Home » Posts tagged "Earthworks"

Earthworks

Pictures from Smithfield, Pa. Tell Different Story than U.K. Telegraph
Last week, the (London) Daily Telegraph published a feature with the headline “Now for the downside of fracking.” The article profiled the viewpoints and activities of well-known anti-shale activist David Headley, the same guy The New York Times (NYT) featured in a major write-up in its paper last summer. Here’s the real story; Pennsylvania residents support shale development in overwhelming numbers as evidenced by recent polling showing nearly 80 percentof western Pennsylvanians believe Marcellus development is brining “opportunity to the area.”

johnkrohn

JD
Communications Director

Last week, the (London) Daily Telegraph published a piece with the headline “Now for the downside of fracking.” The article profiled the viewpoints and activities of well-known anti-shale activist David Headley, the same guy The New York Times (NYT) featured in a major write-up in its paper last summer.

Of course, as the NYT story makes clear, Mr. Headley’s main concern isn’t really related to the development of natural gas from shale, or even with the utilization of hydraulic fracturing toward that end. The problem, it turns out, is over money. Mr. Headley sold away his mineral rights when he bought the property in 2006, and he now thinks he should have been paid more for the pipeline right-of-way deal for which he signed up subsequent to that. Unhappy about his compensation, Headley has filed a steady stream of complaints over the years — complaints that, even Headley himself admits, would have been resolved if only he “had received more money.”

The Headley situation reached a boiling point recently after the Pennsylvania State Police were forced to issue a restraining order on him after he “patrolled” his land with a shotgun as workers attempted to install the pipeline for which he had previously signed a right-of-way. Unfortunately, not a whole lot of this colorful history made its way into the Telegraph piece. Below, we take a look at a few other claims that don’t quite stack up with the facts:

Telegraph: “Every morning, when he opens his bedroom curtains, the first thing that David Headley sees is a gas well. It sits less than 200 yards from his front door and it is a constant reminder of what Mr Headley says is the ‘pure hell’ of living with fracking.”

FACT: Developing a natural gas well, which includes the three-day-long process of fracturing the well, generally takes several weeks at most to complete. Landowners are kept informed throughout the process and often work with operators to ensure disturbances are kept at an absolute minimum.

Headley’s suggestion that companies care little about the landowners whose resources they are developing, and that the landscape is somehow left irrevocably scarred, is contradicted by the facts. Need proof? Last week, our team took a field trip to Smithfield, Pa. – same town Mr. Headley calls home. We snapped a few pictures of some completed wellsites. We’ll let you decide whether these are images of “pure hell,” as Mr. Headley suggests.

Smithfield 2 Smithfield 1Smithfield 2

Telegraph: “In Pennsylvania, some [natural gas wells] are tucked behind hedgerows and hidden away in copses and hollows, but many others – along with compressor stations and open “impoundment ponds” used to store toxic fracking solution – are situated within a few hundred yards of residential housing.”

FACT: The apparent suggestion here that the mere existence of natural gas wellsites in a community constitute living in an industrial wasteland is simply not true. As the pictures above show clearly, natural gas development co-exists just fine with the farms and landscapes of Smithfield, Pa. Further, impoundment ponds are a temporary part of development, and in fact most operators no longer even use them.  Where they are still used they are often “offered” to landowners in the form of Surface Use Agreements or otherwise titled contract documents, to which the resident can, but does not have to, agree.

Much more important, these ponds are quickly being replaced by closed-loop systems throughout the Marcellus region and other areas where these resources are being responsibly developed.  These systems separate waste materials, including flowback and produced fluids, at the point of extraction and are channeled to sealed containment systems. In fact, they are so effective, they’ve even gained some support among anti-energy groups – such as Earthworks, which stated they “isolate waste products from the environment” and “can greatly reduce or eliminate the discharge of toxic drilling wastes on site.”

For these reasons, state regulators across the country have recognized the technology as an approved “best management practice,” and many states now require their use. Cabot Oil and Gas uses the technology in all of its operations. Chesapeake Energy uses the technology extensively in its Utica and Marcellus Shale operations, as does Chief Oil and Gas – among many others.

Telegraph: “Mr Headley points to the well-head, which is submerged under a foot of murky rainwater that is bubbling gently, like a witch’s brew. ‘See. You can see the thing is leaking,’ says the former car body-shop owner, who bought his farm in 2006 but chose not to purchase the gas rights – a move he now bitterly regrets. ‘What’s really coming out of that well?’ he asks. ‘Is it safe? We just don’t know.’”

FACT: Unfortunately, we weren’t able to gain access to Headley’s property on our field trip earlier this week, and we weren’t about to try given his previous record with shotguns.  Of course, in truth, we didn’t really even need to visit to get to the bottom of this one. That’s because, according to the Pa. Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), Headley’s characterization isn’t true.  When contacted about Headley’s comments and the Telegraph’s story, DEP offered the following to us:

 “As of our most recent compliance inspection, all issues … where the Headleys complained have been resolved. Also, this [Telgraph] reporter never contacted us. Had he, I would have been happy to point out our many, many interactions with the Headleys and their concerns.”

Telegraph: “Whether Mr. Headley’s fears are real or imagined, he is far from alone in holding them. One pressure group, the Pennsylvania Alliance for Clean Water and Air, has collated more than 800 cases of people they say have been harmed by fracking nationwide – a body of evidence that environmentalists and local politicians contend is now beyond anecdotal.”

FACT: Here a list of similar claims is offered to “strengthen” Headley’s accusations. However,  the group that compiled the list makes no effort to hide its motive of ending natural gas production in Pennsylvania.  In fact, the very first item on their website is a “Case for a Moratorium on Drilling in the Marcellus Shale,” and the organization goes on to list a number of projects and entities supported by the Park Foundation – an organization financing nearly every anti-shale initiative to date – as resources to learn more about the “dangers” of hydraulic fracturing.

Regardless of the bias of this organization, the more compelling fact is that most of the claims collected by this group have been proven false.  A few examples:

Telegraph: “Unlike in the UK, public fears do not focus on earthquake risk, which caused the British government to put a moratorium on fracking until last year, but on environmental pollution issues. They include contamination of drinking water with methane, air pollution from the gas wells and compressor stations, and possible radiation poisoning from elements such as uranium, thorium, and radium that occur naturally in the vast Marcellus Shale gas deposit that stretches for hundreds of miles from West Virginia to upstate New York.”

FACT: According to the Pennsylvania DEP, notwithstanding that over 6,000 Marcellus wells having been developed in the state, there are no emissions from these activities that even come close to reaching levels harmful to human health. As this DEP report highlights:

 “Results of the limited ambient air sampling initiative in the northeast region did not identify concentrations of any compound that would likely trigger air related health issues associated with Marcellus Shale drilling activities.”

As for claims of water pollution and the safety of hydraulic fracturing process, both the former and current secretaries of the DEP (one Democrat, one Republican) have testified there is “not one” single case of water contamination in the state as a result of hydraulic fracturing. That’s quite a record, especially when you consider the thousands of wells that have been safely completed in Pennsylvania.

Claims about radiation impacting water have also been proven false. As an Associated Press report conducted last year found:

 “Additional water testing over the last year also appears to have put to rest concerns that radioactivity from the drilling waste could contaminate drinking water…States said his agency [Pittsburgh Water and Sewer Authority] ‘looked real hard’ at the radioactivity issue, but didn’t find a problem in western Pennsylvania rivers…Sunday, the DEP spokesman, said the state’s water quality monitoring network shows normal, background levels of radioactivity. ‘Monitoring at the public water supply intakes across the state showed non-detectable levels of radiation.”

Telegraph: “As New York and Colorado debate whether to allow fracking, environmental groups and some residents in Pennsylvania argue that the long-term health impacts so close to residential communities are just too indeterminate to be considered safe, saying that two official studies on the impact of fracking on water quality and radiation build-up are not even due to be completed until 2014.”

FACT: While New York is still finalizing regulations governing shale development (after four long years), Colorado is not debating whether or not to “allow” hydraulic fracturing.  In fact, the state is the sixth largest natural gas producing state in the nation, and according to the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, 11,568 oil and natural gas wells were developed between 2007 and 2011, with 90 percent of those undergoing hydraulic fracturing. Even Colorado’s governor, John Hickenlooper (D), has defended the safety record of hydraulic fracturing in his state.

Telegraph: “A study of air emissions from natural gas drilling in Pennsylvania, just released by the RAND Corporation think tank, illustrated the gap between those macro- and micro‑level experiences. It found that while the total emissions were less than that of a single coal‑fired power plant, in areas where drilling was concentrated the emissions were “20 to 40 times higher” than regulations permitted for a single minor source.”

FACT: According to that same report, emissions from oil and gas development account for less than one percent of emissions statewide. Also important: increased natural gas use has actually lowered emissions in the state, including in counties where shale development is taking place.

Using minor sources to justify the argument is a bit misleading. Stating “emissions were 20 to 40 times higher than permitted for a single minor source” tells us nothing unless we know the geographic area involved and how the emissions from a single minor source compare to air quality standards for the area.  Any geographic area would be expected to include several minor sources (e.g., dry cleaners, compressors, etc.).  Yet, this doesn’t mean air quality is in any way threatened.  Indeed, the Pennsylvania DEP explicitly says it is not, which is really the only point that matters.

Telegraph: “And that, concludes Jesse White, a Pennsylvania state representative who has taken up the cause of those who say they have been affected by the shale gas boom, is the lesson that Britain should learn if and when it moves ahead to exploit shale gas reserves that – while unlikely to alleviate the short-term crunch warned of this week by Ofgem – could ultimately exceed those of the North Sea.”

FACT: Jesse White is far from an unbiased state representative who has simply “taken up the cause” of those “affected by the shale gas boom.” In fact, Jesse White previously supported Marcellus Shale development – before Range Resources declined to provide him political favors to attend the Super Bowl, according to the Pittsburgh Times-Tribune.  Since that dispute, White has attacked DEP and the natural gas industry on behalf of individuals who don’t even reside in his district.  Here again, the full story provides a much different picture than his comments to the Telegraph suggested.

Here’s the real story; Pennsylvania residents support shale development in overwhelming numbers.  Recent polling showed nearly 80 percentof western Pennsylvanians believe Marcellus development is brining “opportunity to the area.”  In another example of this very local support, 40 residents in nearby Robinson Township gathered recently to express their frustration with delays in Marcellus development.

People in Southwestern Pennsylvania, of course, are already well aware of this overwhelming support and the benefits Marcellus development is bringing to their communities.  Unfortunately, the folks quoted in the Telegraph story didn’t provide a very accurate picture of that support, instead providing an uncritical platform to highlight the views of a vocal – though increasingly small – minority.

 

California Lawsuit Filled With False Fracturing Claims
Earthjustice and other activist groups filed a lawsuit this week against the California Department of Conservation's Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR). DOGGR has recently concluded public hearings gathering information for the express purpose of updating hydraulic fracturing regulations, its proposals are expected soon. It's shameful that Earthjustice's filing once again seeks to inject fear-mongering and misstatements of fact into what should be a scientific discussion about the safety of hydraulic fracturing at the very time regulators are seeking the most credible information.

Dave
Field Director, California

 

Earthjustice and other activist groups – including the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club – filed a lawsuit this week against the California Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR).DOGGR has only recently concluded a series of public hearings seeking to gather information from the public for the express purpose of updating how the State of California regulates hydraulic fracturing, and its proposals are expected soon.It is shameful that Earthjustice’s filing once again seeks to inject fear-mongering and misstatements of fact into what should be a scientific discussion about the safety of hydraulic fracturing at the very time regulators are seeking the most credible information.

It is inconvenient for the professional activist groups that this lawsuit comes only a few days removed from the release of a comprehensive study on the Inglewood Oil Field near Los Angeles, which identified no significant environmental harm from hydraulic fracturing.

This is a story we’re all too familiar with: scientists and experts conclude (yet again) that hydraulic fracturing is safe, but opponents don’t want to hear it, so, to distract the public, they scream even louder that it is not safe.

To be sure, this strategy does wonders for those groups’ fundraising efforts, as they can quickly gain a forum in the media by making headline-grabbing, but unfounded, assertions. But as we also know, the ability to raise money does not necessarily establish credibility, especially when the core message is a flat-out rejection of independent, peer-reviewed scientific evidence.

Right out of the gate, Earthjustice tries to ascribe legitimacy to its own filing by declaring there to be “several significant environmental and public health impacts associated with hydraulic fracturing,” a claim that one would expect to be followed with hard evidence and meticulously researched data to support it. But no such evidence or data are presented. Instead, Earthjustice simply parrots activist talking points that have been debunked countless times in the past.

Below is a list of some of the “impacts” that Earthjustice identified, followed by what the facts actually tell us.

—

CLAIM: “…the contamination of domestic and agricultural water supplies…” (p. 2)

FACT: Hydraulic fracturing has been used more than 1.2 million times and there are zero confirmed cases of water contamination resulting from the process. Evidence? Here’s what the experts say:

Also, state regulators from nearly a dozen states have repeatedly affirmed that hydraulic fracturing does not contaminate water supplies.

CLAIM: “…the use of massive amounts of water…” (p. 2)

FACT: Earthjustice chose only to mention the number gallons used without putting the numbers in any relevant context. The reason is simple: the context completely undermines the group’s alarmist claims about water consumption.

For example, as the New York Times reported earlier this year, the amount of water that oil and natural gas companies in Colorado will use constitutes only 0.1 percent of the state’s overall water use. The Times added that water used for oil and gas – including hydraulic fracturing – was “paltry” compared to other major sources, such as irrigation and agriculture, which also happen to be major industries in California as well. This observation is completely consistent with the findings of the U.S. Department of Energy and Groundwater Protection Council – hydraulic fracturing water use ranges “from less than 0.1% to 0.8% of total water use by basin.”

While in some parts of the country hydraulic fracturing requires two to four million gallons of water, spread out over several days, in California the fracturing process takes a day or two and generally uses a small fraction of this amount of water — a couple hundred thousand gallons.

A little perspective: the average California golf course uses 312,000 gallons of water per day. If we assume 200,000 gallons per fracturing job, and 628 fracturing operations (out of more than 2,000 new wells drilled), the total water use of all the hydraulic fracturing in California last year equals the amount of water used by California’s 1,140 golf courses in half of one day.

You can get more facts – with context! – about hydraulic fracturing and relative water demand by clicking here.

CLAIM: “…the emission of hazardous air pollutants…” (p. 2)

FACT: As with the water claim, Earthjustice goes on to list certain emissions (i.e. VOCs, benzene, etc.) in a rhetorical vacuum, providing no information about health thresholds or even how those emissions compare to other sources. And once again, had it done that, the claim would have been completely undermined.

Here is a list of conclusions from regulators and other scientists regarding air emissions and hydraulic fracturing (or shale development as a whole):

As with any chemical, it’s not the presence that signifies harm, but rather the level and type of exposure. The facts show that emissions related to oil and natural gas development are below public health thresholds established by regulatory agencies at the state and federal level. That’s not to say that operations cannot improve, or even that they aren’t constantly evolving to reduce impacts. But it’s important that a legitimate conversation about potential air impacts is grounded not only in science, but also in an understanding of thresholds and other contextual information. Simply stating the presence of something in isolation, without the proper context and supporting data, is highly misleading.

CLAIM: “…and the potential for induced seismic activity.” (p. 2) Earthjustice later writes: “In June 2012, the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science released a report finding that the injection of wastewater for disposal poses a risk of causing seismic events.” (p. 9)

FACT: California is no stranger to seismic activity, but contrary to what groups like Earthjustice would have us believe, hydraulic fracturing poses no serious risk for major earthquakes. As U.S. Geological Survey geophysicist Bill Ellsworth said earlier this year: “We don’t see any connection between [hydraulic fracturing] and earthquakes of any concern to society.”

The most recent assessment of hydraulic fracturing in the Inglewood oil field also concluded that “high-volume hydraulic fracturing and high-rate gravel packs had no detectable effects on vibration, and did not induce seismicity (earthquakes).”

And that same NRC report that Earthjustice cites? The researchers concluded that “hydraulic fracturing a well as presently implemented for shale gas recovery does not pose a high risk for inducing felt seismic events.” It’s right there in the report’s key findings.

Earthjustice is doing what opponents of hydraulic fracturing (and, unfortunately, many media outlets) have commonly done: conflating “hydraulic fracturing” with “wastewater disposal.” Injection wells that receive wastewater are used by a variety of industries, including oil and gas but also chemical manufacturers, among others. The risk of seismicity from injection wells – regardless of the source of the wastewater – has long been recognized and understood.  Geothermal operations in fact often record some of the highest level of induced seismicity of any injection operation.

As Deputy U.S. Interior Secretary David Hayes has explained:

The fact that the disposal (injection) of wastewater produced while extracting resources has the potential to cause earthquakes has long been known. One of the earliest documented case histories with a scientific consensus of wastewater inducing earthquakes, is at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal well, near Denver. There, a large volume of wastewater was injected from 1962-1966, inducing a series of earthquakes (below magnitude 5).

And Stanford University’s Mark Zoback, who is also an adviser to U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, recently assured Congress that wastewater injection is safe:

No earthquake triggered by fluid injection has ever caused serious injury or significant damage. Moreover, approximately 140,000 Class II wastewater disposal wells have been operating safely and without incident in the U.S. for many decades.

What experts at the Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, the National Academies of Science and Stanford University understand – and that Earthjustice clearly does not – is that hydraulic fracturing and wastewater disposal are two completely separate processes.

CLAIM: “However, the precise chemical makeup of most fracking fluids has not been disclosed because the oil and gas industry has argued that it is proprietary information and/or a trade secret.” (p. 8)

FACT: This is quite an interesting claim, because one page earlier in the filing Earthjustice says this: “The fracking fluid typically consists of 95% water, 4.5% proppant (such as sand, ceramic pellets, or other particles), and 0.5% chemicals that serve various purposes, including biocides, oxygen scavengers, enzyme breakers, acids, stabilizers, gels, and rust inhibitors.” (p. 7)

In other words, Earthjustice itself described the composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids – then claimed that the composition of hydraulic fracturing fluids “has not been disclosed.”

Obvious carelessness aside, anyone with access to the Internet can look find what additives are used during hydraulic fracturing – including on a well-by-well basis – by visiting www.FracFocus.org.

—

In summary, Earthjustice is suing DOGGR based upon alleged environmental impacts from hydraulic fracturing, but those impacts are either non-existent or unrelated to hydraulic fracturing. Plus, the lawsuit was filed despite the fact that DOGGR is already updating California’s strict regulations for oil and gas well construction to increase the state’s oversight of hydraulic fracturing and provide more information to the public about where and how this technology is used.

When you consider the context, it’s seems pretty clear that the nature and the timing of these allegations against hydraulic fracturing are simply meant to distract regulators, elected officials and citizens, and prevent them from engaging in a sensible and scientifically based discussion about hydraulic fracturing and domestic oil and natural gas development. That’s probably because a rational discussion about hydraulic fracturing will show that California can responsibly develop its resources, create jobs, grow the economy, reduce oil imports, and protect the environment.

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.

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.

PROBLEM 2: Claims state regulatory bodies are ill-equipped and “unprepared” for future or even existing development.

FACT: Experts have confirmed that state regulatory bodies are well-managed and have the tools necessary to do their jobs – and do them right.

PROBLEM 3: Pushes for legal system defined by guilty until proven innocent.

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.

PROBLEM 4: Claims spills and violations are increasing.

FACT: Spills in Colorado are decreasing, while violations in Ohio and Pennsylvania are on the decline.

PROBLEM 5: Wants to punish oil and gas development for government deficits.

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.

–

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.