOR BOOSTS
- Independent school districts in the Barnett Shale region received approximately $2.7 million in royalty payments, $2.5 million in bonuses, and $45.8 million in tax revenue from natural gas and mineral rights last year. Indirect revenues from collateral development are even higher…At a time when most government entities and schools are facing difficult budgetary conditions, the Barnett Shale provides an important source of additional revenues.
Some maintain that shale gas development is only a “boom” and cannot be sustained. As thePhiladelphia Inquirer reports, “Daniel Yergin, one of the most influential voices in the world of energy, says shale gas is here to stay.” And this new study reinforces that fact:
- Only a small portion of total estimated production has occurred to date, and the Barnett Shale is expected to continue to generate economic stimulus for local area and state economies for decades to come.
With more than 70 rigs already drilling in the Barnett Shale, the new study reconfirms the positive impact of America’s natural gas industry on local, state, and regional economies. The Dallas Business Journalspoke with Fort Worth Chamber President and CEO Bill Thorton about the positive report:
“We commissioned the study to see how or if the economic downturn had impacted past projections about the industry,” said Bill Thorton . “What we found was that it’s a bulwark of our economy.”
Bud Weinstein, associate director of the Maguire Energy Institute at Southern Methodist University, spoke to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram to further highlight Perryman Group’s findings:
“What’s important is that we have an industry in North Texas that basically didn’t exist a decade ago,” he said. “While gas prices have fallen over the last couple of years and the rig count is way down, and the Barnett may no longer be the biggest shale-producing play in the U.S., the technology of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing has clearly added a new dimension to our economy, added thousands of jobs, and helped cities, counties, school districts.”
If it wasn’t clear already, this report confirms it. Responsible shale gas development in the United States has provided millions of jobs, generated billions of dollars in revenue, and is a vital part of our domestic energy and economic security. Texas found the lucky pot of gold at the rainbow – all thanks to hydraulic fracturing.
New Barnett Shale Air Emissions Study: “No Significant Health Risks”
Yesterday, a lengthy, $1 million study evaluating air emissions associated with natural gas development from the Barnett Shale near Ft. Worth, Texas was released. The city of Ft. Worth announced this upon the study’s release: “A comprehensive evaluation of gas exploration and production sites ‘did not reveal any significant health threats.’”
Ft. Worth Mayor Betsy Price notes that “It’s good to hear that ERG didn’t find an immediate health risk from these gas production sites.” Overwhelmingly, the media reported this positive environmental news accurately, save for Bloomberg News.
Keep Reading »
**UPDATE III** NYT’s “Dewey-Defeats-Truman” Moment on Shale?
ICYMI – Key Excerpts From This Week’s Texas Railroad Comm. Hearing
Mike Middlebrook, petroleum engineer and Range’s Vice President of Operations
Question: “Throughout the process of drilling those wells and completing them and producing them in the summer of 2009, were there any problems or issues that developed in real-time as those wells were being drilled and completed and developed?” Answer. “Not at all. We had zero issues while drilling the wells. The completions went flawless. No problems whatsoever.” (pg. 20)
Q: “Prior to the issuance of the EPA order … did the EPA provide Range any data on which it based the December 7th order?” A. “No, they did not.” Q. “Prior to issuance of the December 7th order by the EPA, had Range been continuing to work with the Texas Railroad Commission on the investigation related to the Lipsky water well issue?” A. “Yes, we had.” (pg. 36)
Q: “Was there discussion about hydraulic fracturing in the meeting with the EPA?” A. “Yes.” Q. “What was the EPA’s response to that?” A. “Mr. [Chris] Lister [of EPA] acknowledged that hydraulic fracturing likely had nothing to do with it based on the distance of the Barnett Shale from the water aquifer, in this case over a mile.” (pg. 43)
Q: “Between December 16, 2010 and today, has Range been able to actually accomplish all of this testing, sample all those water wells and do all the gas testing and get the results back to be able to present here today?” A: “Yes, we have.” Q. “Has this protocol — or what does it cost to do all this?” A: “Extremely expensive … Almost unprecedented with the time frame and the dollars that we spent to do this work. In my 19 years I have never witnessed the kind of work that has gone on in the last 30 days.” (pg. 47)
Mark McCaffrey, Ph.D., geochemical gas fingerprinting expert
“We found that nitrogen … can be used to distinguish Barnett formation reservoir gas from Pennsylvanian Strawn reservoir gas. Specifically high nitrogen, low CO2 samples are characteristic of gasses produced from the shallower Pennsylvanian reservoirs. The natural gas component of the most recently collected Lipsky well headspace gas samples, which is the two that were shown in the previous table on the previous slide, contain higher nitrogen than is in Barnett gas.” (pg. 12)
“[The EPA order] does indicate that there is thermogenic [natural gas], but it doesn’t indicate that they are likely to be from the same source anymore than the presence of wings can tell you whether it’s a bat or a bird because the other sources also have the same carbon isotopic composition. It is not distinctive between the different sources. So it is not a basis for linking the Lipsky gas to the Range gas at all.” (pg. 39)
“[I]t’s hard to imagine a scenario by which the Barnett gas is migrating to the shallow aquifer and yet the bradenhead gas that is open to the whole — this thousands of feet of Pennsylvanian section, that bradenhead gas sample doesn’t contain Barnett gas. It clearly contains Pennsylvanian reservoir gas. It also … contains some bacterial gas as well, which is also not in the Barnett.” (pg. 27)
“[I]t calls into question any scenario whereby gas would be migrating from the Barnett up to a shallower aquifer. … The approach used by the EPA to correlate the Lipsky gas sample to Range Resources production was fundamentally flawed.” (pg. 31-33)
“[T]he two most recently collected Lipsky samples lay in the zone of higher nitrogen, indicating a Pennsylvanian [Strawn] origin. The sample that the EPA collected has lower nitrogen … Lipsky, two most recent samples, Pennsylvanian gas. Purdue well, the well closest to the Range wells, Pennsylvanian gas. The bradenhead of the Butler well, Pennsylvanian gas. How can it be that gas is migrating from the Barnett to this much shallower aquifer and yet all of these samples are showing up Pennsylvanian gas?” (pg. 28-29)
“[T]hey … indicate that both gasses are thermogenic in origin. If you were to stop there it is absolutely true. But then whoever wrote it says, ‘and likely to be from the same source.’ They can’t know that from the data they have. They can’t know that because they do not know if these parameters that they measured here would distinguish Barnett gas from shallower reservoirs. Therefore they have no foundation to say that — there is no support for saying that they are likely to be from the same source.” (pg. 37)Q. “Based on your study, based on the study undertaken by you and Dr. Kornacki, based on your over 20 years of experience in geochemical gas fingerprinting, did the EPA use a scientifically correct method to attempt to fingerprint the Lipsky gas as being sourced from either the Barnett Shale or from Range’s wells?” A. “No.” (pg. 40)
John McBeath, P.E., expert petroleum engineer
“Basically from the information we have in these wellbores, there is no evidence of faulting that could be — that could join up with a potential hydraulic fracture even if you could get past the physics of not having enough volume or enough pressure to reach all the way from the Barnett through a mile of rock up to the surface.” (pg. 5)
Q. “Do you have an opinion whether there is any scenario in which hydraulic fracturing could be a source for contamination in the freshwater wells in this area?” A. “With the facts that I have looked at, I have been able to rule that out also.” (pg. 6)
“I don’t see how [EPA]s order] can be justified … based on the actions that have gone on through the fall of 2010, and the ongoing investigation. So I am somewhat confused by that finding. I certainly don’t agree with it.” (pg. 16)
“I have concluded that the presence of gas in the Lipsky well and the other wells in the area is due to a natural connection between the Cretaceous and the Strawn that is probably exacerbated with the water wells being drilled either too deep.” (pg. 18)
READ MORE:
- Hearing Documents: Actual facts associated with Parker Co. wells
- Issue Alert: EPA MIA In Austin
- ICYMI: EPA Staff Acknowledge HF, Range Not to Blame for Parker Co. Wells
Read All About It: The Facts About Hydraulic Fracturing’s Record of Safety Continue to Mount
The positive and overwhelming economic and energy security benefits enabled by hydraulic fracturing – a tightly regulated 60-year old energy stimulation technology – continue to be realized across the nation. These benefits – affordable supplies of reliable homegrown energy and thousands of good-paying jobs – are a reality in major energy-producing states, particularly North Dakota and Texas.
And while New York was the birthplace of natural gas production, a de facto ban on Marcellus Shale production through the use of 21st century horizontal drilling technology continues to deny landowners their right to responsibly develop privately-owned, clean-burning, job-creating resources.
Facts are stubborn things, as they say. So for your edification, here are a few about fracturing.
In a Fort Worth Business Press column today, Bruce Vincent, chairman of the Independent Petroleum Association of American (IPAA) and president of Swift Energy, underscores the critical role that fracture stimulation has played, and continues to play, in safely producing homegrown, job-creating energy oil and natural gas resources over the past 60 years. Here are key excerpts from Vincent’s column, which speaks directly to the devastating consequences that bills like the FRAC Act would introduce to American consumers:
This process is tightly regulated by energy-producing states, and is subject to a host of federal laws and regulations as well. In fact, federal law mandates that these fluids – which as stated, are made up of more than 99.5 percent water and sand – be disclosed at every single well-site. Many states even provide these lists online.
In commercial use since 1949, hydraulic fracturing has been – and continues to be – the linchpin to American oil and natural gas production. With surgical-like precision, using high-pressure fluids made up of more than 99.5 percent water and sand, with a small percentage of everyday additives used to kill bacteria and reduce wellbore friction, fracturing stimulates oil and gas production thousands of feet below ground, allowing increased amounts of energy to be produced.
But is it safe, and what steps do producers take to ensure groundwater protection? The short answer: yes, and many.
Unfortunately, some members of Congress believe that they know better than Texas, and that Washington bureaucrats ought to regulate fracturing, rather than individual energy-producing states who understand the geology best and have amassed an impressive track record of overseeing this critical technology. These advocates say their legislation is about disclosure of fracturing fluids. At its core, though, these efforts are aimed at stopping fracturing altogether, which would significantly blunt the positive economic growth and job creation in Texas, as well as in other energy-producing states, and ultimately, increase the cost of energy for America.
More than 1,500 miles away from Ft. Worth, in bucolic Syracuse, NY, folks are also talking about fracturing’s long and clear record of environmental safety and effectiveness. In yesterday’s Syracuse Post-Standard, Alfred Station, NY-native Chris Kulander – who holds a Ph.D. in geophysics with a focus on petroleum seismology – write this about fracture stimulation, and the benefits this proven technology stands to help generate through responsibly developing New York’s portion of the Marcellus Shale:
No evidence directly connects injection of fracking fluid into shale with aquifer contamination. In 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a study finding no confirmed instances of drinking water contamination by fracking fluids in the ground. This finding is not surprising, as fracking fluid is pumped through heavy steel pipe surrounded by a concrete liner to formations thousands of feet below aquifers.
Fracking has made production from the Marcellus Shale possible and created thousands of jobs.
An unfortunate push exists in New York to ban all fracking, purportedly until the technology can be “proven” safe, and to require federal oversight of fracking.
While a responsive state regulatory framework and vigorous, impartial enforcement of those regulations are necessary, draconian measures such as rolling moratoriums or federal oversight of fracking are not. New York is well able to regulate fracking while at the same time allowing development of natural gas and enjoying the jobs and revenue it brings.
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.
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.”
Keep Reading »
Town spokesman calls independent findings “positive news for all Flower Mound residents”
Keep Reading »
