Back to the Future: Ceres Water Report Relies on Old Understanding of Issue
Unfortunately, some groups are still determined to draw attention to themselves by writing scary-sounding reports on water use and hydraulic fracturing, when the reality isn’t scary at all. Take the Boston-based “sustainability” group called Ceres and its “Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Stress: Growing Competitive Pressures for Water” report. EID takes a look at some of the biggest problems in that report.
Simon
Research Director
When EID first made its way onto the scene back in the days of antiquity known as 2009, folks who were against developing natural gas (we didn’t even know about the oil!) from shale frequently cited the volume of water required to fracture the well as the number one reason to oppose those activities.
The playbook usually went like this: 1) declare loudly that hydraulic fracturing consumes millions of gallons of water per well; 2) add up every well currently in the ground to the number of wells you believe will be drilled in the future, producing an astronomical figure (usually in the trillions) seemingly representing the total number of gallons that will be “lost” to the fracturing process; 3) provide no context or perspective on those volumes compared to the water requirements of other industries;4) deny firmly that any technology for reusing or recycling that water – or even using non-potable water instead — is being used, or even exists; and finally, 5) insist to all who will listen that, once that water is lost, it is “forever removed” from the hydrological cycle – never to be accessed by humans again.
Four years now removed from EID’s launch, and the good news is that we’ve seen a good bit of evolution on the issue of water – so much so, in fact, that most activists have completely abandoned the talking point, recognizing (rightly) that their case is weakened considerably owing to the recent and continuing advances in water usage, treatment and recycling technologies to which we provide links above.
Of course, not all anti-shale groups have gotten the memo. Earlier this month, a group calling itself the Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC) released a report on water and hydraulic fracturing that could have just as easily been produced in 2008 – with almost no recognition at all of any of the advances that have been made in the water space over the course of just the past five years.
EID took a closer look at that report, and did what we could to bring WORC up to speed. Earlier this year, we also released a fact-sheet — “Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Use: Get the Facts” – that sought to provide some additional context on how water use in oil and natural gas production compares to other industries. Unfortunately, though, some groups are still determined to draw attention to themselves by writing scary-sounding reports on water use and hydraulic fracturing, when the reality isn’t scary at all.
Take the Boston-based “sustainability” group called Ceres and its “Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Stress: Growing Competitive Pressures for Water” report. Here are some of the biggest problems in that report:
#1 Arbitrarily picking on oil and gas
Here is the highly original conclusion of the Ceres report:
“The bottom line: shale energy development cannot grow without water, but in order to do so the industry’s water needs and impacts need to be better understood, measured and managed.”
Actually, you can say that about almost any industry that exists in the world. Consider the following statement from the U.S. Geological Survey’s Water Science School:
“Probably every manufactured product uses water during some part of the production process. Industrial water use includes water used for such purposes as fabricating, processing, washing, diluting, cooling, or transporting a product; incorporating water into a product; or for sanitation needs within the manufacturing facility. Some industries that use large amounts of water produce such commodities as food, paper, chemicals, refined petroleum, or primary metals.”
At the risk of stating the obvious: no industry can grow without water, and therefore the water needs and impacts of all industries need to be understood, measured and managed.
#2 Relying on water-management data, then pretending water isn’t being managed
Strangely enough, water use is already being measured and managed. It has been for many years: in all 50 states. But don’t take our word for it. Check out this database of water regulations from the National Council of State Legislatures. And this federal report from the USGS, which provides data down to the county level.
In fact, if water use wasn’t being measured and managed, Ceres could not have written its report. The report’s central claim is that during an 18-month period, just under half the shale gas and shale oil wells developed in the U.S. were drilled “in water basins with high or extremely high water stress.” Based on data in the Ceres report, “high water stress” means 40 percent to 80 percent of the available water “is already being withdrawn for municipal, industrial and agricultural uses.” As for “extremely high stress,” that’s when more than 80 percent of available water is being used for towns and cities, factories and other industrial plants, and farms.
So, Ceres has total confidence in the ability of state regulators, federal officials and others to measure and manage water consumption by municipal, industrial and agricultural users. But in the same breath, Ceres suggests those same state and federal officials can’t measure and manage water use by another industrial user – oil and gas companies. That double standard is completely unsupported by the facts.
For example, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Ground Water Protection Council – which represents the state regulatory agencies charged with protecting and conserving this precious natural resource – published a study in 2009 which found:
“The amount of water needed to drill and fracture a horizontal shale gas well generally ranges from about 2 million to 4 million gallons, depending on the basin and formation characteristics. While these volumes may seem very large, they are small by comparison to some other uses of water, such as agriculture, electric power generation, and municipalities … Calculations indicate that water use for shale gas development will range from less than 0.1% to 0.8% of total water use by basin.”
Just last year, the state of Colorado – which was given special attention in the Ceres paper – released a report on hydraulic fracturing water consumption. Colorado officials found it accounted for “slightly less than one-tenth of one percent of the total water used” in the state, and by 2015, it should be “slightly more than one-tenth of one percent of the total water used.”
In Texas, which also received special attention from Ceres, state officials report that “water needs are expected to increase most in the area of municipal water use in the coming decades,” while the mining category – which covers a range of activities including oil and gas development and hydraulic fracturing – remains “less than one percent of statewide water use, although percentages can be larger in some localized areas.”
And how do Texas officials know about those higher local percentages? Because the Texas Water Development Board commissioned a study to prepare for an expected increase in hydraulic fracturing between now and 2020. According to the TWRB’s 2012 State Water Plan, “[f]uture trends in these types of water use will be monitored closely in the upcoming planning process.”
But here’s the TWRB’s current projection:
“The mining category is the smallest of the water user categories and is expected to decline 1 percent from 296,230 acre-feet to 292,294 acre-feet between 2010 and 2060.”
That’s right, a one percent decrease. Those same TWRB projections show a 73 percent increase in municipal water use over the next 50 years, a 67 percent increase in manufacturing water use, and the amount of water used by power plants is expected to more than double.
So it turns out state and federal water officials – who enforce the laws and regulations that govern water use – are absolutely measuring and managing how much water is used by different industries and different sectors of the economy, including oil and gas companies. Not only that, when you look at current and projected water use, hydraulic fracturing is still a tiny fraction of present and future consumption.
There’s nothing scary about that, of course, and so you’ll find almost none of this highly relevant context in the Ceres report.
#3 Distorting their own research
On the website promoting the Ceres report, and in the text of the report itself, the authors say the following:
One can see that almost half (47 percent) of U.S. shale gas and oil wells are being developed in regions with high to extremely high water stress. This means that more than 80 percent of the annual available water is being withdrawn by municipal, industrial and agricultural users in these regions.
That’s a misrepresentation of their own research. Remember, an area of “high water stress” is when 40 percent of the water is already consumed by municipal, industrial and agricultural users, and the threshold for “extreme high water stress” is 80 percent.
So it’s simply wrong for Ceres to claim it found 47 percent of shale gas and shale oil development took place in areas where 80 percent or more of the water was already being used. Based on the number in the report, the actual finding was 41 percent.
So, why would Ceres misrepresent its own research for the sake of six percentage points? Perhaps because once you concede that significantly less than half of shale development is taking place in areas of extreme high water stress – not almost half – people might start to wonder where the majority of shale development is actually taking place.
Well, based on the Ceres research, the majority (53 percent) of shale gas and shale oil wells are being developed in areas where municipal, industrial and agricultural users consume 40 percent or less of the available water.
In other words, the Ceres report finds that more than half the nation’s hydraulic fracturing takes place in areas where water is plentiful and there is relatively little competition for supplies.
Yet, for some reason, that wasn’t the conclusion of the Ceres report, and it certainly wasn’t mentioned in the press release that announced the report to the world. This huge and frightening distortion of the group’s own research started the Energy In Depth research team wondering, “Who wrote this stuff?” And that led us right to the next problem with the report
#4 Failure to disclose opposition to oil and gas
Here’s how Ceres identifies itself on page 2 of the report:
“Ceres is a nonprofit organization mobilizing business leadership on sustainability challenges such as climate change and water scarcity.”
While that may sound like the description of a trade association for businesspeople who care about the environment, the reality is quite different.
While the Ceres coalition does include some institutional investors – mostly public-employee pension funds – it also has large number of activist groups that oppose the oil and gas industry. Here’s what some Ceres members have said about our industry and/or hydraulic fracturing:
“In the past few years, the oil and gas industry has drilled thousands of new wells using a perilous extraction process called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. To frack an oil or gas well, a massive volume of water and a toxic chemical soup are injected underground at high pressures to break up rock formations, allowing oil or gas to flow up the well.
Fracking threatens the air we breathe, the water we drink, the communities we call home and the climate on which we depend.”
“You wouldn’t let a loved one drink water so contaminated that it was flammable, right? And yet, thousands of animals like cattle, fish, frogs and deer have died after drinking water poisoned by a secret concoction of toxic ingredients — also known as fracking fluid. …
Despite the alarming concerns, the industry operates with almost no federal oversight and doesn’t have to disclose what chemicals they’re pumping into our waterways.”
Natural Resources Defense Council:
“Natural gas producers have been running roughshod over communities across the country with their extraction and production activities for too long, resulting in contaminated water supplies, dangerous air pollution, destroyed streams, and devastated landscapes. Weak safeguards and inadequate oversight fail to protect our communities from harm by the rapid expansion of fossil fuel production using hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking.’”
“We have grown increasingly concerned about the prevalence of hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking,’ a technique used to mine natural gas. We’ve watched movies like Split Estate and Gasland, which explain the serious health risks associated with fracking…”
“Natural gas drillers exploit government loopholes, ignore decades-old environmental protections, and disregard the health of entire communities. “Fracking,” a violent process that dislodges gas deposits from shale rock formations, is known to contaminate drinking water, pollute the air, and cause earthquakes.”
Nowhere in the Ceres report on water use and hydraulic fracturing will you find any disclosure of its membership, or their openly hostility towards the oil and gas industry. But that’s not all.
Besides members, Ceres also has donors — and you’ll be surprised to learn that they include some well-known funders of activism that targets the oil and gas industry, and especially the use of hydraulic fracturing. According to the group’s last annual report, those donors include the Park Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. But again, that’s something you won’t find disclosed in the Ceres report on water use and hydraulic fracturing.
And then there’s one of the co-authors of the study, Ryan Salmon. Before joining Ceres, he worked as an energy policy advisor for the National Wildlife Federation. Remember, that’s same group that claims “thousands of cattle, fish, frogs and deer have died” because of hydraulic fracturing, and clings to the belief that the oil and gas industry “operates with almost no federal oversight and doesn’t have to disclose what chemicals they’re pumping into our waterways.” Was that disclosed in the front matter of the report? No.
Water use is a serious issue that should concern citizens, public officials and the business community. But Ceres pretty clearly ignored the facts and decided to frighten the public about hydraulic fracturing because its members, donors, and even one of the report’s authors, have an ideological objection to the oil and gas industry. They just don’t like us and want to shut us down.
They’re entitled to their opinion, of course, and they can put out any kind of report they want. But when they hide their mistakes and their obvious bias against the industry from their readers, they are simply out to mislead the public.
WORC’ed Into A Frenzy About Western Water
Earlier this week, a gaggle of activists published a report under their umbrella group – the Western Organization of Resource Council (WORC). The report, titled “Gone for Good,” strikes an expectedly dramatic tone about the water usage of oil and gas operations in the West.
Courtney
Field Director, Mountain States
Earlier this week, a gaggle of activists published a report under their umbrella group – the Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC). The report, titled “Gone for Good,” strikes an expectedly dramatic tone about the water usage of oil and gas operations in the West.
But, before we start debunking the claims in the report, let’s take a quick look at the authors.
The Western Organization of Resource Councils is made up of smaller, state-focused anti-oil and gas activist groups – Dakota Resource Council, Dakota Rural Action, Northern Plains Resource Council, Oregon Rural Action, Powder River Basin Resource Council and Western Colorado Congress.
Lest you think we are unfairly labeling them as activists, note that these groups have called hydraulic fracturing and the oil and gas industry “dangerous,” “uncontrollable,” “hazardous,” “a major threat,” “exempted from regulation” and accused the industry of “fouling the air, drying up home wells, polluting groundwater, and poisoning livestock.” Heck, the Western Colorado Congress even proudly touted their association with the Bucket Brigade and Gasland’s Josh Fox.
Doesn’t sound like a group of unbiased researchers, does it?
Because no one should be forced to read though yet another repackaging of talking points and debunked claims, Energy in Depth took one for the team and read the report. Here are a few of the worst claims:
Claim: “[I]t seems clear that water use for fracking is reaching a crisis point in the region. There is mounting evidence that the current level of water use for oil and gas production simply cannot be sustained…”
Fact:
The press release accompanying the WORC report claims the total annual water use for hydraulic fracturing across Colorado, Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota is “at least seven billion gallons.”
Now, let’s assume that estimate is accurate (given the associations mentioned above, we know “facts” are not something these folks typically worry about, but just for argument’s sake, let’s pretend otherwise). According to the U.S. Geological Survey, those four states use roughly 33,250,000 acre-feet of water in a year. That’s approximately 10.8 trillion gallons.
So, seven billion gallons represents roughly 0.06 percent of the combined water use of those four states. That’s even lower than the 0.08% finding in a report last year by three Colorado state agencies who specifically estimated hydraulic fracturing water use, and much lower than the Department of Energy and Ground Water Protection Council’s estimated range of “less than 0.1% to 0.8% of total water use,” depending on the basin. Of course, there’s nothing scary about those percentages, so the WORC report simply throws around the term “billions of gallons” again and again without any context to frighten as many people as possible.
It turns out that DOE and GWPC officials anticipated this kind of alarmism, and included the following passage in the water use section of their report on hydraulic fracturing:
“While these volumes may seem very large, they are small by comparison to some other uses of water, such as agriculture, electric power generation, and municipalities, and generally represent a small percentage of the total water resource use in each shale gas area.”
In Colorado for instance, while hydraulic fracturing accounts for about one-tenth of one percent of water use, the recreation industry uses almost six percent, municipal and industrial users account for more than seven percent, and the agriculture sector consumes more than 85 percent.
Claim: “With few exceptions, the rest of the water used for fracking is gone for good from the hydrological cycle.”
Fact:
Here’s another major flaw – the report completely ignores the water that’s added to the hydrological cycle as a result of oil and gas development.
For example, Gov. John Hickenlooper recently pointed out that when natural gas is burned, it produces “far more than the water used in fracking,” because “when you burn natural gas, it gives off CO2 and H2O that goes into the air and into the hydrologic cycle.”
Based on estimates from DOE and the Colorado Oil & Gas Association, every billion cubic feet of natural gas burned produces more than 11 million gallons of water:
U.S. Department of Energy, January 2012
“All hydrocarbon fuels release significant quantities of water vapor as a combustion byproduct. … When one molecule of methane is burned, it produces two molecules of water vapor. When moles are converted to pound/mole, we find that every pound of methane fuel combusted produces 2.25 lb. of water vapor, which is about 12% of the total exhaust by weight.”
Colorado Oil & Gas Association, June 2012
“Since a volume measurement of H2O is easier to interpret than pounds of water, we want to convert our 2.25 lb yield of H2O into gallons. … Our calculations show the combustion of 1 pound of methane results in the production 3.71 gallons of water and that 1 BCF of methane produces over 11 million gallons of water.”
Claim: “Congress exempted fracking, other than fracking with diesel, from the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2004. Federal agencies have not yet identified a means of regulatory leverage adequate to address looming conflicts over water quantity.”
Fact:
First of all, you simply cannot get oil or natural gas out of shale rock without complying with overlapping state and federal environmental laws, and the many regulations that are issued under those state and federal laws. As the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported last year:
“As with conventional oil and gas development, requirements from eight federal environmental and public health laws apply to unconventional oil and gas development.”
The Department of Energy and Groundwater Protection Council leave no uncertainty about this, saying, “The development and production of oil and gas in the U.S., including shale gas, are regulated under a complex set of federal, state, and local laws that address every aspect of exploration and operation.”
As for SDWA specifically, in 2005 (not 2004) Congress passed the Energy Policy Act, which did not “exempt” hydraulic fracturing from any law, period. It simply affirmed the regulatory system already in place: states regulate hydraulic fracturing. This has been the established structure since the first hydraulic fracturing job was completed in southwest Kansas in 1947. SDWA, meanwhile, became law in 1974, and it has never covered hydraulic fracturing, because it was never designed to cover hydraulic fracturing. How can you be “exempt” from something that never applied to you in the first place?
Activists, it’s time to put this talking point to rest.
Same recycled activist groups, same recycled talking points. The only “crisis” here is a crisis of credibility for environmental activists, who will do or say anything to manipulate the fear of drought in the West into fear of the oil and gas industry. This so-called report is just another chapter in that irresponsible fear campaign, masquerading as “science” and research.
Reporter, Disclose Thyself
Recently, the Denver Post’s environmental writer Bruce Finley took aim at two government agencies – the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission – over the state’s hydraulic fracturing fluid disclosure regulation. According to Finley’s story, the disclosure regulation’s intellectual property protections could deny doctors “information they need to treat patients and protect public health.”
Simon
Research Director
Recently, the Denver Post’s environmental writer Bruce Finley took aim at two government agencies – the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission – over the state’s hydraulic fracturing fluid disclosure regulation. According to Finley’s story, the disclosure regulation’s intellectual property protections could deny doctors “information they need to treat patients and protect public health.”
But in a news report about disclosure, it turns out the only person with a disclosure problem is Finley himself. That’s because in at least five cases, he failed to disclose key facts to the Denver Post’s readers, and as a result, produced a story that’s both misleading and alarmist.
Failure to disclose doctor’s anti-industry activism
In Finley’s story, Dr. Mitchell Gershten of Cedaredge accuses state regulators of imposing a “gag order” on medical professionals, and then says the following:
“There are spills happening all over the state, all the time … This is just about transparency so that nobody is harmed and the environment is not harmed. Why does it have to be so secretive?”
Gershten is only identified in the story as a doctor. But Finley doesn’t disclose that Gershten is also an activist who opposes the oil and gas industry. In addition to serving on the board of Citizens for a Healthy Community, a group that’s campaigning against oil and gas development in the Delta County region, Gershten has organized anti-industry petitions and letter-writing campaigns.
Gershten has also mounted a statewide letter and op-ed writing campaign against the oil and gas industry. Some examples:
Delta County Independent: “The people of the North Fork have been very clear. We were against natural gas development here last year and we remain against it now.”
Grand Junction Daily Sentinel: “The rush to drill is not about America, but is rather about large future profits for a few companies and a few already wealthy individuals. Those of us here at ground zero suffer the consequences and long legacy of unbridled gas development while a tiny few are enriched.”
Boulder Daily Camera: “Once these companies take their profits, the rest of us are often left with a toxic legacy that goes on for decades, hardly a model of longevity. … Human life and healthy ecosystems are simply incompatible with the industrialization brought by drilling.”
Gershten is entitled to his opinion, of course. But the Denver Post’s readers are also entitled to know where Gershten is coming from so they can decide for themselves whether he’s an objective and credible source. By failing to disclose the fact that Gershten is an anti-industry activist, Finley misrepresented Gershten’s political agenda as a professional medical opinion free of any such bias.
Failure to disclose more than 25 years of federal law
Finley’s story presents intellectual property protection for industrial chemicals as something novel and potentially alarming, but the facts tell a very different story. To understand why, we first need to review some background information on hydraulic fracturing and Colorado’s disclosure regulations.
Hydraulic fracturing fluids are typically more than 99.5 percent water and sand, with the rest a combination of chemical additives that ensure the safe and effective completion of the hydraulic fracturing process. Many of those additives have the same ingredients as commonplace household and industrial products, such as laundry detergent, toothpaste and window cleaner. However, a small number of additives have been specially engineered over many years and at a cost of many millions of dollars. Without protections for this intellectual property, the companies that developed the additives would lose business and shed jobs as competing firms simply copied their products for free.
For this reason, Colorado’s disclosure law does not require “trade secret” additives to be posted on a publicly accessible Internet database. However, any doctor can demand the specific identity of those additives if that information is needed for the diagnosis or treatment of a patient. In return, the doctor must agree to only use the “trade secret” information for treating their patient.
Some environmental activists have recently started claiming these confidentiality agreements constitute a new kind of “gag rule” that’s unique to the oil and gas industry. But in reality, if the activists had sincere and legitimate objection, they’d have started protesting 25 years before Colorado’s hydraulic fracturing disclosure regulation was finalized in December 2011.
That’s because confidentiality agreements for medical professionals have been enshrined in federal law since the passage of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act in 1986. EPCRA requires companies to disclose “trade secret” information to health professionals who need that information for the diagnosis or treatment of a patient. EPCRA also states that health professionals who are provided this information:
“…be required to agree in a written confidentiality agreement that he will not use the information for any purpose other than the health needs asserted in the statement of need, except as may otherwise be authorized by the terms of the agreement or by the person providing such information.”
So, it turns out that under one of the nation’s best-known environmental laws, medical professionals have been signing confidentiality agreements for decades in order to access the information they need to treat patients, while at the same time honoring intellectual property rights.
In fact, this practice is so well understood and non-controversial that it’s even been endorsed by U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), who has spent years advocating for an unnecessary federal takeover of the nation’s state-led regulatory framework for oil and gas development. While DeGette’s proposed legislation is opposed by the oil and gas industry as well as state regulators, it does include the very same intellectual property protections that exist under federal law. The DeGette bill says:
“…the person conducting the hydraulic fracturing operations shall, upon request, immediately disclose the proprietary chemical formulas or the specific chemical identity of a trade secret chemical to the State, the Administrator, or the treating physician or nurse, regardless of whether a written statement of need or a confidentiality agreement has been provided. The person conducting the hydraulic fracturing operations may require a written statement of need and a confidentiality agreement as soon thereafter as circumstances permit.”
It’s hard to imagine that Finley, who has covered the environment beat for years, wouldn’t know all of this. And yet, he still failed to disclose to the Denver Post’s readers that confidentiality agreements of this kind have been commonplace and widely accepted within the realm of environmental regulation for decades.
Failure to disclose why no Colorado doctors have signed Form 35
Finley’s story says some doctors have complained about the paperwork, known as Form 35, which allows for the full details of a “trade secret” additive to be disclosed. Then the story declares: “No doctor has signed the form.”
If Gershten – the doctor-turned-activist – is correct, and people are potentially being exposed to hydraulic fracturing fluids “all over the state, all the time,” then a decision by doctors to boycott the Form 35 would be a big story indeed.
So Energy In Depth e-mailed the COGCC to find out why no doctor has signed the Form 35. Here’s what COGCC director Matt Lepore said in an e-mailed statement:
“The answer to your questions are: 1) Yes, it is true no doctor has signed a Form 35; and 2) because no doctor has requested trade secret information since Colorado’s frac fluid disclosure rule … went into effect.”
So, no doctor has signed the Form 35 because no doctor has requested any “trade secret” information in the first place. In a story that deals with the safety of an industrial process like hydraulic fracturing, the fact that not a single doctor in Colorado has found it necessary to ask for such information is highly relevant.
If Finley’s intent was to inform his readers, rather than needlessly alarm them, he should have disclosed the reason why “no doctor has signed the form.”
Failure to disclose environmental endorsement of intellectual property protections
Finley’s story paraphrases a COGCC spokesman as saying “representatives of the industry and environmental community helped develop the confidentiality pledge” for medical professionals as part of the state’s hydraulic fracturing disclosure regulation. But there’s much more to the story than that.
When Colorado’s disclosure regulation was finalized in December 2011, it was hailed by state and national environmental organizations, and some green groups even clamored to take credit for their role in the rulemaking process.
Here’s what the New York-based Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said in a press release when the regulations were completed:
“Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) today praised the State of Colorado for adopting a fracturing fluid chemical disclosure policy that, in many ways, can serve as a model for the nation …
“The Colorado rule … makes important strides in requiring companies to disclose chemical information in ways that are useful and user-friendly. The Colorado rule requires companies to disclose chemical information on a database that allows the public to search and sort information by company, chemical, geographic area and other criteria. … Finally, the Colorado rule takes a reasonable approach to trade secrets.”
At a press conference with Governor John Hickenlooper, Colorado Conservation Voters Executive Director Pete Maysmith said:
“The clear winners of the rulemaking today are the citizens of Colorado. Now all Coloradans will know what chemicals are being used in natural gas drilling in our state. … It’s no secret that we don’t always see eye-to-eye with the natural gas industry, but this was a great example of putting aside our differences where we have them and getting something done.”
San Francisco-based Earthjustice, which represented a number of environmental groups in the negotiations over the disclosure regulation, issued a press release saying it was “instrumental” in securing a “positive outcome” for its clients:
“The rule is one of the strongest in the country and Earthjustice’s Denver office was actively involved in shaping the decision. … In the negotiations, Earthjustice represented the Colorado Environmental Coalition, Earthworks Oil and Gas Accountability Project, National Wildlife Federation, San Juan Citizens Alliance and High Country Citizens Alliance, and also worked closely with the Environmental Defense Fund.”
Later, Earthjustice attorney Michael Freeman told the Huffington Post:
“That’s the big advancer here. We’re getting a full picture of what’s in that fracking fluid.”
So, environmental groups didn’t just “help develop” the state’s hydraulic fracturing disclosure regulation. They called it a model for the nation, took credit for its adoption, and said it provides a “full picture” of the components of hydraulic fracturing fluids. In a story that gives critics of the COGCC and CDPHE plenty of opportunities to attack the environmental integrity of this regulation, these endorsements from environmental groups should have been mentioned to the Denver Post’s readers. Yet, once again, Finley failed to disclose information that would have made his story more informative and less frightening to the public.
Failure to disclose citizen group’s anti-industry activism
Finley’s story concludes with a section that’s supposed to represent the views of the general public. Here’s an excerpt:
“Western Colorado residents say they favor giving doctors better access to information about chemicals.
‘To gag the doctors, to not be able to relate what those chemicals are, that’s awful. I would think (state health regulators) would want to protect people’s health,’ said Grand Valley Citizens Alliance president Leslie Robinson. ‘And one way to protect health is information.’”
To start with, one citizens group can’t possibly speak for all “Western Colorado residents.” But even so, what kind of group is the Grand Valley Citizens Alliance? For example, is it an alliance of citizens who are engaged across a wide range of issues, such as economic development, schools and transportation, which concern the public?
The answer is no. The GVCA is a single-issue activist group devoted solely to restricting energy production, and especially oil and gas development, in Garfield County. For example, Robinson has accused the oil and gas industry of “economic blackmail” and lobbied local officials to call for a federal takeover of oil and gas permitting. And on GVCA’s website, Robinson says:
“[F]or nearly 100 years, locals in Western Colorado have been pricked, prodded, drilled, fracked, mined and even bombed in the attempts to extract these minerals.”
So, after Finley already failed to disclose that one of the doctors he interviewed is an anti-industry activist, he also neglected to mention that the citizens group he quoted also opposes the oil and gas industry. For a news reporter who regularly writes about environmental issues and activism in Colorado, and is familiar with the players in the environmental debate, that’s an astonishing failure.
Finley’s sources certainly have a right to express their opinions, but concealing their bias against the oil and gas industry isn’t fair to the Denver Post’s readers. Taken together, all of Finley’s failures to disclose resulted in a news story that’s heavy on fear and light on facts.
In Colorado, A County Commissioner’s Boulder-Dash
Before she was elected to the Boulder County Commission last year, Elise Jones was the executive director of the Colorado Environmental Coalition. But based on recent events, it seems Commissioner Jones may have forgotten she doesn’t work for the activists anymore.
Simon
Research Director
Boulder County Commissioner Elise Jones made headlines earlier this month when she debated Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper over the state’s regulation of oil and gas development. Before she was elected to public office last year, Commissioner Jones was the executive director of the Colorado Environmental Coalition for more than a decade.
Unfortunately, her debate performance shows the transition from advocacy to public service has been a little rough. Instead of engaging Gov. Hickenlooper in a substantive discussion about how to meet Colorado’s existing and future energy needs, Commissioner Jones resorted to the kind of scare tactics used routinely by fringe groups like Food & Water Watch or actor Mark Ruffalo’s activist group, Water Defense.
Commissioner Jones used to work for environmental activists, but now she works for taxpayers, and they deserve better than this kind of fear mongering. Here are some of the worst examples:
For those interested in more detail, here are some more extensive quotes from the sources Energy In Depth cited in the video above:
U.S. Department of Energy, Ground Water Protection Council, April 2009
“Hydraulic fracturing has been a key technology in making shale gas an affordable addition to the Nation’s energy supply, and the technology has proven to be a safe and effective stimulation technique. Ground water is protected during the shale gas fracturing process by a combination of the casing and cement that is installed when the well is drilled and the thousands of feet of rock between the fracture zone and any fresh or treatable aquifers.”
Ken Salazar, former U.S. Interior Secretary, for U.S. Senator from Colorado and former Colorado Attorney-General, 2/15/2012
“There’s a lot of hysteria that takes place now with respect to hydraulic fracking, and you see that happening in many of the states. … My point of view, based on my own study of hydraulic fracking, is that it can be done safely and has been done safely hundreds of thousands of times.”
Heather Zichal, White House Energy and Climate Adviser, 5/14/2012
“We know that natural gas can safely be developed, and to the credit of the industry there are many companies that are leaning into this challenge and promoting best practices for safer and more efficient production. That’s not always widely noticed or appreciated, but it’s a fact. … [T]he underlying commitment by industry to continuously improve and adopt effective practices as technology evolves is something our administration applauds.”
IHS Global Insight and U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 12/19/2012
“The economic activity associated with unconventional oil and gas directly and indirectly supported over 77,000 jobs in the state in 2012, with many of these jobs in construction and manufacturing at relatively high wages. … There is also the contribution of unconventional oil and gas employment to government revenues. In Colorado in 2012, it generated nearly $3 billion in taxes for state and federal coffers. This includes over $1.4 billion in state and local taxes, or the equivalent of 15% of the state’s 2011 tax revenues.”
Northern Colorado Gazette, 5/1/2012
“Anadarko Petroleum Corporation presented a $52 million check representing the company’s 2011 ad valorem taxes to Weld County during a special presentation held at Anadarko’s newly constructed regional office in Evans.
The revenue will ensure the county continues to retain its strong fiscal footing. Despite Weld County being larger than the states of Delaware and Rhode Island combined, it remains the only county in the state with no long term debt.”
Colorado Division of Water Resources, the Colorado Water Conservation Board, and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 1/19/2012
“[T]he amount of water currently used for hydraulic fracturing in Colorado is a small portion of the total amount of water used. In 2010, it reflected slightly less than one-tenth of one percent of the total water used. In 2015, it is projected to increase by 4,800 acre-feet to slightly more than one-tenth of one percent of the total water used.”
Gallup, 3/27/2013
“Americans Want More Emphasis on Solar, Wind, Natural Gas … No fewer than two in three Americans want the U.S. to put more emphasis on producing domestic energy using solar power (76%), wind (71%), and natural gas (65%).”
Business Council for Sustainable Energy, 1/31/2013
“For wind power in particular, cheaper gas has made it difficult to compete economically, though the one-year extension of the Production Tax Credit in 2013 has strengthened the business case for wind in the short term. Yet gas generators, which are inherently flexible technologies that can be easily ramped up and down to meet demand, are natural counterparts for variable resources such as wind and solar. Other options, such as combined heat and power (CHP), and fuel cell installations, which draw on natural gas for fuel, have become more competitive as natural gas prices decline.”
Solar Energy Industries Association, Climate Desk, 1/31/2013
“Celebrities including Mark Ruffalo, Matt Damon, and Yoko Ono have aligned themselves with green groups like the Sierra Club to come out steadfastly against gas because of fracking, the drilling technique that harvests most of it, citing concerns about water and air contamination. Meanwhile others, including New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the Environmental Defense Fund, have boosted fracking as a ‘bridge’ to wean the US off of coal, and usher in more renewables, a process that is already underway.
But a report released this morning makes it clear that the renewables industry sees itself in the latter camp, forming an unexpected alliance with the natural gas industry, since both groups are intent on giving coal the boot. The informal partnership should be a PR boon to the embattled gas industry, which has spent the last several years trying to allay concerns from the public and policymakers by shouting over the anti-fracking fracas.
‘Natural gas and renewables complement each other very nicely,’ Rhone Resch, CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association, said this morning at a press conference for the release of Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s 2013 Factbook, an exhaustive analysis of the state of clean energy in America…
‘I think it can happen: In the next 30 years we’re going to have 50 percent renewables and 50 percent natural gas,’ Resch said, referring to the breakdown of US energy generation. Natural gas can fill the gap when renewables go intermittant, he said, ramping up when the wind stops or the sun goes down; meanwhile, renewables, which are growing even faster than natural gas, can pick up the slack left by a waning coal industry.”
U.S. Department of Energy, 10/24/2011
“How does natural gas power generation compare to coal-fired power generation
on a life cycle GHG basis? … Average natural gas baseload power generation has life cycle GHG emissions 53% lower than average coal baseload power generation.”
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Associated Press, 8/16/2012
“In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.”
International Energy Agency, 5/24/2012
“CO2 emissions in the United States in 2011 fell by 92 Mt, or 1.7%, primarily due to ongoing switching from coal to natural gas in power generation and an exceptionally mild winter, which reduced the demand for space heating. US emissions have now fallen by 430 Mt (7.7%) since 2006, the largest reduction of all countries or regions. This development has arisen from lower oil use in the transport sector (linked to efficiency improvements, higher oil prices and the economic downturn which has cut vehicle miles travelled) and a substantial shift from coal to gas in the power sector.”
U.S. Department of Energy, January 2012
“All hydrocarbon fuels release significant quantities of water vapor as a combustion byproduct. … When one molecule of methane is burned, it produces two molecules of water vapor. When moles are converted to pound/mole, we find that every pound of methane fuel combusted produces 2.25 lb. of water vapor, which is about 12% of the total exhaust by weight.”
Colorado Oil & Gas Association, 6/25/2012
“Since a volume measurement of H2O is easier to interpret than pounds of water, we want to convert our 2.25 lb yield of H2O into gallons. … Our calculations show the combustion of 1 pound of methane results in the production 3.71 gallons of water and that 1 BCF of methane produces over 11 million gallons of water.”
U.S. Department of Energy, Ground Water Protection Council, April 2009
“The amount of water needed to drill and fracture a horizontal shale gas well generally ranges from about 2 million to 4 million gallons, depending on the basin and formation characteristics. While these volumes may seem very large, they are small by comparison to some other uses of water, such as agriculture, electric power generation, and municipalities … Calculations indicate that water use for shale gas development will range from less than 0.1% to 0.8% of total water use by basin.”
Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, 11/8/2012
“Arbitrary setbacks will actually harm the environment, resulting in an ecological-takings by further fragmenting open space … Limiting landowners’ ability to strike the necessary balance of well placement with the protection of agriculture viability and environmental conservation threatens society’s access to affordable food, open space and energy. Not to mention taking a step backward from Colorado’s stance on responsible development of our oil and gas resources.”
*UPDATE VI* On Shaky Ground
Activists opposed to responsible shale development have seized on an as-yet-unreleased U.S. Geological Survey report as "proof" that the hydraulic fracturing process causes the earth to shake off its axis. The problem, though, is that the U.S. Geological Survey didn't actually make that link.
Steve
Spokesman
UPDATE VI (3/28/13, 10:36am ET): New research published in the journal Geology draws a link between a November 2011 earthquake near Prague, Okla., and wastewater injection wells, which in this instance began receiving wastewater from oil wells in the Hunton field during the 1990s. Those facts alone have been enough for many in the media and blogosphere to leap to the conclusion that hydraulic fracturing was responsible, even though — as we’ve detailed extensively — hydraulic fracturing is not the same thing as wastewater injection.
But the other, much bigger problem for those who clearly chose not to read the report they were reporting on is this: The wastewater from the Hunton oil wells was not a result of hydraulic fracturing. Instead, it was wastewater produced from so-called “conventional” oil wells that were not hydraulically fractured. It may be news to some who try so hard to report accurately on oil and gas development, but wastewater is actually produced from oil and gas wells even if “fracking” is not involved.
Thankfully, some folks who are tasked with covering the energy industry actually took the 20 seconds of research necessary to recognize that fact. The headline at Scientific American explicitly read “not fracking” in relation to what the scientists determined as the cause of the earthquake. The write-up at ScienceDaily carefully explained that wastewater is produced from all kinds of oil and gas production, whether the wells are hydraulically fractured or not, and that the wastewater pumped into the Oklahoma wells was not a byproduct of fracking.
NBC News also ran its own report, which included this careful observation:
Now, a new study published Tuesday in the journal Geology confirms that wastewater injected into the ground after oil extraction caused the quake. The quake is the largest wastewater-induced earthquake ever recorded. The wastewater was from traditional drilling, not the controversial hydraulic fracturing method. (emphasis added)
In that same story, NBC added that “the process that caused the Oklahoma earthquake didn’t involve hydraulic fracturing.”
Bloomberg News also separated fact from fiction: “The wastewater behind the earthquakes came from conventional wells in the Hunton formation, said Katie Keranen, assistant professor at Oklahoma and co-author of the report.” (Bloomberg’s original headline said the research linked the earthquakes to “fracking,” but — much to their credit — it was changed immediately.)
Also of note: The Oklahoma Geological Survey has done research of its own, working with state regulatory officials to determine the cause of the seismic activity. Here’s OGS’s main conclusion:
“The interpretation that best fits current data is that the Prague Earthquake Sequence was the result of natural causes.”
Not that it matters to folks who have an insatiable need to shoehorn the word “fracking” into literally every story about oil and gas development, but that makes two separate reports released in the course of a week that show no link between hydraulic fracturing and the Oklahoma earthquakes. Keep that in mind as you search Google for news on this subject.
UPDATE V (6/18/12, 11:57am ET): The National Research Council, part of the prestigious National Academies, delivered yet another nail in the coffin to the idea that hydraulic fracturing poses a serious risk of causing earthquakes. Late last week, the NRC issued a report that concluded “hydraulic fracturing a well as presently implemented for shale gas recovery does not pose a high risk for inducing felt seismic events.” Instead, the researchers found — like the USGS did a few months ago — that injection wells were more commonly the culprit for induced seismicity (as well as underground carbon capture and storage, or CCS). The other good news is that “only a very small fraction of injection and extraction activities among the hundreds of thousands of energy development sites in the United States have induced seismicity at levels noticeable to the public,” according to the NRC.
The upshot? Hydraulic fracturing does not pose a serious risk of inducing earthquakes, and the seismic events triggered by other processes are typically small and certainly not uprooting trees or shaking office buildings off their foundations.
UPDATE IV (4/23/12, 9:25am ET): The lead author of the USGS report is now directly addressing incorrect media characterizations of the report (like this one, for example), which have all-too-often leaped to the conclusion that the earthquakes observed were linked to hydraulic fracturing. E&E News has a great story (subs. req’d) explaining that frustration, partially excerpted below:
Here are the facts: ‘Fracking’ does not cause big earthquakes. The underground injection of industrial wastewater can, and sometimes does.
Bill Ellsworth is frustrated at how difficult it is getting people to understand this.
The senior U.S. Geological Survey geophysicist is on the cutting edge of new research linking earthquakes to the injection of oil and gas drilling waste (EnergyWire, March 29). But at last week’s earthquake conference here, he seemed to spend as much time trying to resolve the ‘fracking’ confusion as he did explaining his findings.
Earlier this month, he even found himself arguing with a cable news host about what his own research conclusions were.
‘I was greatly surprised to see how words were being used in the press in ways that were inappropriate,’ Ellsworth said as the annual meeting of the Seismological Society of America wrapped up. ‘We don’t see any connection between fracking and earthquakes of any concern to society.’
UPDATE III (4/16/12, 10:59am ET): State geologists from two states have criticized the conclusions made by USGS as a “rush to judgment,” specifically by linking oil and gas development with earthquakes. Colorado state geologist Vince Matthews said in an interview with E&E News (subs. req’d): “It’s unfortunate that they’ve jumped to this conclusion.” Meanwhile, Oklahoma state geologist G. Randy Keller pointed out that opponents of hydraulic fracturing seized on the findings — “There’s not a lot of calm reflection,” he said. In fact, Keller received so many inquiries about the report that he issued a position statement [PDF], which noted that “it is unlikely that all of the earthquakes can be attributed to human activities.” The statement also urged caution in too quickly identifying a link between seismic activity and oil and gas operations: “We consider a rush to judgment about earthquakes being triggered to be harmful to state, public and industry interests.”
UPDATE II (4/12/12, 10:06am ET): The U.S. Department of Interior has weighed in on the topic, according to a story from UPI. Here’s what Interior Department Deputy Secretary David Hayes had to say:
“While it appears likely that the observed seismicity rate changes in the middle part of the United States in recent years are man-made, it remains to be determined if they are related to either changes in production methodologies or to the rate of oil and gas production…We also find that there is no evidence to suggest that hydraulic fracturing itself is the cause of the increased rate of earthquakes.” (emphasis added)
Another part of the UPI story worth highlighting is that Mr. Hayes was not only clear about what is and isn’t causing the earthquakes, but also made sure to ding the media for jumping to conclusions:
Interior Department Deputy Secretary David Hayes said the accuracy of recent media reports on the link between fracking and earthquakes “varied greatly.” The Interior Department notes that, despite recent fervor, temblors associated with wastewater injection were first recorded in the 1960s.
UPDATE (4/12/12, 8:41am ET): A new story from NPR takes a look at the earthquake issue as well, noting in particular that while some people lay the blame for the seismic activity on hydraulic fracturing, the actual source is likely wastewater disposal wells. Bill Ellsworth with the USGS once again slaps down the notion that hydraulic fracturing is causing earthquakes, and quite definitively. Ellsworth says: “We find no evidence that fracking is related to the occurrence of earthquakes that people are feeling. We think that it’s more intimately connected to the wastewater disposal.”
—Original post from April 11, 2012—
Call it a natural consequence of a fundraising and advocacy strategy that’s based on continuously coming up with new and creative ways to scare the hell out of the general public. Last week, the watchword happened to be “earthquakes,” with activists opposed to responsible shale development seizing on an as-yet-unreleased U.S. Geological Survey report as “proof” that the hydraulic fracturing process causes the earth to shake off its axis.
Indeed, for those who are professionals at ginning up scary (and usually false) stories about developing natural gas from shale, the story basically wrote itself. After all, the USGS said the quakes were “almost certainly” man-made, so hydraulic fracturing has to be the culprit… right?
Alarmists certainly thought so. The environmental blog Grist ran with the headline: “Shale shocked: USGS links ‘remarkable increase’ in earthquakes to fracking.” Meanwhile, Earthworks activist Sharon Wilson wrote about the “fracking earthquakes” on her blog, linking directly to an Environmental Working Group “analysis” of the USGS findings.
The problem, though, is that the U.S. Geological Survey didn’t actually make that link.
In fact, the lead author of the USGS report, Bill Ellsworth, has made it pretty clear that the findings do not link hydraulic fracturing to earthquakes. As the Associated Press reported earlier this week: “Ellsworth said Friday he is confident that fracking is not responsible for the earthquake trends his study found, based on prior studies.”
To make sure that point was made loud and clear, Ellsworth also appeared on CNBC this week to discuss the question of whether there is a link between hydraulic fracturing and seismic activity. Again, his answer was an unequivocal ‘no’ (start at the 10:23 mark):
BRIAN SULLIVAN: Bill Ellsworth, looking at a very reputable site right now on the web, I’m not going to say it by name because, listen, we all make mistakes. His executive summary point is geologists have made direct links between fracking and recent earthquakes. That sounds like you’re saying that is completely an incorrect statement.
BILL ELLSWORTH: It is incorrect. What we’ve found is there is a link between disposal of waste water and earthquakes. And in many of these cases, it’s been fixed by either shutting down the offending well or reducing the volume that’s being produced. So there are really straight-forward fixes to the problem when earthquakes begin to occur. (emphasis added)
(For his part, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D) said earlier in that CNBC segment: “That connection [between hydraulic fracturing and earthquakes] has not been established.” Richardson, who also served as Secretary of the Department of Energy under President Bill Clinton, also criticized opponents of simply trying to find a “gotcha statement” to advance a political agenda. Well said, Governor.)
This follows what Bill Leith — with the Earthquake Hazards Program in the U.S. Geological Survey — said in an NPR interview late last year and as reported by the Washington Times: “The fracking itself probably does not put enough energy into the ground to trigger an earthquake,” Leith said, who has also noted that the culprit appears to be wastewater wells. For some additional context, wastewater wells aren’t just used by the oil and gas industry, but by just about every other significant industry in the country.
But why let such inconvenient facts get in the way of spinning yet another frightening narrative about hydraulic fracturing upending the natural order of the world? Indeed, as the largest newspaper in Oklahoma observed, the opposition didn’t even need the USGS to issue a “gotcha statement,” because their premise is that correlation trumps causation:
“For the anti-fossil fuel activists, the two things can’t be separated. Earthquakes are increasing. Fracking is increasing. Ergo, fracking is causing earthquakes. To stop the earthquakes, we must stop the fracking!”
Indeed, it may be a lot of things to use the recent USGS findings to link hydraulic fracturing and earthquakes — convenient, sensational, and even scary.
Factual, however, is something it definitely is not.
The ‘Promised Land’ Problem for Activists
The real losers in the “Promised Land” debacle are the environmental activists who pinned their hopes on a Hollywood movie to make the case against hydraulic fracturing. By promoting a work of fiction as “real life,” the activists proved just how little they care about the facts. They gambled that nobody would notice their dishonesty if “Promised Land” was a runaway success. But when the movie failed, the activists lost their bet, and their credibility along with it.
Simon
Research Director
**NOTE: This piece originally ran on January 31, 2013, at Colorado Energy News.**
“Promised Land,” the anti-drilling movie starring Matt Damon, has officially backfired on environmental activists. They hoped the film would take the box office by storm, win an Oscar, and persuade the overwhelming majority of Americans who support domestic oil and gas production to suddenly change their minds. In fact, in the days before the national release of “Promised Land,” the Associated Press reported environmental groups were “positively giddy” about how the film would boost their misinformation campaign to ban hydraulic fracturing and eliminate oil and gas development on American soil. It was even called an “epic film” by Food & Water Watch – the Washington, D.C. group that’s orchestrating most of the anti-energy activism in Colorado.
But “Promised Land” was a flop. It opened nationally in close to 1,700 theaters, but within two weeks, all but 134 theaters had dropped the movie due to low ticket sales. According to the L.A. Times, “Promised Land” cost $15 million to produce, but by late January, it grossed less than $8 million at the box office. Adding insult to financial injury, the movie got bad reviews, failed to win a single nomination during awards season, and is less popular on Facebook than RealPromisedLand.org, a website my colleagues and I practically built with duct tape and baling wire to tell the other side of the story. And even before the film was released, it was revealed “Promised Land” received financial support from the United Arab Emirates, a member of the OPEC foreign oil cartel with a clear interest in suppressing U.S. energy production.
The real losers in the “Promised Land” debacle, however, are the environmental activists who pinned their hopes on a Hollywood movie to make the case against hydraulic fracturing. By promoting a work of fiction as “real life,” the activists proved just how little they care about the facts. They gambled that nobody would notice their dishonesty if “Promised Land” was a runaway success and deceived the public into opposing a fundamentally safe technology that’s creating jobs, boosting the economy, bolstering the nation’s energy security and cutting people’s energy bills. But when the movie failed, the activists lost their bet, and their credibility along with it.
Unfortunately, this probably won’t stop activist groups from peddling their fictional talking points as they continue to try to mislead citizens, elected officials, state regulators and the news media. So, in the interests of promoting a serious discussion about oil and gas development in Colorado, here are some of the worst examples of those talking points and just some of the facts that explain why they’re wrong.
CREDO Action: “Fracking is inherently dangerous.”
That’s not true, according to President Obama’s Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, a former Colorado senator and attorney general. “There’s a lot of hysteria that takes place now with respect to hydraulic fracking,” Salazar told Congress last year. “My point of view, based on my own study of hydraulic fracking, is that it can be done safely and has been done safely hundreds of thousands of times.” Salazar’s comments match the conclusions of a report from the U.S. Department of Energy and the Ground Water Protection Council, which found hydraulic fracturing is “safe and effective” and a “key technology” for producing affordable energy in America.
Sierra Club: “Fracking contaminates groundwater.”
Not true. Hydraulic fracturing takes place thousands of feet below ground, in many cases more than a mile underground. According to Stanford University geophysicist Mark Zoback, an adviser to U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, there has never been a case of fracturing fluids migrating through thousands of feet of impermeable rock into shallow drinking water wells. The process “is typically done at depths of around 6,000 to 7,000 feet, and drinking water is usually pumped from shallow aquifers, no more than one or two hundred feet below the surface,” Zoback says. “Fracturing fluids have not contaminated any water supply and with that much distance to an aquifer, it is very unlikely they could.” Zoback’s view has been affirmed by U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson a number of times, and by a recent study from the U.S.Geological Survey in Louisiana’s Fayetteville Shale, which found “no groundwater contamination associated with gas production” from hydraulic fracturing. And in Colorado, Gov. John Hickenlooper has said after testing thousands of the state’s water wells, “we can’t find frack fluid in the water.”
Save Colorado from Fracking: “How can we afford to have millions of gallons of water wasted by fracking?”
Environmental activists in Colorado and other Western states have a clear strategy to manipulate the fear of drought and water shortages into fear of the oil and gas industry. But it’s a dishonest line of attack that takes the “millions of gallons of water” used in the hydraulic fracturing process completely out of context.
Colorado’s water use can be measured in trillions of gallons, and according to a joint report from three state agencies, “the amount of water currently used for hydraulic fracturing in Colorado is a small portion of the total amount of water used.” In fact, the report finds hydraulic fracturing accounts for 0.08 percent of the state’s water consumption. Compared to other sources, this is one-fifth the amount used by power plants, roughly 100 times less than municipal and industrial demand, and 1,000 times less than agriculture, the state’s biggest water user. Hydraulic fracturing’s water use is expected to rise in the next few years, but only to “slightly more than one-tenth of one percent of the total water used,” according to the report.
The activists also leave out another critical factor from their talking points – water intensity, or the amount of water consumed for every unit of energy produced. Researchers at Harvard University studied the water intensity of natural gas produced from deep shale formations with the help of hydraulic fracturing and found it was 1,000 times lower than the water intensity of renewable biofuels, such as ethanol. Why? Because the hydraulic fracturing process lasts only a matter of days, but shale gas wells keep producing energy for many years, which dramatically lowers water intensity. “The increased role of shale gas in the U.S. energy sector could result in reduced water consumption,” the Harvard study said.
In a separate paper, another team of researchers from Colorado State University and oil and gas producer Noble Energy found the water intensity of hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas was “one of the lowest” of all energy sources, and “comparable with solar energy.”
Food & Water Watch: “Air quality [on the Front Range] is 10 times worse than Houston, Texas, as a result of oil and gas drilling.”
This is completely false. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency closely monitors ground-level ozone or smog in 41 major metropolitan areas. Houston is near the bottom of the list, ranked 33rd in air quality, while the nine-county Denver area ties for second place.
That doesn’t make Denver’s air quality perfect, of course. Like any big city with large numbers of cars, trucks, power plants and industrial facilities, it has smog. But emissions from oil and gas development, which are tightly regulated under state and federal law, are not making the problem worse. “In recent years, the trend has been downward,” with average smog levels that “fluctuate within the amount of variance seen for the last several years,” according to a statewide report from the Colorado’s Air Pollution Control Division. EPA data also show similar fluctuations around Denver, with a recent decline. These smog observations were recorded during a major expansion of energy production in Colorado. For example, from 2006 to 2011, oil and natural gas production in Colorado increased by 59 percent and 36 percent respectively.
Food & Water Watch: “Fracking drives down property values.”
If this were true, then Colorado’s real estate market would have been hit harder by the 2007-2009 national collapse in housing prices, and would have recovered more slowly than other parts of the country, because oil and gas production increased dramatically during this time.
The facts tell a very different story. According to NBC News, Colorado real estate “was not badly damaged when the housing bubble broke,” and the state has the fifth-strongest housing market in the country. In the Denver metropolitan area, economic development officials say home prices “have weathered the market’s recent weakness much better than prices nationwide,” and increased by more than 11 percent last year. Meanwhile in Weld County, which has about 19,000 oil and gas wells, the statistics tell a story that’s just as good or even a little better. In the county that has more oil and gas wells than any other county in the U.S., median home prices rose by 12 percent last year, according to IRES MLS data.
This is no surprise, of course. The real estate market does better when the economy does better, and according to Englewood-based consulting firm, IHS, the energy production tied to hydraulic fracturing makes a huge contribution to the state’s economy. It supports 77,000 jobs, adds $11 billion in economic value and generates $1.4 billion in Colorado state and local taxes each year.
Increased Oil and Gas Setback Requirements are Coming to a State Near You: Key Legal and Practical Concerns
The Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (“COGCC”) is in the midst of developing new rules that will increase setback and other requirements placed on oil and gas operations within the state. Rulemakings of this nature present thorny legal issues for regulatory officials as well as numerous difficult practical considerations for industry, landowners, municipalities, and environmental groups. The experience in Colorado has highlighted several key legal and practical concerns that will almost certainly exist in any state oil and gas setback rulemaking.
John R. Jacus and Eric Waeckerlin
Attorneys, Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP in Denver, Colorado.
Ceding to increased public concern and pressure over hydraulic fracturing, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (“COGCC”) is in the midst of developing new rules that will increase setback and other requirements placed on oil and gas operations within the state (COGCC also recently passed a baseline groundwater monitoring rule, which is less controversial). Given the intense nationwide focus on the oil and gas industry brought about by concerns over hydraulic fracturing, industry can expect similar regulatory focus across other oil and gas states. Rulemakings of this nature present thorny legal issues for regulatory officials as well as numerous difficult practical considerations for industry, landowners, municipalities, and environmental groups. The experience in Colorado has highlighted several key legal and practical concerns that will almost certainly exist in any state oil and gas setback rulemaking.
Constitutional Concerns
Promulgating or increasing the stringency of existing setback requirements implicates several constitutional concerns. For example, increased setback and other requirements that affect where, when, and how an operator can drill can impair both a landowner’s and an operator’s freedom to contract. Similarly, extending setback distances often creates a regulatory scheme that spills onto adjacent property. When this occurs, setback rules effectively confer legal standing, and potentially veto authority, on adjacent landowners. Such interference risks depriving surface and mineral landowners of the enjoyment of their property rights, potentially implicating regulatory and other takings concerns. Setback rules must also address existing wells and avoid retroactive application that would violate constitutional prohibitions on ex post facto laws.
Statutory Authority
A state regulatory agency, such as the COGCC, derives its authority exclusively from state law. State law typically confers both general and specific authority upon its regulatory agencies. For example, the Colorado the Oil and Gas Conservation Act (“the Act”) grants the COGCC broad authority to regulate oil and gas drilling (e.g., “The commission has jurisdiction over all persons and property, public and private, necessary to enforce the provisions of this article”). At the same time, the Act limits this broad authority by listing specific activities the COGCC may regulate (e.g., the manner of drilling, recordkeeping, spacing, well classification etc.). One of those specific activities is the authority to require notice, which under the Act (and other laws), runs only to surface owners. It is questionable whether the Act confers authority on the COGCC to require notice (or other requirements) to run to non-surface, i.e., adjacent, owners.
In addition, most state legislation also requires regulatory action to balance competing legislative preferences—in this case, encouraging responsible oil and gas development in a manner consistent with protection of public health and the environment. Without supporting evidence that the protection of public health and the environment is either necessary or achieved by increased setback distances (see discussion below), a setback rule that effectively limits development risks not achieving this legislatively-mandated balance.
Where’s the Science?
Increased setbacks and other regulations, as a general rule, remove flexibility and increase transactional costs. They tend to insert bureaucracy and expand the ability of adjacent landowners, interest groups, and municipalities to direct or influence oil and gas operations. Yet, the critical question, which as a matter of law must be asked and answered by the regulatory agency, is: what benefit is being achieved by the additional regulations? With respect to setbacks, while proximity to sensitive populations such as schools, hospitals, or elderly residences may present a unique case, it remains a fact that very little (if any) scientific evidence or data supports increasing setback distances from either a public health or environmental standpoint.
For example, a June 2008 air sampling analysis by Quality Environmental Professional Associates in Colorado, concluded that the risk of benzene exposure downwind from four well pads was 18 in one million, compared to the risk of benzene exposure in an urban setting of 98 in one million and the risk of benzene exposure due to off-gassing from home furnishings of 15 in one million. Another study by the Texas Department of State Health Service in 2012, including urine and blood samples of 28 people near the town of Dish (in the Barnett Shale), concluded that the detection of Volatile Organic Compounds (“VOCs”) was likely to have been caused by smoking tobacco or using common household products and was not consistent with community-wide exposure to airborne contaminants. A January 2011 report issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) “did not identify concentrations of any compound that would likely trigger air-related health issues associated with Marcellus Shale drilling activities.” A 2008 assessment of the Barnett Shale reviewed aggregate health statistics in Denton County, Texas (also near Dish). The researchers concluded that “even as natural gas development expanded significantly in the area of the past several years, key indicators of health improved across every major category during those times.” Other studies have come to similar conclusions. Moreover, none of these studies take into consideration additional oil and gas air emission control requirements recently enacted under federal law, and increasingly required under various state laws.
From a regulatory perspective, the point is not that such studies should not be conducted or that a better understanding of the potential health and environmental risks from oil and gas operations is not a worthy goal. Rather, the point is that, in terms of lawful regulatory action, regulations must be grounded in science, supported by evidence, and bear a rational connection to information in the record. These are fundamental tenets of administrative law. A rule, like the Colorado setback rule, that purports to provide public health and environmental benefits, but which lacks any scientific basis or support (and may even contradict the accumulating scientific evidence) is likely to be challenged and/or struck down as arbitrary and capricious agency action.
Conclusion
The story in Colorado has yet to conclude. The public process of the setback rulemaking will wrap up in the next several weeks, and additional setback regulations will be put in place. It is possible that some of the problems discussed above will result in legal challenges to the resulting COGCC rule. Whether the rule will survive these challenges remains to be seen. Regardless, similar or identical legal and practical concerns will present themselves in most if not all states that look to pass similar setback regulations. For this reason, it will be important for operators across the country to pay attention to developments in Colorado.
John R. Jacus and Eric Waeckerlin are attorneys in the Environmental Law Group at Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP in Denver, Colorado.
Shale and HF: A 50 State Jobs Plan
When we talk about shale development, states like Maine and Connecticut aren’t normally a part of the conversation. But this week, a new report shows that the benefits of shale development extend all across the nation – even in states without any actual shale resources to speak of.
Dana
Staff Geologist
When we talk about shale development, states like Maine and Connecticut aren’t normally a part of the conversation. But this week, a new report shows that the benefits of shale development extend all across the nation – even in states without any actual shale resources to speak of.
The second stage of a study co-sponsored by the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for 21st Century Energy takes an in-depth look at the state-by-state economic contributions of shale development. Here are some of the key findings:
- By 2015, shale and unconventional energy will be responsible for 2.5 million jobs; by 2020, 3 million jobs; and by 2035, 3.5 million jobs
- In 2012, shale energy development was responsible for $62 billion in tax revenue
- Between now and 2035, shale energy development is expected to contribute more than $2.5 trillion in total tax revenue—about half of which will go to the federal government, which last we checked was trying to formulate long-term policies to reduce a mammoth national debt (hint, hint!)
- Overall, between now and 2035, the energy industry will invest more than $5.1 trillion in energy development in the United States.
Certainly some welcomed news for the American economy, and even better news for state coffers. Producing states have seen a surge in employment with tens or even hundreds of thousands of new jobs coming online. In Texas, shale development has created over 575,000 jobs to date, which is expected to grow to nearly 930,000 in 2020. Close behind is Pennsylvania with 102,600 jobs, California with 96,500, Louisiana with 78,900 and Colorado with 77,600. And by 2020 those numbers all nearly double. No wonder USA TODAY found that “of all the places that America’s new jobs are, the emerging energy business, directly or indirectly, might be responsible for more of them than almost anything else.”
And as for revenues, production is generating billions of dollars for state’s, allowing for new (and much needed) investment in schools, hospitals, roadways and more. In California, 2012 production generated nearly $3 billion in taxes for state and federal coffers, which is roughly the equivalent of 10 percent of the state’s deficit. Colorado also saw $3 billion brought into the state, Louisiana $2.5 billion, and North Dakota a whopping $6.8 billion – with expected growth to $13 billion in 2020.
Even non-producing states are seeing major benefits as a result of shale development. As the report highlights, “less well-known are the economic benefits that accrue to non-producing states that lack oil and gas resources but nonetheless host firms that sell goods and services that are critical to the lengthy supply chain supporting unconventional oil and gas development.” Some of the biggest winners are New York with 44,400 jobs, Illinois with 38,600, Michigan with 37,800, Missouri 37,700, and Florida 36,500. Even Connecticut is seeing growth with 8,300 jobs in the state already supported by production, and an estimated 14,100 by 2035. And with many of those states having shale deposits of their own, it’s only a matter of time before even more job opportunities find their way to areas in desperate need of them.
From new public revenues to jobs for American workers, shale development is truly reinvigorating the American economy – even where we don’t expect it. Make sure to check out the Chamber’s rollover map to see how shale may be bringing these benefits to your state today.
Read more:
ISSUE ALERT: Shale Putting America Back In Motion (10/24)
ISSUE ALERT: Development of Shale has Saved Consumers $250 Billion Since ’09 (5/29)
EID-ILLINOIS: Hydraulic Fracturing Could Create 47,000 New Illinois Jobs (12/13)
This is What Recovery Looks Like
President Obama’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner recently offered an interesting assessment of the state of the U.S. economy – one worth remembering as we debate the future of energy policy. “The economy now is actually looking quite resilient,” Geithner told NBC News, before adding that two of the biggest reasons are domestic oil and gas production and domestic manufacturing. “If you look at what’s happening in energy, enormous boom,” Geithner said. “In manufacturing, [the country is having] one of the strongest periods in manufacturing revival that we’ve seen in almost a generation.”
Simon
Research Director
***Originally published in Niobrara Report***
President Obama’s Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner recently offered an interesting assessment of the state of the U.S. economy – one worth remembering as we debate the future of energy policy.
“The economy now is actually looking quite resilient,” Geithner told NBC News, before adding that two of the biggest reasons are domestic oil and gas production and domestic manufacturing. “If you look at what’s happening in energy, enormous boom,” Geithner said. “In manufacturing, [the country is having] one of the strongest periods in manufacturing revival that we’ve seen in almost a generation.”
It’s not a mere coincidence that energy and manufacturing are surging together. Earlier this year, the Geneva-based World Economic Forum released a report which found “the availability of a secure supply of low-cost natural gas in the United States is restoring a global competitive advantage for many domestic gas-intensive industries.” In fact, companies that make steel, aluminum, glass, cement and other products “are beginning to invest in the expansion of their U.S. operations based on the availability of low cost gas” from deep shale formations, according to the WEF.
These findings echoed an earlier analysis by international consulting firm Price/Waterhouse/Coopers. “An underappreciated part of the shale gas story is the substantial cost benefit to manufacturers,” PWC said in a December 2011 report. Factories consume about one-third of all the energy produced in the United States, so “this relatively abundant domestic energy source has the potential to drive an uptick in U.S. manufacturing over the long term and create new jobs in the sector.”
This isn’t just a theory. It’s real, and the men and women of the oil and gas industry are making it happen. For example, Encana Oil & Gas recently closed a $3.6 billion deal to provide steelmaker Nucor with natural gas from Colorado’s Western Slope for more than 20 years. Nucor needs an affordable and reliable supply of gas to support a new $3.4 billion facility in Convent, La. The new plant is expected to create as many as 1,250 jobs, with average salaries of $75,000 a year, according to estimates from Louisiana state officials. But the impact of this long-term gas deal will be felt across all of Nucor’s operations, which span more than 20 states. The company says with this deal, it should have access to “enough natural gas to equal Nucor’s usage at all of our steel mills in the U.S.” That means the jobs of roughly 12,000 Nucor employees across the country are more secure today because of natural gas produced in Colorado.
The Encana-Nucor agreement is just part of a much bigger trend. According to PWC’s shale-gas report, U.S. manufacturers stand to save $11.6 billion a year in energy costs, and demand for their products will rise thanks to the growing demand for the materials and equipment needed to produce and deliver domestic oil and gas. This will likely create one million more U.S. manufacturing jobs by 2025, PWC says. Some of America’s largest and most iconic manufacturing companies are welcoming the good news after many challenging years. “It has become clear to me that the responsible development of our nation’s extensive recoverable oil and natural gas resources has the potential to be the once-in-a-lifetime economic engine that coal was nearly 200 years ago,” said John Surma, the chairman of Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel, said earlier this year.
In fact, domestic natural gas production has dramatically cut the nation’s dependence on coal. Ten years ago, coal-fired power plants generated 50 percent of the nation’s electricity. Today, coal’s share has fallen to 37 percent, as electricity generated from gas-fired power plants has increased, according to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Gas-fired plants emit about half as much carbon as coal-fired facilities, and the EIA says that’s helped push the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions to 20-year lows. For Americans who are concerned about the impact of carbon emissions on the climate, this is exceedingly good news, and it simply could not have happened without the combination of hydraulic fracturing and advanced drilling technologies to get natural gas out of shale and other tight rock formations.
The construction of more power plants that run on natural gas also supports the expansion of renewable energy sources, such as wind farms and solar arrays. The Obama administration says the country “has nearly doubled renewable energy generation from wind, solar, and geothermal resources” in the past four years, a period which also saw large increases in gas-fired electricity. According to the Paris-based International Energy Agency, “natural gas has an important role to play in complementing low-carbon energy solutions by providing the flexibility needed to support a growing renewables component in power generation.”
By “flexibility,” the IEA means that wind and solar need other power sources to back them up quickly when weather conditions change. And according to a 2010 report from Colorado energy officials, natural gas is the “quick-starting fuel” for the job. “Reducing the time needed to bring power online allows utilities to acquire power from intermittent sources such as wind and solar,” the report says. “This increased generation flexibility ultimately will allow use of more renewable sources, which will further improve air quality, improve human health and reduce environmental impacts.”
The report was prepared in connection with the Clean Air-Clean Jobs Act, which passed the Colorado legislature in 2010 with broad bipartisan support and the backing of industry and environmental groups.
The law called for the closure of old coal-fired power plants, which would have needed hundreds of millions of dollars in new pollution controls to meet air quality standards, and their replacement with cleaner and highly efficient natural gas turbines. The law also authorized a competitive bidding process which led to Xcel Energy signing a long-term natural gas supply contract with Anadarko Petroleum Corp. By allowing for “higher penetrations of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar,” the Clean Air-Clean Jobs Act is “a critical component of Colorado’s much-heralded New Energy Economy,” which includes a renewable electricity standard of 30 percent by 2020, the report says.
It’s clear that domestic energy production is supporting the U.S. economic recovery, creating jobs, and benefiting the environment. But all this progress is threatened by reckless calls from fringe environmental groups to ban hydraulic fracturing, because they claim it’s unsafe. This claim isn’t based on facts, just an ideology that wants to eliminate domestic oil and gas development, no matter where it takes place or how it’s done.
As the energy debate continues, let’s keep in mind another assessment from a member of President Obama’s cabinet, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a former Colorado senator and attorney general. “There’s a lot of hysteria that takes place now with respect to hydraulic fracking, and you see that happening in many of the states,” Salazar testifiedto Congress earlier this year. “My point of view, based on my own study of hydraulic fracking, is that it can be done safely and has been done safely hundreds of thousands of times.”
Key Concessions You’ll Never Hear About in New TEDX Air Report
When you add up the TEDX paper’s flaws, it’s hard to see what scientific purpose it serves. It includes air quality measurements, but makes no connection between those measurements and nearby wellsites. Those measurements also show air quality levels are safe. The rest of the paper is mostly unsupported opinion and speculation from a group with a clear agenda against natural gas development.
Simon
Research Director
No doubt concerned about recent reports linking increased natural gas consumption in the United States to falling greenhouse gas emissions, as well as a rash of stories highlighting industry efforts to convert rigs and other wellsite equipment over to natural gas – reducing emissions even further – anti-shale activists have been working hard to score some press coverage for a new paper about natural gas development and air. The report, available here, was produced by The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX), a Colorado-based group led by Theo Colborn, one of the stars of Josh Fox’s anti-industry film Gasland.
TEDX says it took air quality samples near a newly developed natural gas pad in western Colorado, reviewed the results, and determined the “human and environmental health impacts … should be examined further given that the natural gas industry is now operating in close proximity to human residences and public lands.” For the activists, this is just the latest evidence that oil and gas development, and especially hydraulic fracturing, poses an unacceptable risk to public health, and thus should be stopped.
Of course, in reality, the paper doesn’t actually say that – and provides no evidence in support of that case. Instead, the paper cleverly presents opinion and speculation in a way that, the authors hope, will bait news reporters into writing scary-sounding stories about the industry. Here are the details:
No connection to gas wells
Starting with the title, and throughout the paper, the authors insinuate that natural gas wells are responsible for what they found in their air quality samples. But then they make the following admission:
“The chemicals reported in this exploratory study cannot, however, be causally connected to natural gas operations.” p. 8
Strangely, the authors don’t bother to explain why a study about air quality near natural gas operations failed to connect air quality with natural gas operations. Perhaps they wanted to avoid a detailed discussion about why only two days of “baseline” samples were taken, and why an inadequate baseline could result in natural gas wells being blamed for pollution that actually came from other sources, including Interstate-70, located just 1.1 miles away.
If this methodology sounds familiar, that’s because the authors of another highly criticized paper on gas wells in western Colorado also decided the best location to sample was less than a mile from I-70, so exhaust fumes from thousands of cars and trucks could be blamed instead on natural gas development. Blaming gas wells for tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks was also the modus operandi of another Gasland star, Al Armendariz, the author of a discredited 2009 paper that claimed emissions from oil and gas development in the Dallas Fort-Worth area were higher than emissions from all the region’s motor vehicles. Armendariz later became the U.S. EPA’s Region 6 Administrator, and then resigned in April 2012 after he was caught on camera saying his philosophy as a regulator was to “crucify” natural gas operators. He now works for an activist group, the Sierra Club, that wants to eliminate the oil and gas industry.
Safe air quality readings
After conceding that the TEDX paper makes no connection between natural gas wells and air quality, the authors make another admission:
“The concentrations at which these chemicals were detected in the air are far less than U.S. government safety standards…” p. 11
So, a study about air quality near natural gas operations also failed to find any violations of air quality standards. Instead, the authors just argue that in their opinion, they don’t believe those government standards are good enough. In fact, the authors provide no evidence of actual health impacts tied to the gas wells they studied, and their only source for challenging those government safety standards is another paper co-written by Theo Colborn, which doesn’t have anything to do with natural gas development.
Anti-industry bias
Since this paper presents no evidence of unsafe air quality readings that can be blamed on natural gas wells, it’s conclusions really come down to the opinions of the authors and their employer, TEDX. A quick tour of the TEDX website shows those opinions are more ideological than scientific:
“All meaningful environmental oversight and regulation of the natural gas production was removed by the executive branch and Congress … [T]he gas industry is steamrolling over vast land segments in the West. … From the air it appears as a spreading, cancer-like network of dirt roads over vast acreage, contributing to desertification.”
So, TEDX is an organization that has a very negative opinion of the industry, and even advertises this anti-industry bias on its website. No wonder the authors of the TEDX paper were undaunted by the lack of evidence to support their insinuations: their minds were already made up.
It’s also worth noting that one of TDEX’s major benefactors, the New York Community Trust, also has some strong opinions on the subject. The NYCT currently funds a number of groups opposed to natural gas development, and according to the group’s website, it has given TEDX at least $425,000 since 2005. In April, NYCT said the following things about hydraulic fracturing and shale development while boasting about the money it had given to anti-industry lobbying groups:
“You’ve probably heard the horror stories from Pennsylvania, Wyoming, and Texas about poisoned wells, sickened communities, and flammable tap water caused by horizontal hydraulic fracturing. … In other states, unknowing families drank and showered in this water and suffered a range of ailments, including permanent brain damage. … When you’re dealing with flammables, toxic chemicals, and drinking water for millions, the potential for disaster is great.”
So, the TEDX paper was written by a team of researchers who have already decided for themselves that hydraulic fracturing is unsafe, and one of their biggest funders also believes hydraulic fracturing is unsafe. Are we expected to believe that the conclusions of this paper were ever in doubt?
As for NYCT’s “horror stories,” let’s compare this panic-inducing rhetoric with the February 2012 congressional testimony of President Obama’s Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a former U.S. Senator and Attorney General from Colorado who oversees oil and gas development on roughly 700 million acres of federal mineral estate:
“There’s a lot of hysteria that takes place now with respect to hydraulic fracking, and you see that happening in many of the states. … My point of view, based on my own study of hydraulic fracking, is that it can be done safely and has been done safely hundreds of thousands of times.”
Wrong on the basics
Besides the obvious anti-industry bias, the lead author of this paper – zoologist, former World Wildlife Fund employee and TEDX president Theo Colborn – is also just plain wrong about the regulatory safeguards in place designed to protect public health. According to the Glenwood Springs Post Independent, which published a news item on the TEDX paper, Colborn believes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “has been locked out of scrutiny of the oil and gas industry by the 2005 Clean Water Act exemptions enacted by the Bush administration.”
On the TEDX website, Colborn elaborates in a video presentation, which further claims the George W. Bush administration imposed “a moratorium on the use of federal environmental laws to regulate natural gas activity.”
Really? Let’s check those assertions against a report from the U.S. Department of Energy and the state-led Ground Water Protection Council, which was compiled during both the Bush and Obama administrations:
“The development and production of oil and gas in the U.S., including shale gas, are regulated under a complex set of federal, state, and local laws that address every aspect of exploration and operation. All of the laws, regulations, and permits that apply to conventional oil and gas exploration and production activities also apply to shale gas development.” p. ES-2
“A series of federal laws governs most environmental aspects of shale gas development. For example, the Clean Water Act regulates surface discharges of water associated with shale gas drilling and production, as well as storm water runoff from production sites. The Safe Drinking Water Act regulates the underground injection of fluids from shale gas activities. The Clean Air Act limits air emissions from engines, gas processing equipment, and other sources associated with drilling and production. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that exploration and production on federal lands be thoroughly analyzed for environmental impacts.” p. ES-3
When the lead author of the TEDX paper makes statements about natural gas regulation that are so completely at odds with what federal and state regulators have been saying for years, it undermines TEDX’s credibility and makes it clear that that ideology, rather than evidence, is driving the group’s research.
Playing to the media
When you add up the TEDX paper’s flaws, it’s hard to see what scientific purpose it serves. It includes air quality measurements, but makes no connection between those measurements and nearby wellsites. Those measurements also show air quality levels are safe. The rest of the paper is mostly unsupported opinion and speculation from a group with a clear agenda against development.
So what’s the real motive behind TEDX’s “research” agenda, and who is the real audience for its work? Theo Colborn herself made that pretty clear in March while speaking at an event hosted by another anti-industry activist group:
“Somehow, some way, we need to get drilling and all the other sources of the pollution into the headlines, along with fracking. We’ve got to work on the media on this.” (at 23:25)
Ask yourself – is that the voice of an objective, independent scientist, or someone who manufactures talking points for a PR campaign against domestic oil and gas production?
*UPDATE II* Four Key Facts on the NOAA Shale Study
To hear the folks at Nature and the Denver Post tell it, a recent study from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado proves that producers in the Denver-Julesburg Basin of northeast Colorado are losing four percent of their total production of natural gas. But what is the extent to which NOAA’s conclusions are even relevant anymore in a modern operating context, given that most of the agency’s data is nearly half a decade old?
JD
Communications Director
UPDATE II (10/15/2012, 10:46am) — Michael Levi has a new paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research in which he finds NOAA’s methane leakage estimates to be “unsupportable” based on what he terms the “wrong interpretation” of the data. NOAA famously — or perhaps infamously — claimed leakage was as high as 7.7 percent, with an average of about four percent. Levi, however, finds the rate to be a fraction of that: one to two percent, which is in line with what other credible studies have found. Among NOAA’s errors of analysis, according to Levi, is that “Colorado has imposed tough rules on methane emissions since the NOAA data was collected in 2008,” a fact that we at EID also highlighted shortly after release of the paper in February (see below).
UPDATE (5/18/2012, 4:54pm) – NOAA’s paper on methane emissions from the Denver-Julesburg Basin was touted this week by NPR as a major clue in the ongoing “detective story” about how much natural gas is lost during the production, transmission and distribution of oil and gas. Like many other news outlets, NPR does its best to portray methane emissions from oil and gas as a mysterious, lurking threat to the environment:
“A lot of research shows power plants pump out fewer greenhouse gases when they run on gas instead of coal. But no one really knows how much natural gas leaks out when companies are drilling for gas and getting it to power plants. Natural gas is primarily methane. …
Methane is very effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere. And already, natural gas production is the biggest manmade U.S. source of methane. …
The way it is now, the Environmental Protection Agency relies on estimates of methane emissions. They’re based on some measurements of emissions from individual pieces of equipment and lots of complicated math.”
Chilling. Especially the part about complicated math. There’s just one problem – the story about methane emissions isn’t scary at all, once you hear the facts that NPR left out.
True, the EPA’s current estimates say oil and gas systems are the nation’s “largest human-made source of methane emissions.” But even so, the estimated total is still a tiny fraction of overall U.S. greenhouse gas emissions – only 3.8 percent, according to the EPA.
Here’s another less-than-scary plot twist – that estimate is inflated, so the real level of methane emissions is much lower. Here’s what analysts at IHS CERA and URS Corp. have said about EPA’s estimates:
“[I]ts estimates of methane emissions are dramatically overstated and it would be unwise to use them as a basis for policymaking. … [T]he estimates are not credible…” (IHS CERA report, p. 3)
“It appears that the EPA’s [completion estimate] for unconventional fractured wells is potentially overestimated by 1200%.” (URS Corp. report, p. 4)
NPR also failed to mention that oil and gas systems only became the EPA’s number-one source of methane emissions when the agency arbitrarily doubled its estimate last year. Before the EPA simply changed a few numbers in a spreadsheet, farm animals were the biggest source of methane emissions. But that kind of detail might invoke sympathy towards the oil and gas industry – or menace towards cows – so NPR decided to leave it out.
NPR also concealed from its audience that oil and gas companies are monitoring their methane emissions today, in accordance with the EPA’s newly established mandatory GHG registry. The first reports will be submitted to the EPA in September, and this huge data set will provide unprecedented clarity about the real level of methane emissions. But that’s less-than-scary, and the regulation that requires the monitoring has a boring name that sounds like part of the tax code – Subpart W. So NPR just left all those facts out, too.
As for NOAA’s paper, NPR spends considerable time profiling the author, detailing her “painstaking, on-the-ground detective work” and finding frightening ways to describe her findings, like “very high levels of methane gas” and “chemical cocktail.” EID has no quarrel with Gabrielle Pétron. In fact, we’re glad Pétron went to the trouble of having her findings peer reviewed, unlike some other NOAA scientists in Colorado.
But nowhere does NPR mention any of the study’s shortcomings. As EID has detailed previously (see below), the measurements in this study predate Colorado regulations that required major cuts in smog-forming emissions and methane. In effect, that means the study’s findings significantly overstate the real level of methane emissions from Colorado oil and gas operations today. NPR also omitted another less-than-scary fact about the NOAA study. The “very high levels” of methane were actually lower than NOAA recorded at another observation tower in the middle of the Chequamegon National Forest in Wisconsin.
Perhaps worst of all, NPR also failed to mention that the EPA recently finalized federal regulations for oil and gas development that will lead to major reductions in methane emissions. That’s right – on top of monitoring methane, the federal government is demanding oil and gas companies cut those emissions, too. While the industry still has major concerns about the workability of the new EPA rules, it’s hard to imagine why a news report about methane emissions would fail to mention a new regulatory program that will cut methane emissions. Unless, of course, it makes for a scarier story if you talk about potential problems as if there are no solutions.
—Original post, Feb. 23, 2012—
To hear the folks at Nature and the Denver Post tell it, a recent study from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado proves that producers in the Denver-Julesburg Basin of northeast Colorado are losing four percent of their total production of natural gas – frittered away, right into thin air. Some have even suggested the study validates the Howarth paper from last year, including the discredited professor himself.
Unfortunately for Prof. Howarth, the deeper you dig into the DJ Basin report, the clearer it becomes that the NOAA paper isn’t at all comparable to the Howarth paper – mostly, for starters, because they study two entirely different things. What’s far less clear: the extent to which NOAA’s conclusions are even relevant anymore in a modern operating context, given that most of the agency’s data is nearly half a decade old.
Below, we identify a few key facts from the NOAA paper that, taken together, provide some additional context for those who care to consider it:
Key Fact I: Overstates emissions from largest source
- The study claims that large and small condensate tanks are “estimated to be the largest VOC fossil fuel production source category (59% and 9% respectively)” (NOAA study, p. 6-7).
- The mobile lab samples analyzed for the study were taken in 2008. But in February 2009, new regulations for the state of Colorado went into effect that included requirements on condensate tanks, including the use of surveillance systems and auto-igniters to dramatically reduce emissions. (Code of Colorado Regulations, 5 CCR 1001-9, XII).
- Colorado’s Air Pollution Control Division: “New and existing condensate tanks emitting 20 tons per year or more of VOCs [are] required to control emissions by 95 percent.” In Weld County, the area of study for the NOAA report, the APCD notes that VOCs must be controlled by 70 to 90 percent. (APCD, accessed on February 22, 2012).
- U.S. EPA: Reducing VOCs will “yield a significant environmental co-benefit by reducing methane emissions” as well (EPA, July 2011 [PDF]). The EPA also assessed that its plan to reduce VOCs by 25 percent would yield a nearly equivalent (26 percent) reduction in methane. Clearly there’s a strong correlation between VOC-reducing technologies and reducing methane emissions.
- Plainly put, the largest source of emissions for Weld County is today, by law, much more tightly controlled, and emissions have been reduced significantly.
Key Fact II: Overstates emissions from second largest source
- The study claims that pneumatic devices are responsible for roughly 13 percent of VOC emissions, the second largest single source (NOAA study, p. 7).
- But again, the mobile lab data collected by NOAA is from 2008. And the state’s regulations, in addition to covering condensate tanks, also required the utilization of no-bleed or low-bleed pneumatic devices as of February 1, 2009 (with retrofits for existing systems required by May 1, 2009). (Code of Colorado Regulations, 5 CCR 1001-9, XVIII).
- U.S. EPA, on impacts from low-bleed pneumatic devices: “Reductions in methane emissions can range from 45 to 250 Mcf per device per year, depending on the device and the specific application” (EPA, November 2011 [PDF]). The EPA classifies high-bleed pneumatics as any device that emits more than 50 Mcf of methane per year, which means these devices reduce methane emissions by as much as (and often more than) 90 percent.
- Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, on its proposed air emissions regulations: “While the low end of the emission range is a lower threshold than required for other emission sources, industry is already converting most high-bleed devices. Therefore, this proposed regulation represents a reasonably simple means of ensuring further VOC reductions.” (CDPHE, November 2008 [PDF])
- Once again, the NOAA study is relying on data from an operating environment that no longer exists.
Key Fact III: Reports higher methane emissions in a national forest
- For a basis of comparison, the study included emissions data as recorded from several NOAA observation towers throughout the country. These included two in California, two in Colorado (one of which, the Boulder Atmospheric Observatory (BAO) was utilized for data collection in this particular study), and one each in Texas, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin.
- The tower in Wisconsin (LEF) – which is located, according to the NOAA study, “in the middle of the Chequamegon National Forest” (NOAA study, p. 11) – recorded a higher methane level than the BAO tower, which collected air samples from the Denver-Julesburg Basin. Here’s the accompanying chart, with the key items highlighted (click the image for a larger version):
- There could be a legitimate reason for this, but the NOAA study provides no real explanation about why a tower far removed from any industrial activity and located in a federally protected forest would record higher methane emissions.
- The researchers suggest it is difficult to make conclusions about methane levels because methane is a “long-lived gas” (NOAA study, p. 17).
- EPA: Methane has a “relatively short atmospheric lifetime” (EPA, accessed on February 22, 2012)
- NOAA, describing methane: “[I]ts lifetime in the atmosphere is brief.” (NOAA, accessed on February 22, 2012)
Key Fact IV: No comparison with Howarth
- Because the NOAA study appeared to show high methane emissions from natural gas systems, the press immediately began linking it to the widely discredited Cornell study on shale gas emissions. Nature, for example, wrote that the study’s conclusions fall “roughly in line” with the Howarth paper, and even solicited input from Howarth on the study.
- Michael Levi, CFR Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment: “[T]his comparison doesn’t work.” Levi likened such a comparison to one between apples and oranges. (CFR blog, February 13, 2012)
- Gabrielle Pétron, the lead author of the NOAA study, has publicly stated that it cannot be directly compared with Howarth’s paper. From E&E News:
“In the Cornell study, scientists estimate leakage from drilling a well, when a lot of methane is released, followed by production. In the NOAA study, the scientists looked at overall emissions for the entire basin, including new and old wells, producing or being drilled, as well as sources such as leaks from compressors and gathering pipelines. Pétron agreed that the two studies cannot be directly compared.” (E&E News, February 16, 2012 (subs. req’d))
How Earthworks Missed the Mark on State Regulation
Last week, Earthworks released a report that attempted to show lax state regulation of oil and gas development. The purpose was clear: build a case for more federal regulation, and by extension delay approval for additional production – if not ban it outright. Unfortunately for Earthworks, anyone with an Internet connection has access to information that proves Earthworks’ goal was not to shine on a light on a problem, but rather to repeat its old talking points in a new way.
Steve
Spokesman
Last week, Earthworks released a report that attempted to show lax state regulation of oil and gas development. The purpose was clear: build a case for more federal regulation, and by extension delay approval for additional production – if not ban it outright. Unfortunately for Earthworks, anyone with an Internet connection has access to information that proves Earthworks’ goal was not to shine on a light on a problem, but rather to repeat its old talking points in a new way.
That objective was hardly buried or hidden in the document, either. On the second page of the report, Earthworks says, “this work could not have been undertaken without the generous support of The Heinz Endowments.” For those unfamiliar with Heinz, they – along with the Park Foundation – have been one of the chief financial backers of efforts to stop natural gas development. To put this in poker terms, Earthworks revealed its hand before the betting even began.
What’s more amazing, though, is the sheer lack of understanding of the oil and natural gas industry that Earthworks put on display for everyone who read their report. From mischaracterizing state regulatory systems to failing to account for the fact that well pads often have multiple producing wells, Earthworks’ latest report stands high as a monument to mediocrity in the world of anti-drilling activism.
Below you’ll find a list of some of the biggest problems with Earthworks’ report. Feel free to add any other discrepancies or problems in the comments section at the end of the post.
–
PROBLEM 1: Manipulates and misstates data to achieve predetermined result.
- Earthworks: “Every year hundreds of thousands of oil and gas wells – 53 to 91% of wells in the states studied (close to 350,000 active wells in the six states in 2010) – are operating with no inspections to determine whether they are in compliance with state rules.” (p. 8)
FACT: A single inspection of a particular well pad can include multiple wells, and an honest look at the appropriate numbers tells a different story than the narrative Earthworks wants us to believe.
- Colorado – A Multi-Well Pad Represents a Single Field Inspection. According to the COGCC, multi-well pads result in “improved efficiency” for inspections, and they allow COGCC to “inspect multiple wells, separators and tanks at one time, in one stop.” (COGCC, May 31, 2012)
- Earthworks claims that in 2010 there were “more than 43,000 active wells” in Colorado, and there were a “total of 16,228 inspections.” They took the difference in those numbers to claim that “63% of Colorado’s oil and gas wells were not inspected in 2010.” They assumed that each inspection “was conducted at a different well site” – which of course runs counter to what COGCC says it is able to do thanks to multi-well pads!
- One would expect there to be fewer inspections listed than total wells, since several wells would be inspected on a single visit (COGCC describes an eight-well pad in this document, and COGA has a diagram for a six-well pad here). This is an important fact that Earthworks either doesn’t understand, or deliberately refused to acknowledge. In any event, it renders false their calculation on wells “not inspected.”
- Ohio – Earthworks Used Flat Out Wrong Inspection Data. According to Earthworks, in 2010 Ohio conducted 10,472 inspections. But according to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, regulators performed “more than 13,138 site inspections” in 2010. (Ohio DNR, Accessed on October 2, 2012)
- Pennsylvania – Former DEP Secretary Says Report ‘Manipulates’ Data. John Hanger, the former head of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection under Gov. Ed Rendell (D), said the Earthworks report used “many manipulations” in the way it presented data. He notes: “For example, the reader will be told repeatedly in the report that Pennsylvania conducted 15,000 inspections, the 2010 number, and most of the Report’s analysis uses the 15,000 inspection number for Pennsylvania. Yet, buried in an Appendix, one learns that the 2011 inspection number jumped again–up to 22,670. … Again, the analysis in the Report uses the much lower inspection and inspector numbers of 2010, because they produce a “better” result for the authors.” (John Hanger’s Facts of the Day, Sept. 27, 2012)
- Texas – Earthworks Doesn’t Understand State’s Inspection Process. “[Railroad Commissioner Barry] Smitherman said the number has grown to 153 oil and gas field inspectors. He said they conducted 118,484 inspections in fiscal year 2012, which ended Aug. 31, and identified 55,960 violations. He noted that the commission inspects by lease, rather than by well.” (Houston Chronicle, Sept. 25, 2012)
- RRC: Multiple Wells Per Lease. The Texas Railroad Commission also cautions on its website: “Since oil leases can include multiple wells, there may be multiple API numbers associated with one RRC oil lease number.” (RRC, Accessed on October 3, 2012)
PROBLEM 2: Claims state regulatory bodies are ill-equipped and “unprepared” for future or even existing development.
- Earthworks: “Unfortunately, as this report shows, states are dangerously unprepared to oversee current levels of extraction, let alone increased drilling activity from the shale boom.” (p. 8)
- Earthworks: “[I]nspectors are rarely provided with the equipment necessary to catch all of the problems that may be occurring at oil and gas facilities.” (p. 9)
FACT: Experts have confirmed that state regulatory bodies are well-managed and have the tools necessary to do their jobs – and do them right.
- Ohio Regulatory Structure is ‘Well-Managed,’ ‘Meeting Its Program Objectives’. The State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations (STRONGER) found that “the Ohio [regulatory] program is overall, well-managed, professional and meeting its program objectives.” STRONGER added that regulators have “an arsenal of enforcement tools” to assure compliance. (STRONGER, January 2011, p. 4-5)
- Colorado Regulatory Program is ‘Well Managed,’ Meets Guidelines. STRONGER’s most recent assessment of Colorado’s regulations – for which Earthworks’ own Bruce Baizel served as an official observer – made this observation: “The review team has concluded that the Colorado program is well managed and professional and generally meets the 2010 Hydraulic Fracturing Guidelines.”
- STRONGER: Colo. Inspection Program Doing Just Fine. Contrary to Earthworks’ claim that the state is “unprepared” in terms of inspection and enforcement, STRONGER’s Colorado review noted: “The COGCC management staff demonstrated a high level of experience and competence. They have provided field inspectors with the levels of training and types of equipment to enable them to properly perform their duties. They appear to properly prioritize field inspector work. The managers demonstrated high standards of performance.”
- Pennsylvania Laws Have Been Strengthened in Recent Years. Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell (D) and former DEP Secretary John Hanger wrote recently in the New York Times: “As the two people who enacted four regulatory packages strengthening drilling regulation and led the enforcement of the rules in Pennsylvania until January [2011], we strongly disagree that there is lax regulation and oversight of gas drilling there.”
- EPA: States Doing ‘Good Job’. Here’s what EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said recently about state regulation of oil and gas: “States are stepping up and doing a good job. It doesn’t have to be EPA that regulates the 10,000 wells that might go in.”
- Jackson: No Federal Regulation Necessary. Lisa Jackson also recently said: “We have no data right now that lead us to believe one way or the other that there needs to be specific federal regulation of [hydraulic fracturing].”
PROBLEM 3: Pushes for legal system defined by guilty until proven innocent.
- Earthworks: “Until there is a shift in the burden of proof requiring industry to prove that they have not caused harm, or at least a decrease in that burden, state agencies will not be able to fully use the enforcement tools available to them, citizens will be left with little recourse, and the bad industry actors will continue to get away with practices that harm human health and the environment.” (p. 16)
- Earthworks: “Changes should be made to regulations to reduce the burden of proof that must be met before agencies can take enforcement action against operators that violate oil and gas rules.” (p. 16)
FACT: Evidence doesn’t support accusations made by opponents, and the presumption of innocence has been a hallmark of the American legal system for more than 100 years.
- AP: Critics’ Claims Based on ‘Bad Science’. A report from the Associated Press earlier this year noted that “scientists say opponents sometimes mislead the public” with their accusations, adding that “some of their claims have little – or nothing – to back them.” The AP noted that claims linking hydraulic fracturing to breast cancer have been refuted by health officials and cancer experts, and that fears spread about air and water contamination “aren’t being confirmed by monitoring” in the areas where those claims are often made.
- EPA: No Water Contamination from HF. Despite “water contamination” being one of the most common talking points among opponents, including Earthworks, EPA’s Lisa Jackson has stated publicly: “In no case have we made a definitive determination that [hydraulic fracturing] has caused chemicals to enter groundwater.” State regulators from across the country have similarly affirmed that fact.
- Study: No Significant Health Risks from Shale Development. “An air quality study of natural gas drilling sites in Fort Worth found no significant health threats, the city said Thursday. The long-awaited study by Eastern Research Group Inc. looked at the impact of natural gas exploration and production on Fort Worth’s air quality. According to the study, emissions do not reach levels that cause adverse health effects, although five sites have emission rates that exceed regulatory thresholds.” (NBC News, July 14, 2011)
- Shifting Burden of Proof to Industry is Common Opposition Tactic. During a recent hearing in front of the Dallas City Council, Terry Welch – tasked with giving the “environmentalist” viewpoint – tried to justify additional regulations on a hypothetical situation (i.e. rigs impacting water supplies in floodplains) that has never happened before. The purpose: force the industry to prove a negative, which is impossible. At the heart of Mr. Welch’s statement is the presumption of guilt, and that the baseless claims made by opponents are automatically valid.
- 1895 Supreme Court Case Affirmed Innocence Until Proven Guilty. In Coffin v. United States (156 U.S. 432), the Supreme Court held that “a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.”
PROBLEM 4: Claims spills and violations are increasing.
- Earthworks: In a chart associated with its report entitled “Colorado Oil & Gas Related Spills,” Earthworks claims spills in Colorado have increased every year since 2004.
- Earthworks: “Even though a shale gas and oil drilling boom has not yet occurred in Ohio environmental impacts are on the rise. As seen here, in 2011 oil and gas pollution related violations were at their highest level in years.” (p. 21)
- Earthworks: “As seen in Chart 7, since 2008 there has generally been an increase in the number of violations found at oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania. In 2011, there were 4,069 violations found during inspections.” (p. 38)
FACT: Spills in Colorado are decreasing, while violations in Ohio and Pennsylvania are on the decline.
- Colorado Regulators: Spills Declined from 2010 to 2011. “The frequency and number of spills and releases connected to the oil and gas industry dropped significantly in 2011 compared to 2010, a state official said on Thursday. The reduction of incidents led Chris Canfield, an environmental protection specialist with the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) to praise the industry for improving its record.” (Glenwood Springs Post Independent, Feb. 4, 2012)
- Ohio Regulators: No Violations at Wells. “Utica Shale exploration has started without a hitch, according to a thorough review of well-inspection reports, but those against the fracking process say it’s too early to draw conclusions regarding Ohio’s first foray into massive horizontal resource extraction. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources through the end of April had conducted 254 on-site well inspections at Utica Shale wells. ODNR has yet to cite any energy companies with a violation.” (Youngstown Vindicator, May 28, 2012)
- Violations Decreasing in Pennsylvania. “Out of 4,000 wells, the report’s authors studied close to 3,000 violations reported to the state’s Department of Environmental Protection between January 2008 and August 2011…As time went on, however, the number of violations in relation to the number of gas wells dug started falling, decreasing by 58.2 percent in 2008 to 40.3 percent in 2009, and to 30.5 percent in 2010. By the first eight months of 2011, the report found the number of violations dropped further to 26.5 percent.” (IB Times, May 15, 2012)
PROBLEM 5: Wants to punish oil and gas development for government deficits.
- Earthworks: “In these times of budgetary deficits, with legislatures scrambling to find revenue sources, the fact that proposals to increase penalties for violations have not been successful in several states is disappointing, and suggests a strong influence of the oil and gas industry on legislators.” (p. 47)
FACT: Rules and regulations are designed to prevent problems, not merely to increase government funding. Additionally, oil and gas development is already a major source of public revenue.
- North Dakota: Budget Surplus Thanks in Large Part to Shale. According to the Bismarck Tribune, North Dakota will have a budget surplus of $1.6 billion, due in no small part to development of the Bakken shale. The Tribune added that tax collections from oil and gas are more than $3.8 billion, considerably higher than the $2 billion originally projected.
- Texas: Sales Tax Growth Driven by Oil and Gas Development. Texas Comptroller Susan Combs recently credited the oil and natural gas sector in the state with contributing heavily to state sales tax revenue growth of more than $2 billion. (San Antonio Business Journal, June 6, 2012)
- Oil and Gas Industry Pays High Effective Tax Rate. In 2010, U.S. oil and natural gas companies paid an effective incomes tax rate of just over 41 percent. Other S&P Industrial companies paid an effective rate of 26.5 percent.
- ExxonMobil Pays Millions in Taxes Every Hour. In 2011, ExxonMobil – the largest natural gas producer in the United States – paid more than $12 million in taxes every hour.
–
So, in summation, the Earthworks “report” was essentially a rehash of common talking points used by critics of oil and gas development, many if not all of which have been widely debunked. Given that lack of seriousness, it’s unsurprising that the report arrived at conclusions contradicted by easily accessible data.
Did Earthworks think those who read the report would be unable to find that information, or were they merely hoping that readers wouldn’t?
The report is riddled with transparently baseless accusations, and its central recommendation that those accusations be considered valid by decree is absurd by any legal standard. Given these facts, perhaps the bigger question is how so many news outlets allowed themselves to be used as a promotional vehicle for Earthworks’ activism, all without giving the report the kind of critical analysis – or even cursory review – that one would expect.
The ‘Top Ten’ Mistakes Letterman Made on HF
This summer, David Letterman used his perch as a late night TV host to rant against hydraulic fracturing as some sort of environmental nightmare, reciting the same debunked talking points (water contamination, flaming faucets, etc.) that we hear from professional opponents of oil and gas development on a daily basis. So EID produced a "Top Ten" of its own.
Steve
Spokesman
This summer, David Letterman used his perch as a late night TV host to rant against hydraulic fracturing as some sort of environmental nightmare, reciting the same debunked talking points (water contamination, flaming faucets, etc.) that we hear from professional opponents of oil and gas development on a daily basis.
Most folks are smart enough to know that Mr. Letterman is neither a scientist nor a go-to expert on well completion technologies, something the “Late Night” host volunteered at the beginning of his soliloquy: According to Mr. Letterman himself, when it comes to hydraulic fracturing, “I’m not smart enough to understand it.” (you don’t say!)
Nonetheless, to quote The Dude, this aggression will not stand.
So in the spirit of David Letterman’s trademark “Top Ten” segments, EID has produced a top ten of its own: The Top Ten Mistakes David Letterman Made on Hydraulic Fracturing.
The video is embedded below, and it can also be viewed on YouTube.
*UPDATE* The Facts Behind Erie’s ‘Bucket Brigade’
Last week, Erie officials reached an agreement allowing two companies to move forward with oil and natural gas development in the town—ensuring the safe production of the state’s abundant natural resources while protecting the beauty, health and safety of the surrounding environment and communities. As a Denver Post editorial highlights, town officials should be commended for their action.
UPDATE (9/4/2012, 12:27 pm ET): Last week, Erie officials reached an agreement allowing two companies to move forward with oil and natural gas development in the town—ensuring the safe production of the state’s abundant natural resources while protecting the beauty, health and safety of the surrounding environment and communities. As a Denver Post editorial from over the weekend highlights, town officials should be commended for their actions. To wit:
“Rather than buckle to pressure from the anti-drilling crowd, the town of Erie last week reached agreements intended to allow two companies to proceed with drilling and protect public health and safety. While some residents asked trustees to extend a drilling moratorium, town officials instead took a thoughtful step forward on the issue. For that they should be commended. …We favor a set of statewide regulations that give certainty to industry and provide appropriate environmental safeguards. Let’s hope that the COGCC task force provides something along those lines later this month.” (Denver Post, 9/2/12)
Despite the unsubstantiated efforts of anti-drilling groups like Erie Rising, the town has taken a huge step forward to promote energy development in the state while upholding strict regulatory and environmental standards, all of which are based on scientific facts and decades of experience, not pre-scripted talking points.
—Original post, August 27, 2012—
Courtney Loper
Field Director, Mountain States
Originally published by Colorado Energy News
Six months ago, a small group of local activists had a big impact on the debate over oil and gas development in Erie, Colo. The group, called Erie Rising, claimed the town had dangerously poor air quality – worse than Houston and Los Angeles – and blamed it all on the energy industry. It was a shocking revelation.
The Erie Board of Trustees almost immediately called for a moratorium on local permitting for new oil and gas wells, and Erie Rising became an overnight sensation with national environmental activist groups and Hollywood actors like Mark Ruffalo.
There was just one problem: those claims weren’t true. In the weeks that followed, Erie town officials commissioned two expert air quality studies, and both found there was no danger. Not only that: environmental data from the Obama administration showed the Denver metropolitan area had much better air quality than Houston, Los Angeles and about 30 other major U.S. cities. In other words, Erie Rising’s ringleaders had scared their neighbors and elected officials without cause.
Since then, Erie town officials and oil and gas developers have spent months working through their differences, choosing to negotiate an agreement rather than argue over the legality of the moratorium. Now, there’s a compromise which will come before the board tomorrow, Aug. 28. It includes legally enforceable commitments from oil and gas companies to adopt tougher emission controls than are required by Colorado’s nation-leading environmental regulations.
It’s a compromise supported by Erie Town Administrator A.J. Krieger, who told the board during an Aug. 14 meeting that oil and gas companies have negotiated in “good faith” and town officials “have done everything that we can do.” But sadly, at the same board meeting, representatives from Erie Rising attacked the compromise. Even worse, they claimed once again that Erie’s air is dangerously polluted, without providing a shred of evidence or data to back up their allegations.
So why should Erie’s citizens and elected officials believe them this time around? According to Erie Rising, it’s because they have brought in San Francisco-based Global Community Monitor to collect their own air samples and produce their own emissions data, using a so-called “bucket brigade.” Those samples, collected in buckets lined with plastic bags, are supposed to provide the Board of Trustees with credible information about the air quality in Erie, especially near the town’s schools.
As usual, Erie Rising isn’t being straight with the board or Erie citizens. GCM is not an independent, objective or credible source. It’s an anti-industry activist group that specializes in producing bad test results that advance political, not scientific, goals. “The Bucket Brigade is not a scientific experiment,” GCM executive director Denny Larson wrote in a 2006 handbook for environmental activists. “Our focus is on organizing. We use science, but only in the service of organizing.”
In fact, GCM was rebuked just last year for making alarmist air quality claims in another Colorado town. Based on a single “bucket” sample lasting less than three minutes, GCM claimed in July 2011 that students at Sunnyside Elementary School in Durango were being exposed to unsafe levels of cancer-causing chemicals.
Only two months earlier, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reached the opposite conclusion – that Sunnyside’s students are safe – as part of a national air-quality research project involving months of testing at 63 schools in 22 states. When the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment examined GCM’s results, it found a long list of “serious technical deficiencies,” including the possibility that the chemicals detected actually came from the plastic bags used to collect the air samples.
But even so, once the news media picked up GCM’s claims about Sunnyside Elementary, frightened parents started talking about pulling their children out of school. That spurred Durango School District 9-R to pay for its own follow-up study, which also debunked GCM’s findings and confirmed EPA’s original conclusion; again, that Sunnyside’s students were and are safe.
GCM’s leaders never apologized for the needless fear and anxiety they caused the parents, children and teachers of Sunnyside Elementary, and they didn’t display a hint of embarrassment after their work was discredited by local, state and federal officials. Instead, they just went quiet for a while and showed up in Erie last month, ready to do the same thing all over again.
Whatever decision the Board of Trustees makes on Aug. 28, it should be based on the facts. Just don’t expect those facts to come from Erie Rising, GCM or the other national activist groups they’ve flown into town.
Courtney Loper is the Denver-based field director of Energy In Depth, a research and education campaign of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA)
*UPDATE IV* Eight Worst Inputs Used in Colorado Health Study
A paper from the Colorado School of Public Health (CSPH) suggests the development of oil and natural gas in general – and the use of hydraulic fracturing in particular – can cause “serious health impacts” for those who live closest to well sites. But if you look past the ominous headlines that the study launch generated and examine the range of strange assumptions that form the basis for the report, the conclusions are not only rendered fairly predictable, but also unquestionably flawed.
UPDATE IV (5/16/12, 9:12am ET): The Colorado School of Public Health’s paper on hypothetical future health impacts of natural gas development scored an nine-minute profile yesterday on NPR. That’s practically an eternity in broadcast journalism, more than enough time for a detailed discussion on both the CSPH’s conclusions and the many criticisms of their work.
Unfortunately, NPR failed its audience. Reporter Elizabeth Shogren accepted just about everything the CSPH said at face value, and only briefly mentions that its findings have been challenged by local officials and scientists within the industry. The segment conveniently fails to mention why those challenges were made, and what the substance of those challenges were – effectively denying NPR’s listeners a full account of the controversy.
Other news organizations managed to describe the findings and some of the flaws in the CSPH’s paper, in accordance with basic journalistic standards. Among the examples:
The Associated Press – “Energy In Depth has disputed that study’s findings, saying it exaggerates emissions from gas well development by at least 10 times and fails to take into account exhaust fumes from a nearby interstate highway.”
Public Radio International – “[A]n oil and natural gas industry group has mounted an aggressive campaign to point out what it says are flaws in the research. … Among the group’s specific complaints are that the study doesn’t account for pollution generated by Interstate 70, which passes within a mile of the wells.”
Denver Business Journal – “Among the study’s problems, according to Energy-In-Depth and [the Colorado Oil & Gas Association] … air samples for the study were taken between January 2008 to November 2010, but Colorado tightened its air emission requirements for the oil and gas industry in April 2009 … Air pollution from other sources wasn’t considered as a source, even though some of the air samples were taken one mile away from Interstate 70 … The cancer risks outlined in the report are no greater than national statistical averages…”
UPI – “The study used out-of-date emissions data and overestimated by a factor of 10 how long it takes to develop a new natural gas well, the industry group said, adding that the study failed to account for pollution from Interstate 70, a mile away from the gas wells.”
So then, what are the main issues with the CSPH paper? Here’s the short version: CSPH dramatically overstates people’s exposure to gas-well emissions. But even though they assume emissions are more than 10 times higher than real-world conditions, and treat exhaust fumes from Interstate 70 as if they came from gas wells, the authors of the paper admit they could not show a clear correlation between proximity to those gas wells and higher health risks. By deciding the public didn’t need to hear those criticisms, NPR denied Colorado’s oil and gas industry the chance to properly defend itself against the allegations in this flawed research paper.
Of course, beyond the industry, lots of other folks have stepped up and identified serious flaws with the CSPH methodology. Let’s start with Jim Rada, Garfield County’s top public health official. Rada was interviewed for NPR’s segment on the CSPH, but there’s no mention that he disavowed its paper on health risks. After the paper was released, Rada made clear that it wasn’t sanctioned or funded by Garfield County.
Then there’s the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. At one point, the CDPHE was helping the CSPH find funding for its work, but the agency eventually backed out after criticizing CSPH’s approach. NPR surely knows this, because it interviewed David Ludlam, the executive director of the West Slope Colorado Oil & Gas Association. WSCOGA’s March 20 rebuttal to the CSPH paper specifically cited the CDPHE’s “extremely critical” comments about the project’s methodology.
So, for the record, the health-risk study that underpins all nine minutes of this NPR segment has been criticized by multiple stakeholders, not just the oil and gas industry. The study’s critics also include local and state health officials, which would seem a relevant thing to mention in a nine-minute NPR segment on the study. But it never was. Probably because it didn’t fit with the reporter’s pre-established narrative.
UPDATE III (5:01pm ET, 3/23/2012): In a story for Platts Gas Daily (subs. req’d), Garfield County environmental health chief Jim Rada says the press release announcing the CSPH study “made it sound like there was new information” that was being released. In reality, the data in the study was simply lifted from an earlier draft assessment that was criticized by the state and the industry alike. “One needs to read the entire report to understand the relative risks,” Rada says. “There are significant limitations to the data.”
UPDATE II (1:22pm ET, 3/22/2012): The Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) issued a statement that casts more light onto the flawed assumptions in the CSPH study. COGA states up front that it “appreciates the work being done by Colorado’s institutions of higher education and relies on them for unbiased, non-politicized data and information.” Unfortunately, the CSPH report “does not reach that standard.” COGA adds that the initial study on this subject by CSPH “was critiqued as politically-charged and of questionable scientific merit,” and, unfortunately, “the data from that [initial] report is regurgitated in the current study.”
UPDATE (2:35pm ET, 3/21/2012): David Ludlam, executive director of the West Slope Colorado Oil and Gas Association (WSCOGA), posted a response to the CSPH findings. “WSCOGA agrees that oil and gas operations must be protective of public health and the environment,” Ludlam writes. But Ludlam also notes that this particular report “lacks the necessary supportive data and proper context and represents a basic restatement of the Battlement Mesa Health Impact Assessment — a project that was suspended, in part, due to the State of Colorado’s criticism of the project.” Ludlam adds that the report is “basically a restatement of data already proven to be weak on supportive data and void of critical proper context.”
—Original post from March 20, 2012—
A new paper from the Colorado School of Public Health (CSPH) released this week suggests the development of oil and natural gas in general – and the use of hydraulic fracturing in particular – can cause “serious health impacts” for those who live closest to well sites. But if you look past the ominous headlines that the study launch generated and examine the range of strange assumptions that form the basis for the report, the conclusions are not only rendered fairly predictable, but also unquestionably flawed.
Of course, we’ve all seen first-hand how choices made by a researcher with respect to the inputs he or she uses as part of a study plan can, and indeed will, significantly impact the nature of the results. The infamous Howarth paper from Cornell University, for example, used a global warming potential for methane 45 percent greater than what even the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says is appropriate. That flawed input, along with the casual use of “inflated leakage” rates, served as the central basis for its deeply flawed (and widely debunked) conclusions.
In some ways, the inputs used by the CSPH researchers are even more egregious than those found in the Cornell report. Below, we identify eight specific assumptions made that, upon closer examination and considered in combination, cast serious doubt on the results produced by the modeling exercise.
Bad Input #1: Out of Date Emissions Data
CSPH: “We used air toxics data collected in Garfield County from January 2008 to November 2010 as part of a special study of short-term exposure as well as on-going ambient air monitoring program data to estimate subchronic and chronic exposures and health risks.” (p. 8 )
- FACT: Colorado updated its regulatory requirements for oil and gas systems in February 2009, which means at least a portion of the data collected by CSPH is from an operating environment that, by law, no longer exists. Among the rules were requirements for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to be reduced by as much as 95 percent through the use of low- or no-bleed pneumatic devices.
Bad Input #2: Inflated Time to Drill and Complete a Well by as Much as 900%
CSPH: “We assumed a 30-year project duration based on an estimated 5-year well development period for all well pads, followed by 20 to 30 years of production.” (p. 11)
CSPH: “To evaluate subchronic non-cancer HIs from well completion emissions, we estimated that a resident lives ≤ 1/2 mile from two well pads resulting a 20- month exposure duration based on 2 weeks per well for completion and 20 wells per pad, assuming some overlap between activities.” (p. 12)
- FACT: The well development process takes a matter of months, not years. In fact, well development, as defined by CSPH in the same study, “involves pad preparation, well drilling, and well completion” (p. 5). According to the Marcellus Center at Penn State University: “The total time to drill each well is about a three to six weeks depending on the depth and length of the horizontal well, so if there are four wells on a well pad, you could expect the big rig to be there for about three to six months.” The Marcellus Center adds that hydraulic fracturing (i.e. completion) “typically occurs within a few weeks or months of the well drilling, dependent on the project schedule, and may take up to several days for each well to be hydraulically fractured.” API also notes that the process takes “two to five days for the entire multi-stage fracturing operation.”
Bad Input #3: Inflated Small Cancer Risks Due to Lack of Context
CSPH: “The cumulative cancer risks based on the 95% UCL of the mean concentration were 6 in a million for residents > ½ mile from wells and 10 in a million for residents < ½ mile from wells.” (p. 15-16)
- FACT: While these numbers are small, the lack of context suggests they could be significant. But according to EPA’s National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA), these risks are in line with or even well below the risk for the entire U.S. population. According to a recent EPA report: “NATA estimates that all 285 million people in the U.S. have an increased cancer risk of greater than 10 in one million. 13.8 million people (less than 5 percent of the total U.S. population based on the 2000 census) have an increased cancer risk of greater than 100 in a million. The average, national, cancer risk for 2005 is 50 in a million. This means that, on average, approximately 1 in every 20,000 people have an increased likelihood of contracting cancer as a result of breathing air toxics from outdoor sources if they were exposed to 2005 emission levels over the course of their lifetime.”
Bad Input #4: Assumed No One Ever Leaves Garfield County
CSPH: “We assumed a resident lives, works, and otherwise remains within the town 24 hours/day, 350 days/year and that lifetime of a resident is 70 years, based on standard EPA reasonable maximum exposure (RME) defaults (US EPA 1989)” (p. 11)
- FACT: The study assumes that, aside from a few quick out-of-town weekend trips per year, residents never, ever – ever! – leave the city limits over the course of 70 years. Unless the “town” is actually a prison, this is a fundamentally flawed assumption about the length and extent of exposure.
Bad Input #5: Failed to Account/Control for Other Variables
CSPH: “The GCPH collected ambient air samples every six days between January 2008 and November 2010 (163 samples) from a fixed monitoring station located in the midst of rural home sites and ranches and NGD, during both the well development and production. The site is located on top of a small hill and 4 miles upwind of other potential emission sources, such as a major highway (Interstate-70) and the town of Silt, CO…” (p. 9)
CSPH: “The GCPH collected 16 ambient air samples at each cardinal direction along 4well pad perimeters (130 to 500 feet from the well pad center) in rural Garfield County during well completion activities… All five well pads are located in areas with active gas production, approximately one mile from Interstate-70.” (p. 9-10)
- FACT: When studying concentrations and identifying sources of benzene, it’s probably not a great idea to take samples from areas closer to a major highway than the ambient, control samples. The EPA classifies benzene as one of many Mobile Source Air Toxics (MSATs), and in its Final Rule to Reduce Mobile Source Air Toxics, the EPA notes that “most of the nation’s benzene emissions come from mobile sources. People who live or work near major roads, or spend a large amount of time in vehicles, are likely to have higher exposures and higher risks. People living in homes with attached garages are also likely to be exposed to benzene levels that are higher than average.”
Bad Input #6: Poor Distance Assumptions Increased Uncertainty
CSPH: “The actual distance at which residents may experience greater exposures from air emissions may be less than or greater than a 1/2 mile, depending on dispersion and local topography and meteorology. This lack of spatially and temporally appropriate data increases the uncertainty associated with the results.” (p. 21)
- FACT: Here, CSPH admits that its main basis of comparison – those living within and outside of a half mile zone surrounding a well – may not actually be representative after all. And in a study whose main conclusion, according to its press release, is “air emissions near fracking sites may have serious health impacts,” uncertainty about distance – and thus what defines “near” – means there is also considerable uncertainty about the conclusions.
Bad Input #7: Failed to Communicate with Local Environmental Officials
CSPH study author Lisa Mackenzie: Garfield County “did not financially support the scientific paper. We did this on our own. We feel the findings are significant, and we are scientists, and this is the way scientists communicate with each other” (Glenwood Springs Post Independent, 3/20/2012).
- FACT: If that’s how scientists communicate, it’s news to at least one notable health official, namely Jim Rada, Garfield County’s chief environmental health official. Rada said of Mackenzie’s work: “I had no knowledge of what she was studying, or her methods, or the implications of her work.” Rada also noted: “We are not in violation on ambient air quality standards.”
Bad Input #8: Who’s in Charge Here?
CSPH press release: “Garfield County asked the Colorado School of Public Health to assess the potential health impacts of these wells on the community of Battlement Mesa with a population of about 5,000.” (Press Release, 3/19/2012)
- FACT: This is also news to Rada, who said: “We didn’t ask them to do this paper. They were not sanctioned by the county, or paid by the county to do this paper.” As the Glenwood Springs Post Independent reported shortly after the release of the study, the CSPH paper “became embroiled in controversy” about a year ago after criticism by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (among others), and the study “was decommissioned by the Garfield County commissioners in May 2011.”
*UPDATE* Something Strange in Erie, Colo.
Last month, the Board of Trustees of Erie, Colo. backed by unanimous vote an ill-conceived moratorium on new permits for oil and gas development – a move that came less than a month and a half after rejecting essentially the same resolution by a 4 to 2 margin. Why the sudden reversal? Glad you asked.
UPDATE (5/9/2012, 1:17pm ET): The alarmist air-quality claims of the activist group Erie Rising and NOAA scientist Steven Brown continue to unravel, according to the Daily Camera newspaper of Boulder, Colo.:
“A second scientific report in as many weeks will be presented to Erie’s elected officials challenging the notion that natural gas drilling operations in town are spewing unhealthy levels of emissions into the air.” http://goo.gl/OClPQ
This is the second time that Erie town officials have sought independent scientific advice to check the claims made by Brown and Erie Rising in February. It’s also the second time that outside experts have concluded Erie’s citizens are safe, and exposed just how flimsy and irresponsible those claims really are.
According to the Daily Camera, Erie Mayor Joe Wilson believes the town’s Board of Trustees were given distorted information before they voted for a 180-day moratorium on new oil and gas development:
“Wilson said the studies that have been commissioned by the town staff in the last few weeks to interpret and give meaning to the NOAA data indicate the agency’s findings were used by some drilling and fracking opponents ‘politically and inaccurately’ to cast Erie in a bad light. …
‘What we want to do is put this stuff in context, which it wasn’t before,’ he said. ‘As people get more educated, we’re seeing them becoming more accepting of oil and gas operations.’”
Let’s hope the facts will continue to drive the debate in Erie – and elsewhere – over the best ways to develop America’s abundant energy resources.
—Original post from April 30, 2012—
“One of the basic foundations of modern science … is ‘peer review.’ Peer review means new scientific discoveries, ideas, and implications are not accepted or considered valid until they have been scrutinized, critiqued, and favorably reviewed…”
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
“…I don’t really have time to take you through the details of an analysis like this. I’m just going to ask you to believe what I tell you…”
Steven Brown, NOAA Employee
The development of homegrown American energy is giving communities across the country a fighting chance to overcome our current economic malaise. By one estimate, oil and natural gas development supports 9 million U.S. jobs and contributes more than $1 trillion to the economy every year. That said, the communities blessed with oil and gas resources often have reasonable questions about how energy production will proceed.
Here’s the good news: the independent companies that develop the vast majority of oil and gas wells are good neighbors with a strong record of responsible development, and interlocking state and federal environmental laws ensure the industry’s operations are tightly regulated. That’s not just the industry’s view – it’s also shared by the energy and environmental experts who enforce those laws.
Still, some communities want to hear from other folks, including scientists. That’s perfectly reasonable, too, as long as anything presented as “science” meets some basic scientific standards. The first and most important of those standards is rigorous and effective peer review. Without it, anything a scientist says is just an opinion, not the kind of hard evidence that’s needed to craft effective environmental laws and regulations.
Unfortunately, that lesson was completely ignored recently in Erie, Colo., a small town nestled in the northern suburbs of Denver. A single government scientist – Steven Brown of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – appeared before the town’s Board of Trustees at the behest of activist groups that oppose oil and gas development. Armed only with a slide presentation, Brown swayed the board into approving a six-month ban on new oil and gas development in Erie.
Energy in Depth wants to set a few things straight about Brown’s presentation, the way it’s being spun by activists and how it’s been covered by the news media. EID’s concerns are serious, and we hope they’ll be taken seriously by the Town of Erie, NOAA and anyone else with an interest in sound science and the responsible development of America’s abundant oil and gas resources made possible by the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing.
The Town of Erie acted on opinion, not science
Brown’s central claim goes something like this: During a one-month research project in the winter of 2011, a NOAA observation tower in Erie recorded higher levels of propane in the air than are usually seen in Pasadena, Calif., and Houston. Brown surmised that the propane emissions came from oil and gas development in the Denver-Julesburg Basin.
Brown’s Feb. 21 presentation, which can be accessed here, was highly technical in nature, especially the section that tied those propane emissions to oil and gas development. But rather than explain it fully, Brown told a group of elected officials who were poised to act on his findings:
“What you can do with a set of data like this is to break it down into what the likely sources are. I don’t really have time to take you through the details of an analysis like this. I’m just going to ask you to believe what I tell you about the ranking of these compounds…”
Brown’s presentation played perfectly into the communications plan of environmental groups, including the local activist organization Erie Rising. Together, they have been trying to frighten Erie’s citizens and elected officials into banning new development with unsubstantiated health and environmental allegations. Here’s a sample of the press coverage generated by Brown’s presentation to the Board of Trustees:
“A study showing that Erie exceeds Houston and Los Angeles in the levels of certain air pollutants commonly connected to oil and gas activity became a point of concern for several trustees Tuesday night during a meeting held to formulate local rules for resource extraction.” http://goo.gl/50TgA
“A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration study said the propane levels in the air in Erie are worse than in Los Angeles and Houston.” http://goo.gl/eyhkz
Air pollution worse than Los Angeles and Houston? That would strike fear into the heart of any elected official in a town where the median age is 33, the median household income is a touch under $100,000 a year, and officials brag about “educated, affluent, diverse and dynamic” residents and their “close proximity to world-class research and academic institutions.” Scarier still, it’s politically perilous for local officials to challenge Brown’s opinion because he works at one of those revered institutions – NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory, which is just a few miles west in Boulder, Colo.
So, on March 7, a little more than two weeks after Brown’s presentation, the Erie Board of Trustees voted unanimously for an “emergency ordinance” that imposed a six-month moratorium on new oil and gas development. But nine days later, NOAA revealed that the town had passed a local law based on the opinion of a lone scientist and the alarmist claims of environmental activists. In a March 16 notice on its website, the federal agency said:
“Please note that analysis of the data from this study is in progress. When a peer-reviewed paper is published, we will make it available to the public.” http://goo.gl/zWL6b
Brown didn’t get his conclusions peer-reviewed before presenting them to a local government. No peer review. No hard scientific evidence. Just an opinion. But that opinion, when it’s part of a concerted campaign of fear-mongering from activists, was powerful enough to get a local ordinance passed that was designed to shut down an entire industry within the town’s limits for at least six months. This wasn’t democracy in action. It was a mugging. Not just a mugging of an industry and its workers, but of the town’s elected leaders and the citizens they represent.
Of course, the Town of Erie’s authority to enforce such a ban is questionable, since state governments usually have jurisdiction over oil and natural gas development, not local governments. But that’s a discussion for another day.
The Denver area has better air quality, not worse, than Los Angeles and Houston
Brown’s presentation focused on propane and other volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, which can contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, which causes smog. Other sources of smog-forming pollution include factories, power plants, car and truck exhaust fumes, gasoline vapors from vehicle refueling and chemical solvents, according to the EPA.
Both state and federal environmental regulators monitor ozone levels very closely, so it’s possible to make comparisons between different metropolitan areas.
According to EPA data, ozone levels in the Denver metropolitan area – which includes Erie – are 34 percent lower than those in Los Angeles and 15 percent lower than the levels in Houston. The same EPA ozone statistics show Denver and Erie have better air quality than 37 other major metropolitan areas.
Erie’s air quality has improved as natural gas development has expanded
When natural gas starts flowing from a newly developed well, VOCs can develop. And if they aren’t captured or flared, they can combine with other ozone-forming emissions from cars, trucks, power plants and factories and make an existing smog problem worse.
But that’s not happening in Erie. Colorado’s Air Pollution Control Division has a statewide network of monitoring stations that continuously measure air quality. These long-term monitors provide a much clearer picture of air quality than the month-long snapshot in Brown’s research.
One of those APCD stations is located just west of Erie, in Boulder, and another is placed in Greeley, about 40 miles to the northeast. Both the Boulder and Greeley stations are well placed to measure emissions from natural gas development, as well as all the other forms of pollution that exist in a major metropolitan area.
Ground-level ozone levels have fallen at the Boulder and Greeley monitoring stations in the past five years, according to Colorado APCD reports and data. Boulder’s maximum concentration under the federal 8-hour ozone standard has dropped by 6 percent, and Greeley’s has fallen by 10 percent. During those five years, natural gas production in Weld County – which takes in parts of Erie – climbed 25 percent, according to data from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.
That’s some feat. It should be a source of pride for the companies that develop oil and natural gas in Colorado, and the state’s regulators, who have worked together for nearly a decade to reduce the industry’s VOC emissions even as production grows.
Nobody is arguing that Erie’s air quality is perfect – it’s not. In 2007, Denver and its suburbs were deemed an ozone “non-attainment” area by the EPA. Since then, ozone levels have fallen, according to the EPA, but the Denver area remains in non-attainment. That’s because in 2008, the EPA ratcheted down the national ozone standard from 80 parts per million to 75 ppm. Even so, Weld County’s air quality compares pretty favorably to other areas of Colorado. The American Lung Association keeps tabs on 17 Colorado counties, and only five score better than Weld County.
But one thing is crystal clear from all this data on VOCs, ozone, smog and natural gas production: Erie Rising and other activist groups don’t have a leg to stand on when they argue air quality in the Denver area is getting worse and new natural gas development is the culprit.
Denver is a major metropolitan area with many sources of pollution
By his own admission, Brown failed to explain why he blames oil and gas development for the VOC readings at the NOAA observation tower. Remember what he told the Board of Trustees – “I’m just going to ask you to believe what I tell you.”
As mentioned earlier, oil and gas development is but one source of VOC emissions. According to the EPA:
“VOCs are emitted from a variety of sources, including motor vehicles, chemical manufacturing facilities, refineries, factories, consumer and commercial products products, and natural (biogenic) sources (mainly trees)…” http://goo.gl/woJlX
As it turns out, nature is responsible for 72 percent of the VOC emissions in the air. Here are some of the sources that make up the remaining 28 percent:
“…coal-, gas-, and oil-fired power plants and industrial, commercial, and institutional sources, as well as residential heaters and boilers … cars, trucks, buses, and motorcycles … construction equipment, lawnmowers, chainsaws, boats, ships, snowmobiles [and] aircraft.” http://goo.gl/woJlX
Nationwide, the largest source of VOC emissions are cars, trucks and other mobile sources. That’s also true in Colorado, where mobile sources generate 13 times more VOCs than oil and natural gas development, according EPA data.
That should have mattered a great deal to Brown, because Interstate-25 is located about one mile east of the NOAA observation tower. According to Erie town officials, 91,000 vehicles a day use the stretch of I-25 nearest to the tower site. Even NOAA has warned of the impact of I-25 on the readings from the observation tower:
“I-25 lies to the east of the tower so winds form [sic] the NNE to SSE are likely to influence the tower measurements, depending on boundary layer conditions.” http://goo.gl/XR13Y
That’s hugely important, because besides propane, Brown also says the VOC benzene was detected at the observation tower. He calls benzene a “natural gas tracer,” and concludes it must have come from oil and gas development.
Care to guess what the biggest source of benzene is, according to the EPA?
“…most of the nation’s benzene emissions come from mobile sources. People who live or work near major roads, or spend a large amount of time in vehicles, are likely to have higher exposures…” http://goo.gl/SOuqd
That’s right – the biggest sources of benzene are cars, trucks and the major roads they use. A major interstate highway with a traffic count of close to 100,000 vehicles a day more than meets that definition. Hopefully, the experts who peer review Brown’s presentation – if it ever gets that far – will ask some tough questions about this.
There are other sources of propane and the levels detected aren’t dangerous
A bigger question for Brown’s reviewers, though, is how he managed to blame oil and gas development so quickly for the high propane readings recorded at the tower. As with benzene, Brown simply concluded that because propane can be released from oil and gas wells, it must have come from oil and gas wells. But, of course, propane is a widely used fuel and Brown failed to explain how he excluded other possible sources. We are all just supposed to “believe” he knows where it came from.
Brown may have overlooked the fact that the tower readings were taken during a month-long period during the heating season (Feb. 16 to March 13, 2011). Did he bother to check how many homes, businesses, industrial facilities, municipal buildings, universities and federal offices in the area are heated with propane, or use it in other ways? We don’t know because he didn’t bother to explain.
Among other sources he may have overlooked: propane-fueled vehicles. Erie is located right in the middle of two alternative-fuels programs spanning more than 40,000 square miles around Denver and Northern Colorado. Those programs promote the use of propane and other fuels. In fact, across the two programs, propane fueling locations are only outnumbered by electric charging stations and ethanol pumps. Within 50 miles of Erie, there are 34 propane fueling stations alone, according to the Department of Energy.
Of course, the failure to investigate the actual source of this propane wasn’t even most alarming part of Brown’s presentation. It was the levels he reported. They alarmed the Board of Trustees and no doubt many citizens of Erie, but in the notice it sent to the board, NOAA refused to put those levels into their proper context:
“Some VOCs have known health risks. NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory does not have health risk expertise. Health information is available through other agencies…” http://goo.gl/zWL6b
Thankfully, though, rather than let activists continue to scare people with tales of toxic propane pollution, Erie officials sought to end the speculation. Perhaps stung by their experience with Brown, they “engaged in an independent, peer-reviewed” analysis to “determine what (if any) health effects would result from exposures to the levels of propane as presented.” The result?
“The scientific analysis of the data concludes that: ‘The levels of Propane in the NOAA study are 1,000 – fold or more below those considered to be of a health concern.’ The average level of Propane as presented by NOAA was 20 ppb (parts per billion) and the maximum level was 115 ppb. According to the analysis: ‘Propane at 115 ppb (the peak level found) does not present a health concern to the citizens of the Town of Erie.’” http://goo.gl/nl7PZ
To review: A peer-reviewed, scientific analysis of the central finding in Brown’s presentation – high propane emissions – concludes they are 1,000 times lower than the level that would cause health concerns.
Was Brown’s collaboration with activist groups appropriate?
After Erie’s elected officials approved the six-month moratorium last month, Erie Rising sent out a press release taking credit for both “remarkably discovering an unknown NOAA study” and for the vote itself. The release had all the hallmarks of a fundraising pitch, and made it clear the group’s ambitions extend well beyond Erie’s town limits:
“Founded by accomplished women, mothers and business owners, Erie Rising is positioned to become an exceptionally effective national grassroots mom-powered organization bringing awareness to the issues at hand.” http://goo.gl/GVx1C
Separately, a spokeswoman also bragged to a reporter that the group was directly involved in the preparation of Brown’s presentation and in arranging his appearance before the Board of Trustees:
“The study was never made public and it’s only through [Erie Rising’s member April] Beach’s curiosity that it came to light at all.
‘I had no clue what I was looking for’ when she called NOAA asking if anyone had studied air pollution in Erie, she said. She called Brown, whose name she found on the NOAA website, on something of a whim. He sent back pages of technical data indecipherable to most laymen and it took some back and forth with him to have it interpreted. When she showed the study to Erie Town Administrator A.J. Krieger, she said he urged her to have Brown present the trustees with the results.” http://goo.gl/uYIwW
Are we supposed to believe that Brown was innocently and unwittingly recruited to serve the interests of Erie Rising? Are government scientists supposed to engage in a “back and forth” with activist groups as they create propaganda that scares the public and helps them bully local officials into making hasty decisions? Does presenting data that has not been peer reviewed to a government body, when that information will be used to make policy, breach NOAA’s standards or federal data quality guidelines? Should a federal employee use taxpayer-funded research to help an activist group lobby elected officials, and collaborate with members of the group on how the research is presented?
We don’t know the answers to these questions. Hopefully now, though, we won’t be the only ones asking.
States Continue Effective Regulation of Shale
It's a tired refrain (and demonstrable fiction) used incessantly by opponents of responsible shale development in their press releases and fundraising pleas: The industry, they claim, is unregulated. But for those of us interested in facts, we know better. And news this week from Colorado and Texas provides yet another example of how states are doing a more than adequate job in regulating the industry: both states' primary regulatory bodies overseeing oil and gas development moved forward with rules requiring disclosure of fluids used during hydraulic fracturing.
It’s a tired refrain (and demonstrable fiction) used incessantly by opponents of responsible shale development in their press releases and fundraising pleas: The industry, they claim, is unregulated. But for those of us interested in facts, we know better. And news this week from Colorado and Texas provides yet another example of how states are doing a more than adequate job in regulating the industry: both states’ primary regulatory bodies overseeing oil and gas development moved forward with rules requiring disclosure of fluids used during hydraulic fracturing.
In Texas, the Railroad Commission (RRC) adopted its rule on December 13th to comply with a law passed earlier this year by the state’s legislature. That rule will require companies to use the FracFocus.org website to disclose chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing. The requirement will apply to all wells permitted by RRC on or after February 1, 2012, the date the rule goes into effect.
Companies across the country have been voluntarily utilizing Frac Focus for chemical disclosure for months, and anyone who visits the site can look up well-specific data. Of course, FracFocus.org has been available since this past spring to anyone with Internet access, a fact lost on professional opponents of development who still choose to believe that hydraulic fracturing fluids are a mystery.
It’s also worth noting that the new RRC rule was praised by a range of interests, from America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) to the League of Conservation Voters.
A similar story unfolded in Colorado, where the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) approved its own disclosure requirement for operators in the Centennial State. As in Texas, companies must use FracFocus.org, and both states have provisions to protect proprietary information. The new rule in Colorado was similarly embraced by diverse group of stakeholders, ranging from the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) to the Environmental Defense Fund.
Texas and Colorado are two of the largest oil and gas producing states in the country (Texas being the largest), and the new rules approved by their respective regulatory bodies demonstrate yet again that state governments — not bureaucrats inside the Environmental Protection Agency — are more than capable of tightly and effectively regulating shale development.
Reel Slanted: Split Estate Movie Long on Anecdote, Hyperbole; Short on Facts, Evidence
Energy In Depth breaks down the anti-energy documentary, separates fact from fiction on history, performance of HF
“Split Estate,” an editorial in Colorado’s Grand Junction paper argued last week, “is a polemic, aimed at highlighting one side’s views … not at presenting a balanced picture of the arguments related to fracking.” But as we lay out in further detail below, “balance” isn’t the only component of responsible story-telling that was left on the cutting room floor by film director Debra Anderson.
Having been screened in near-empty theaters in New York and Los Angeles earlier this summer, and on satellite TV earlier this month, the producers of Split Estate appear now to be focused on advancing their message in a more targeted, overtly political way – asking supporters to demand the film be played at local county commission hearings, and sending out frequent calls-to-action requesting that letters of support for the FRAC Act be mailed to Washington, D.C.
Make no mistake: Every bit of Split Estate is directed at advocating a specific policy position as it relates to responsible energy development in the United States: Stop it. All of it. Smartly, the film’s supporters and director recognize the extent to which attacking hydraulic fracturing can be used to deliver the practical outcomes they seek.
Movies are fun to watch. This is a movie. But none of that should absolve those in positions of responsibility from checking up on some of these assertions for themselves, and perhaps even thinking critically about why they were made in the first place. The fact sheet provided below seeks, in the very least, to begin such a process.
What follows are a few of the most outrageous examples of distortion, disinformation, and outright dishonesty included in the film:
Movie Message #1: The process that led to hydraulic fracturing earning an “exemption” from federal law in 2005 was quite a scandal – and everyone, as it were, was in on it.
Narrator: “In 2004, the Bush-Cheney administration’s Environmental Protection Agency asserted that fracturing does not threaten drinking water.”EPA’s Weston Wilson: “Within a few months of coming into office, [the] vice president was pressuring the administrator of EPA, Christie Todd Whitman, to exempt hydraulic fracturing from Safe Drinking Water Act regulation.”Narrator: “Because of its high cost, [hydraulic fracturing] was not widely used until recently, in the 1990s, when the price of natural gas shot up high enough to make it affordable.”
Fact Check:
- Interestingly, the 2004 EPA report that found hydraulic fracturing to be a safe and effective energy technology was initiated not by the “Bush-Cheney” EPA, but by EPA administrator Carol Browner during the Clinton administration. This fact is directly at odds with several assertions made in the film.
- Currently serving in the White House as President Obama’s energy advisor, Ms. Browner wrote in 1995 that there was “no evidence” that hydraulic fracturing contributed to contamination, and that even the possibility of contamination happening in the future was “extremely remote.”
- Hydraulic fracturing did not earn an exemption to federal law under the Bush administration – it was never regulated under federal law to begin with. The 2005 energy bill, supported by then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), simply clarified the reach of the existing statute, making clear that states – who have been regulating fracturing activities for more than a half century – were best-equipped to oversee this process.
- Fracturing first came into commercial use in the late 1940s, and has been used consistently and efficiently over the years not only to produce oil and natural gas, but to tap water wells and even by EPA to clean up Superfund sites. It is not a new technology.
- The EPA study demonstrating the safety of hydraulic fracturing is one of many – all of which conclude that fracturing is environmentally safe as currently regulated.
- It should also be noted that EPA is an independent agency of the federal government, one that exists outside the structure of existing executive departments. It’s an agency with more than 18,000 employees – only a handful of which must be confirmed by the Senate, and even fewer selected by the president.
- To refer to the agency circa 2004 as the “Bush-Cheney administration’s EPA” is an attempt to obfuscate this fact, and to insinuate (without evidence) that the president ordered EPA scientists to produce analysis favorable to hydraulic fracturing.
Message #2: Medical personnel, state regulators, the general public – no one has any way of knowing what sort of materials are used in the fracturing process.
EPA’s Weston Wilson: “We cannot know what the industry injects in our land. It is exempt from being reported.”Activist Theo Colborn: “You may only get five percent of what’s in that product, and the rest is proprietary or they just don’t give it – they don’t have to.”Ms. Colborn: “There is no way a physician can truly treat what he’s seeing. They have not been given a list of these chemicals that are being used.”
Fact Check:
- Mr. Wilson’s assertion (echoed by Ms. Colborn) that “we cannot know” what materials are involved in the fracturing process is demonstrably untrue.
- Mandated by the federal government, documents known as Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) are required to be kept on-hand at all well sites. These sheets contain full listings of the materials involved in the fracturing process, and are even available on the Internet. They are also readily available to all medical and emergency response personnel.
- States in which fracturing activities take place have required a complete list of materials used in the process be submitted to state agencies when they have found it necessary.
- Some states, such as Pennsylvania, post those material sheets online (available here). Additional sheets can be accessed from Energy In Depth and the Ground Water Protection Council.
Ms. Colborn: “For people who are telling you that these products are safe, first, ask them what they have been trained in; two, find out who’s paying their salary; and third, actually hand them a real glass full of something that you have taken from an evaporation well, and ask them to drink it.”
- Ms. Colborn, a former zoology professor at the University of Florida, previously drew a salary from the professional environmental interest group WWF.
- Groundwater is not the same thing as drinking water, nor is it similar to the liquids involved in the fracturing of a well. The Safe Drinking Water Act requires groundwater to be treated to meet federal standards before it can be used in public water supplies. One of the treatment chemicals used in public water management is – and has been for over a hundred years – chlorine. It destroys water-borne bacteria; but no one would suggest drinking concentrated chlorine.
- Water residing thousands of feet underground (naturally) and brought to the surface following the fracturing process is called “produced water.” It must be managed to protect the environment under either the federal Clean Water Act or the Safe Drinking Water Act. No one suggests that it should be considered as drinking water.
- According to the Ground Water Protection Council, “[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.”
Message #3: The 2004 EPA study proving fracturing to be safe was “unsupportable” – EPA’s own experts said so.
Narrator: “[The 2004 EPA study] was challenged by a 30-year EPA environmental engineer Weston Wilson, acting under protected whistleblower status.”
Fact Check:
- Mr. Wilson does indeed work (to this day) for EPA’s regional office in Denver. His areas of expertise (as defined by himself) are in Clean Air Act and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) enforcement, not in the Safe Drinking Water Act or hydraulic fracturing. Consequently, Mr. Wilson was not part of the team of scientists and engineers that spent more than five years studying hydraulic fracturing for EPA.
- Wilson has a long and 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.”
Message #4: Energy producers in America benefit from unprecedented exemptions to existing federal environmental laws.
Graphic box: “The oil and gas industry is exempt from sections of the following U.S. Laws: Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Air Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, CERCLA, and The Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act”NRDC’s Amy Mall: “What’s most important is for Congress to close these loopholes – and to hold the oil and gas industry to the same standards as other industries.”
Fact Check:
- Notice here the documentarian doesn’t say energy producers are exempt from these laws – they’re only exempt from “sections” of them. Obviously, not every section of every environmental law deals with oil and gas production.
- Whereas some sections of the environmental statutes identified by the film’s director do not cover oil and gas, other “sections” in those same laws do. And that’s true for every single one cited in this documentary.
- In fact, federal environmental laws include sections that distinguish between different dischargers – industries, municipalities, agriculture – because no law written can be applied identically to all situations and circumstances.
- The oil and gas industry is among the most heavily regulated sectors in the U.S. economy. Every stage – from the wellhead to the burner tip – is covered extensively by state, local and federal laws.
Message #5: The Amos Well case demonstrates clearly why Congress needs to act to restrict hydraulic fracturing.
Narrator: In 2004, some residents in Garfield County [Colo.] began to complain that they were getting sick as a result of the drilling activities … A young woman from Silt, Laura Amos, was one of the earliest and loudest voices.”
Fact Check:
- In 2001 (not 2004), Ms. Amos first complained to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) about a variety of problems associated with her drinking water well, including reduced volume and the suspected presence of methane.
- According to Ms. Amos, these problems were caused by hydraulic fracturing operations conducted on gas wells approximately 1,000 feet from her home. Reports indicate that fracturing operations took place at depths of over 2,000 feet; the Amos well is 225-feet deep.
- COGCC undertook a thorough investigation of Ms. Amos’s complaints. On at least eight occasions between 2001 and 2005, the agency tested the Amos well for contaminants. Nothing of note was ever detected in any of these samples.
Message #6: America’s open spaces are currently under siege – the product of an unprecedented drilling boom initiated by President Bush, and surreptitiously aided by Vice President Cheney.
U.S. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass): “The attitude of the previous administration was drill, drill, drill – and drill some more.”
Narrator: “Back in 2000, after the Bush-Cheney election, there was a dramatic acceleration in drilling activity.”
Fact Check:
- According to the Congressional Research Service, more federal acreage was offered for lease under the Clinton administration than under the Bush administration – 31.3 million acres more.
- While it’s true that more wells were developed during President Bush’s tenure, that increase reflects a change in the dynamics of price — not a change in national policy.
|
Administration |
Offshore Acreage |
Onshore Acreage |
Total Acreage |
| Clinton (1993-2000) | 420,277,357 | 46,427,365 | 466,704,722 |
| Bush (2001-2008) | 403,953,986 | 31,488,455 | 435,442,441 |
Source: Congressional Research Service (published Jan. 14, 2009)
Odds and Ends
Sen. Kerry: “Sixty-five percent of the current [federal] subsidies go to gas and oil, and you have this imbalance. We ought to have 65 percent or more – 80 percent – ought to be going to alternative, renewable technologies — to energy efficiency.”
Ms. Colborn: “Let’s work on alternatives. Let’s serve the country through alternative energy.”
Fact Check:
The Energy information Administration (EIA) estimates that total federal subsidies for electric production are $24.34 per megawatt hour for solar power and $23.37 for wind, compared to 25 cents per megawatt hour for natural gas and petroleum fueled technologies—98 times higher. Yet, even with these subsidies, solar generated only 0.02 percent of U.S. electricity in 2008. Wind barely delivered one percent.
* * *
Narrator: “Industry has brought jobs and money to the county, but for Gilbert Armenta, the price has been much too high.”
Mr. Armenta: “The industry has the mentality that, [the land] is all theirs and it don’t belong to nobody else.”
Fact Check:
Mr. Armenta is a fourth generation American who, by his own admission, owns “over 100,000 acres of ranchland” in Bloomfield, New Mexico. In his county, energy development accounts for more than eight percent of the total workforce. Perhaps it’s not unreasonable for residents in his community not fortunate enough to own 100,000 acres of ranchland to pursue high-wage, family-supporting employment opportunities in this field.
* * *
Narrator: “In an effort to convince authorities that the bubbling was not occurring naturally, Lisa [Bracken] and her family demonstrated that the gas would ignite.”
Fact: Gas ignites. That’s true whether the methane found in the Bracken stream arrived there through natural means or not. Once again, the director confuses a basic point of science in her rush to blame hydraulic fracturing for a phenomenon that occurs naturally every single day. This explains why public water systems de-gas their water during treatment; unfortunately, many private wells do not.
Additional resources available at Energy In Depth:
- Editorial: Gas documentary offers anecdotes, not evidence
- Press Release: Duplicative hydraulic fracturing rules could imperil U.S. economy
- Wyoming Memo: Mind the O-Gap
- GWPC Study: State Oil and Natural Gas Regulations Designed to Protect Water Resources
- Graphic: How Far Down Do We Frac?
- Graphic: What’s In Frac Fluids?
- Fact Sheet: New Federal Regulations Will Cost Americans Jobs, Revenue, and Security
- EPA Study: Study to Evaluate the Impacts to USDWs by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs
- Browner Memo: Letter of Support for Hydraulic Fracturing from Carol Browner, Fmr. EPA Administrator
