Home » Posts tagged "Energy In Depth" (Page 2)

Energy In Depth

*UPDATE XIII* Six — Actually, Seven — Questions for EPA on Pavillion
Emails obtained from the EPA in a recent FOIA request show that the agency pushed back immediately against the claim that it had linked hydraulic fracturing to water contamination, suggesting that a narrative repeated to this day was actually manufactured by the news media and not reported by EPA.

Update XIII (9:17 a.m. ET; Feb. 20, 2013) — Emails obtained from the EPA in a recent FOIA request show that the agency pushed back immediately against the claim that it had linked hydraulic fracturing to water contamination, suggesting that a narrative repeated to this day was actually manufactured by the news media and not reported by EPA.

In one email, EPA’s then-press secretary, Betsaida Alcantara, told Lisa Jackson that the agency was pushing back against the AP’s breaking story on the Pavillion report in December 2011, which ran under the headline: “EPA implicates hydraulic fracturing in groundwater pollution at Wyoming gas field.” Alcantara said the AP’s “headline and lead are unnecessarily inflammatory and irresponsible,” and that the AP would be updating the story “heavily” to emphasize the unconfirmed nature of the findings.

Notably, the headline was changed from “EPA implicates hydraulic fracturing” to “EPA theorizes fracking pollution link.” The original AP story also declared in the opening paragraph that EPA had “implicated fracking” for causing contamination, but the version corrected at EPA’s request was changed to say that fracking “may be to blame.”

The revelation undermines critics of hydraulic fracturing, who frequently claim that EPA’s findings in Pavillion “prove” that the practice contaminates drinking water. The NRDC said EPA’s findings represented “the first official evidence that fracking is a threat to drinking water,” while ProPublica ran a story about EPA’s report under the headline “Feds Link Water Contamination to Fracking for the First Time.”

But if the EPA pushed back so vehemently against that characterization in the press, what does that say about one of opponents’ favorite talking points — namely, that EPA’s findings in Pavillion support their thesis of contamination?

Full email from Alcantara is below, but can also be found here (note: large PDF):

From: Betsaida Alcantara/DC/USEPA/US
To: Richard Windsor/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bob Perciasepe/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Bob Sussman/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Jim Martin/R8/USEPA/US@EPA, Brendan Gilfillan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Seth Oster/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Diane Thompson/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Daniel Kanninen/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Paul Anastas/DC/USEPA/US@EPA
Date: 12/08/2011 01:32 PM
Subject: AP: EPA implicates hydraulic fracturing in groundwater pollution at Wyoming gas field

This is the AP’s short piece out of the gate. We’ve told them that this headline and lead are unnecessarily inflammatory and irresponsible. We’ve convinced them to update the story heavily and also remove the words “implicate”. They are going to point out that these limited findings are not final, will go through peer review and are based on the specific conditions in this field. They are re-writing this story as we speak and will put out an udpated story in about 30 minutes.

 

EPA implicates hydraulic fracturing in groundwater pollution at Wyoming gas field

By Associated Press, Updated: Thursday, December 8, 1:10 PM

CHEYENNE, Wyo. — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the first time has implicated fracking — a controversial method of improving the productivity of oil and gas wells — for causing groundwater pollution.

The finding could have a chilling effect in states trying to determine how to regulate the controversial process.

The practice is called hydraulic fracturing and involves pumping pressurized water, sand and chemicals underground to open fissures and improve the flow of oil or gas.

The EPA announced Thursday that it found compounds likely associated with fracking chemicals in the groundwater beneath a Wyoming community where residents say their well water reeks of chemicals.

Health officials advised them not to drink their water after the EPA found hydrocarbons in their wells.

The EPA announcement has major implications for a vast increase in gas drilling in the U.S. in recent years. Fracking has played a large role in opening up many reserves.

The industry has long contended that fracking is safe, but environmentalists and some residents who live near drilling sites say it has poisoned groundwater.

It’s worth noting, too, that when Alcantara later circulated the updated AP story — which said that there only “may” be a link between hydraulic fracturing and contamination — she prefaced it with “updated AP story. best we could get.” That suggests that even the updated version was not exactly to their liking, and that the agency was very interested in distancing itself from a link to water contamination that opponents have gleefully ascribed to their findings.

Update XII (5:19 p.m. ET; May 21) – A new report further debunks EPA’s previous claims that hydraulic fracturing and natural gas development activities impact groundwater in Pavillion, Wyoming. Performed by S.S. Papadopulos & Associates (SSP&A), the new study found the EPA’s draft report lacking to say the least. The report also comes in the wake of a “report” commissioned by anti-shale groups that claimed EPA’s findings were sound – even though the EPA itself doesn’t even agree with that assessment.

As the International Business Times reports: “The report finds the EPA lacked baseline and background data including naturally occurring methane and other hydrocarbon levels, faulted ‘poor study design,’ found the EPA’s conclusions are based on a total of four samples, and that the EPA study failed to adequately address ‘the original project aims of determining the source of taste and odor complaints in residential wells’.”

Update XI (5:19 p.m. ET; May 1) — An “independent” consultant from Reno, Nevada — hired by the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Sierra Club, and Earthworks (among others) to write about Pavillion — has decided, through a priori means, that EPA was actually right about water contamination there. The only problem? Not even the EPA believes that anymore. Otherwise, why would that agency have agreed to suspend the independent review process and complete new sampling?

Interestingly, this same “independent” consultant from Nevada is featured in a ProPublica article today claiming that contaminants in the Marcellus region may soon migrate up through two miles of solid rock and into drinking water sources — all thanks to hydraulic fracturing. The funder of that study? The Park Foundation. The “independent” reviewer? Cornell professor and well-known shale critic Anthony Ingraffea. Amazing how these things come together, isn’t it?

Update X (2:37 p.m. ET; March 8 ) — The Casper Star-Tribune reports that the EPA — following reports that surfaced about its improper testing procedures and failure to follow protocol for its December draft report on water quality in Pavillion — has agreed to “further sampling” of the water wells in the area. In a joint statement, U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead, and the Northern Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone Tribes said: “The EPA, the State of Wyoming, and the Tribes recognize that further sampling of the deep monitoring wells drilled for the Agency’s groundwater study is important to clarify questions about the initial monitoring results” (emphasis added). Even more evidence that EPA’s draft report — once heralded by opponents of responsible energy production as “proof” that developing natural gas from shale is dangerous — rests on conclusions that are fundamentally flawed.

Update IX (2:45 p.m. ET; Feb. 14) -- The Riverton Ranger brings us an interesting piece from Wyoming, highlighting farmers, ranchers and everyday residents from in and around the Pavillion area who say their water is just fine – but that EPA’s flawed draft study on Pavillion is causing real damage to the town and their businesses. According to one farmer:  “My concern is that we are trying to fix a problem that does not exist.” Said another: “The water wells were making gas before there were ever any gas wells, let alone fracking,” Click here for the full story.

Update VIII (12:29 p.m. EST; Jan. 20) — Just days after the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) and Governor Mead sent letters to Administrator Lisa Jackson,  the EPA has announced it is extending the public comment period on the Wyoming’s DEQ’s draft report on Pavillion until March 12.   Also today,  ten Senators, including Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), Senator Lisa Murkowski (R-AK),  Mike Crapo (R-ID), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), John Boozman (R-AR), John Cornyn (R-TX), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Pat Roberts (R-KS), and Roger Wicker (R-MS), sent a letter to Jackson requesting that EPA consider its investigation a Highly Influential Scientific Assessment (HISA). In otherwords, this case must be  held to the highest scientific standards as well as the most rigorous peer review process available.   Read the IPAA’s letter and check out the Casper Star Tribune for more on the story.

Update VII (9:05 a.m. EST; Jan. 18) — Wyoming’s governor, Matt Mead, has sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson requesting quicker answers to questions from Wyoming’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) about the Pavillion draft report. “I understood the EPA would timely respond to these questions and requests,” Mead writes. “However, the majority of those questions remain outstanding” (the comment period officially ends on January 27th). Mead has also asked that the EPA extend the comment period by 30 days to “provide the public and the peer panel [an] opportunity to review additional information provided by EPA’s response and to consider it in their comments.” Taking these steps will facilitate “an unbiased, scientifically supportable finding open to the public,” according to Mead. E&E News (subs. req’d) also has a story on Mead’s letter.

Update VI (1:05 p.m. EST; Dec. 27) — Another excellent hit in the Casper paper this morning, this one a news article by reporter Jeremy Fugleberg laying out a bunch of new information that futher undermines EPA’s case on Pavillion. According to the piece: “EPA’s own data — including details not mentioned in the draft report — indicates the agency’s conclusions are partially based on improperly analyzed samples from six private drinking-water wells and two EPA-drilled deep monitoring wells in Pavillion.” Click here for the full article.

Update V (11:50 a.m. EST; Dec. 26) — Must-read editorial in the Casper Star-Tribune posted earlier today in which the newspaper cites EPA for “terrible execution” of its draft report on Pavillion, suggesting further that “process and politics have trumped good science.” The paper also highlights EPA’s continued unwillingness to answer even the most basic questions that have been raised about the methodology used in assembling the report — questions first posed by EID earlier this month (see below). Click here to view the Casper editorial.

Update IV (11:27 a.m. EST; Dec. 22) — Earlier this week, Wyoming governor Matthew Mead sent a letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson laying out a series of questions regarding the agency’s draft paper on Pavillion.  In the letter, the governor stresses the importance of sound science and collaboration with state experts in arriving at a final determination. The governor also asks Administrator Jackson to clearly define what the “peer-review” process will look like; remarkably, EPA has yet to even inform the state what it intends to do on that issue.

In related news, Encana this week pulled together a conference call with the media to detail the myriad technical issues that have eroded confidence in the validity of EPA’s draft finding. On the call David Stewart, Group Lead on Environment, Health and Safety (North Rockies) outlined a litany of errors, discrepancies and oversights with EPA’s study efforts.  Among the highlights:

For more information on Encana’s detailed technical response please see their briefing document which can be found here

UPDATE III (10:42 a.m. EST; Dec. 13) — New details starting to emerge on the process EPA will follow related to comment solicitation/collection and peer-review associated with its draft Pavillion paper. Formal notice of the comment period is slated to run in the Federal Register tomorrow, but you can get a sneak preview of what it will say here. Among the items in the document that jump out to us:  EPA’s declaration that the draft report “does not represent and should not be construed to represent any Agency policy or determination.” Of course, EPA also says in this notice that the Pavillion draft has ”not been formally disseminated by EPA. “ Guess they’re not counting that press release they sent out to 50,000 people last Thursday.

UPDATE II (11:32 a.m. EST, Dec. 12) — Not sure how we missed this one over the weekend, but in a story posted Friday on the website of the Casper Star-Tribune, Interior secretary Ken Salazar suggests “the jury is still out” regarding the accuracy and veracity of EPA’s draft report on Pavillion. According to the secretary: “We’ll see what happens with this Pavillion study. And I think it’s important that the real facts finally get to the table with respect to the peer review and seeing whether there’s something specific with respect to that basin that is different from what we have across the country.” Click here to view the story.

UPDATE (8:55 a.m. EST, Dec. 12) — Meaty press release from Encana just crossed the wires this morning; click here to take a look.  One of the things in here that really caught our eye — and which wasn’t mentioned in our issue alert below — is the fact that EPA apparently conceded to “finding” petroleum-based contaminants in ”blank” water samples.  Blank samples, according to the release, are “ultra purified water samples commonly used in testing to ensure no contamination from field sampling procedures.” How is it possible to detect compounds of concern from crystal-clear, ultra-purified water? Good question.

–

Call it a sign of the “Times,” let’s say, that less than 24 hours removed from the release of EPA Region 8’s report on groundwater sampling near Pavillion, Wyo., nearly a thousand different news stories have been generated — in 12 different countries, and best we can tell, four different languages. But set aside the breathless headlines for a moment and the triumphant quotes from a small segment of folks committed to ending the responsible development of natural gas, and one’s left with a pretty straightforward question: Is EPA right? And if so, what exactly does that mean moving forward?

Of course, before you can answer the second question, it’d be helpful if you had a good answer for the first. And the truth is, as we sit here today, less than 20 hours A.P. (After Pavillion), we simply don’t. What we do know, however, even at these early stages, is that several of the assertions put forth in EPA’s report yesterday don’t quite square with the facts as they actually exist on the ground out there. Because of that, a number of folks are starting to ask some pretty basic questions about what the agency found and how it went about finding it. Below, a few of the most obvious:

1) Why the huge difference between what EPA found in its monitoring wells and what was detected in private wells from which people actually get their water?

2) After reviewing the data collected by Region 8, why did EPA administrator Lisa Jackson tell a reporter that, specific to Pavillion, “we have absolutely no indication now that drinking water is at risk”? (video available here)

3) Did all those chemicals that EPA used to drill its monitoring wells affect the results?

4) Why is the author so confident that fracturing is to blame when most of his actual report focuses on potential issues with casing, cement and legacy pits?

5) 2-BE or not 2-BE? That is the question.

6) Is EPA getting enough potassium?

READ MORE

 

Subtraction Through Addition via the FRAC Act
Desperate for something to advocate for on visits with friendly legislators during periodic trips to Capitol Hill, opponents of natural gas were able to secure the introduction of legislation a couple years back called the FRAC Act. A recent review found the only thing the FRAC Act would achieve is to cripple the U.S. economy, reverse a nearly half-decade long trend of falling CO2 emissions, and undermine production of what President Obama himself called “clean power” in his recent State of the Union address. Only in Washington could this possibly make sense.

juliabellJulia
Researcher

Desperate for something to advocate for on visits with friendly legislators during periodic trips to Capitol Hill, opponents of natural gas were able to secure the introduction of legislation a couple years back called the FRAC Act – legislation that seeks to wrestle regulatory control over hydraulic fracturing from the states and place it firmly in the purview of the U.S. EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

That SDWA has been the law of the land for nearly 40 years and was never written, and has never been used, to regulate hydraulic fracturing is, for opponents, merely an inconvenience; granting regulatory authority to the EPA means another layer of bureaucracy through which oil and gas operators would have to navigate, which in turn means a slowdown if not an outright halt in development. The FRAC Act has become something of an obsession for folks opposed to responsible shale development, with none other than Josh Fox using it as the main “thing to do” after he misled the public with Gasland just a few years back.

Even though the FRAC Act has gained exactly zero traction in the U.S. Congress (even Henry Waxman intervened to stop its advance back in 2010) two U.S. Senators – Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) – have nonetheless tried to bring it to life by including the full text of the act as part of a bigger carbon tax bill. That’s what makes a recent report by the Hudson Institute, entitled “Institutional Choices for Regulating Oil and Gas Wells,” incredibly timely, as the report makes it abundantly clear why this proposal is a less than stellar idea.

Of course, before even discussing whether the federal government should insert itself into this conversation, it’s worth asking: Are state regulators failing to meet their responsibilities? After all, if it’s not broken don’t fix it.  According to officials at the EPA – the agency that opponents so desperately want to regulate hydraulic fracturing – there is no indication that state regulation isn’t adequate. As former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson recently observed: “States are stepping up and doing a good job,” which of course came not long after EPA’s Drinking Water Protection Division chief said he has “no information that states aren’t doing a good job already” regulating hydraulic fracturing.

With that as background, the Hudson Institute study presented four fundamental questions often used to determine the appropriate level of regulation for any activity:

In considering the above, the study found “these considerations imply that state-level control [of hydraulic fracturing] is a superior option” and that “given current evidence, the case for the FRAC Act is weak.” Here’s why:

The first question wasn’t very difficult to answer. Hydraulic fracturing has been applied more than 1.2 million times since 1947 and has compiled an exceptional record of safety and execution during that span. This is a fact confirmed by state regulators, multiple independent reviews and the U.S. EPA under three separate administrations. In addition, a recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study noted that natural gas development from shale produces results in dramatically lower air emissions than other studies have acknowledged.  And we’d obviously be remiss if we didn’t note that natural gas produced from shale is enabling the United States to lead the world in carbon emissions reductions.  This is a trans-border effect that even the most ardent opponent of natural gas development should relish — if such opponents were actually interested in reducing emissions.

On to the second question: Would the natural gas industry and environment would benefit from a uniform set of regulatory standards on hydraulic fracturing? Uniform standards may sound nice in the abstract, but the realities of shale demonstrate otherwise. From the study: “The complex nexus of economic and environmental issues involved with oil and natural gas exploration and production are likely to frustrate efforts like the FRAC Act to impose simple sweeping schemes.” It added that a uniform regulatory scheme for oil and natural gas development “is likely to be very badly wrong in most or all specific cases” due to the “vast disparities among major natural gas plays that further magnify the case for decentralized control and diverse standards.”

Of course, these concerns apply whether states or the federal government are more likely to possess better information and thus implement a more effective regulatory program. In addressing that third fundamental question, the study notes that shale basins and even individual oil and gas wells are so unique that it would be virtually impossible for the federal government to fully understand the scope of information required to implement a successful regulatory regime. This is especially the case given funding and staffing limitations.  The study lists just a few of these unique considerations including:

 …geology, hydrology, and climate differ greatly from one shale basin to another. Some shale plays are actually in metropolitan areas; others are far from population centers. In some basins, water is plentiful; in some it is scarce. Water laws are diverse; so is the quality of local infrastructure and the demands it must satisfy.

Finally, as for attentiveness to public welfare, the study noted that “the demands on EPA resources would escalate rapidly” and, unless funding kept pace (an extremely unlikely scenario, especially given the current budget environment), “both the quality of the permitting process and the growth of economic output would be bound to suffer.” That’s right: placing control in EPA’s hands would actually create more of a burden for the agency itself than it would be able to handle! But that’s probably what opponents want: an agency so overwhelmed that it has to stop issuing permits altogether.

Which brings us to the potential hidden motives in the legislation.  While supporters of the FRAC Act declare the bill is simply a means of achieving greater chemical disclosure (which is already happening at the state level, mind you; see FracFocus.org), the Hudson Institute recognizes a much more nefarious result: Placing regulatory authority under SDWA would make the whole process subject to “citizen suits” authorized under section 1449, which would “unleash a torrent of litigation” that “would both retard operations and chill innovation” by providing a “hunting license for any interest group seeking a pretext for litigation.”  The study notes the likelihood of this occurring is quite high given ideological opponents of shale, like the Sierra Club, would be provided an open door to “unfettered legal obstructionism” that “entails high risk of snarling [natural gas development] in regulatory and legal gridlock.”

Of course, that would mean destroying the millions of jobs, increased economic competitiveness and the opportunity for the United States to achieve greater energy independence – but ideological opponents of responsible shale development have never much cared about those details.

Taken together, the study’s findings demonstrate why former Colorado governor Bill Ritter (D) called the FRAC Act a “new and potentially intrusive regulatory program” back when it was first introduced in 2009 (back then, the entire bill came in at fewer than 45 words; today, it reads more like a press release than genuine legislation). The study also paints a pretty clear picture as to why the act has failed to advance in two separate sessions of Congress under both Democratic and Republican leadership: It’s just a really awful piece of legislation.

However, none of these details seemed to matter to Sens. Boxer and Sanders. By knowingly including legislative language that could grind to a halt the very technology responsible for our nation’s precipitous drop in carbon emissions, two U.S. senators have completed a rather impressive feat: Introducing a bill that is both designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions and prevent deployment of the technologies necessary to achieve those reductions.

So, in the end, it appears the only thing the FRAC Act would achieve is to cripple the U.S. economy, reverse a nearly half-decade long trend of falling CO2 emissions, and undermine production of what President Obama himself called “clean power” in his recent State of the Union address. Only in Washington could this possibly make sense.

 

RFF Survey Destroys Myth of Shale-Specific Risk
To hear opponents of shale development tell it, the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing is a new and “dangerous” technology – so “inherently risky” and full of threats unique to the process that we should just shut the whole thing down and call it a day. But a recent survey of experts turns this carefully crafted talking point on its head by noting risks associated with developing oil and natural gas from shale are no different than the ones that industry and regulators have been managing well for over 100 years

johnkrohnJD
Communications Director

To hear opponents of shale development tell it, the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing is a new and “dangerous” technology – so “inherently risky” and full of threats unique to the process that we should just shut the whole thing down and call it a day.

The talking point about shale as being new and different and inherently unsafe is actually part of a sophisticated messaging strategy by activists to separate in folks’ minds the relatively uncontroversial act of drilling an oil well with the virtually identical act of drilling an oil well and then turning the drill bit horizontally. Technically, they may be the same. But because the public isn’t scared of vertical wells, opponents have worked very hard to convince them that shale is an entirely different enterprise – and a much scarier one than they may think. To wit:

“Fracking has been around for decades, but the techniques, technologies and chemicals used to reach new, remote gas reserves are more intensive and riskier than conventional gas drilling.” – Food and Water Watch, the case for a ban on gas fracking

“This approach is far bigger and riskier than the conventional fracking of earlier years.”  - Cornell study author Robert Howarth, “Should fracking stop?” (Nature, September 15, 2011)

“In January, I will introduce legislation to create a statutory moratorium on all fracking activity in Maryland. This moratorium will stay in place until and unless we have a science-based review of all the safety risks involved.” – Maryland State Del. Heather Mizuer (D), “No study? No fracking” (Baltimore Sun, September 12, 2012)

“Fracking,” or hydraulic fracturing, is a dangerous drilling technique that endangers our state’s water, air, wildlife and public health. – Center for Biological Diversity, California protect yourself from a fracking explosion

“Everyday the facts of fracking become clearer. The process is inherently contaminating, and no amount of regulation can make it safe for people living near or downriver from it.” – Josh Fox, “Ban fracking now” (USA TODAY, May 6, 2011)

But what if the risks associated with developing oil and natural gas from shale were no different than the ones that industry and regulators have been managing well for over 100 years now in the context of traditional vertical oil and gas development? What would that do the opposition’s talking point?

Well, could be we’re about to find out. Earlier this month, the environmental research group Resources for the Future – certainly no shill for oil and gas – released a survey of experts’ opinions on the “risks” associated with developing oil and natural gas from shale.  In the end, experts with varying backgrounds identified 12 consensus items of concern, the vast majority of which, the experts declared, not only weren’t unique to shale – but not even unique to oil and gas development in general.

According to RFF director Alan Krupnik, “only 2 of the consensus risks identified by the experts are unique to the shale gas development process … The remaining 10 consensus risks relate to practices common to gas and oil development in general, such as the construction of roads, well pads, and pipelines and the potential for leaks in casing and cementing.”

In case you were wondering, the two risk activities RFF identified as being unique to shale were “the storage of fracing fluids onsite before they’re used and after they flow back.” Of course, that’s not technically accurate either, as plenty of vertical, non-shale wells are also fracture stimulated every day and thus generate wastewater that needs to be properly managed on site. But hey, at least they’re trying!

For just one example of how the “unique” risks from shale are already being addressed, look no further than the industry’s use of closed-loop drilling systems.  These systems reduce impacts to the environment by completely separating waste materials where development takes place and capturing drill cuttings, flowback fluids and other materials at the point of extraction. Those materials are then channeled directly to sealed containment systems.  Even well-known (if lightly regarded) anti-energy groups such as Earthworks have stated that closed-loop systems “isolate waste products from the environment” and “can greatly reduce or eliminate the discharge of toxic drilling wastes on site.”

For these reasons, regulators across the country have recognized the technology as an approved “best management practice,” and many states require their implementation.  As a result, the use of closed-loop systems has increased significantly in states like Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Alaska, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Ohio – just to name a few. 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.

The fact that currently available technology is already being used to reduce and manage risk is, everyone can agree, very good news – especially when you combine it with the fact that water recycling is also being used increasingly nationwide. Recent reports highlight that operators in the Marcellus, as one example, are using water recycling to treat over 90 percent of the water used in their operations.  Additionally, a recent study from Duke found that natural gas development from shale produces less wastewater than so-called “conventional” wells on a per-unit basis.  These factors not only reduce the likelihood of spills from the storage of fracturing fluid additives and flowback on-site, but also significantly reduce the freshwater needed to fracture a well – another common concern listed by the experts polled.

Taken together, a pretty clear picture emerges: shale development utilizing hydraulic fracturing is not a “new” and “dangerous” technology with unknown and unmanageable risks.  Rather, the risks are well-understood, carefully managed and tightly regulated. In fact, the only risks “unique to shale development” – notwithstanding that they’re not actually unique — are being addressed effectively by industry and state regulations.

In the end, the RFF survey confirms what most objective observers already recognize: Shale development, which is made possible through the combined use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling (among many other things) doesn’t pose unique risks to the public, but does provide unique benefits – like jobs, revenue and opportunity for places and people that can certainly use the boost.

*UPDATE* On Flaring and North Dakota
By now, you’ve probably read some of the recent stories about two things that the vast majority of Americans will never see in person: 1) North Dakota, and 2) flaring at the wellhead. But what is actually happening out there in the Peace Garden State -- aside from the virtual full employment and state budget surpluses that tight oil development from the Bakken continues to deliver? EID takes a look at the facts.

Steve
Spokesman

 

UPDATE (2/15/2013, 11:27am ET): During a sparsely covered House hearing earlier this week, Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Tex.) asked U.S. EIA Administrator Adam Sieminski about flaring in North Dakota, as well as any potential related concerns in the Eagle Ford shale in south Texas. Veasey wondered if there were “any technology on the horizon” that would allow us to reduce flaring in places like Texas, North Dakota, and even Alaska.

Here is Sieminski’s response (his remarks begin at the 1:01:05 mark in the archived webcast):

“Although there’s a significant amount of flaring taking place in the Bakken formation right now, I think the latest statistics from North Dakota suggest that it’s actually coming down. It had been as high as 35 or 36 percent of the gas. It’s now down slightly below 30 percent. This is usually indicative of infrastructure build-out needed in a new area.

“The gas is associated with the oil production in North Dakota. I suspect that over time, the pipeline networks will be built out in North Dakota and those numbers will come down even further. Although it seems like a lot of gas, when you just look at the percentage in North Dakota, the amount in North Dakota is less than one-third of one percent. So less than one-third of one percent of total U.S. gas production. And so it’s actually a very small number.

“You’re correct, sir, in that there actually has been some flaring in the Eagle Ford, essentially for the same reason. Eagle Ford is in a part of Texas that’s actually not heavily populated, it doesn’t have the same pipeline infrastructure that you see in other parts of Texas. It’ll just take a little bit of time, and companies are working on that.

“On the technology side, there has been an effort to look into small LNG liquefaction facilities that might be put in place in some of these remote areas where you could turn that natural gas that’s being flared into a liquid, which would be easier to transport. So I think there is a lot of thinking going on in the industry, and although those satellite pictures showing the sky at night and the amount of light being given off in some of these new producing areas seem startling, it is I think relatively small proportion. It’s fairly normal in the course of development in new areas.

“Very quickly, in Alaska, there is a lot of gas that comes up in Alaska with the oil, but it’s re-injected back into the formation. So there’s very little flaring taking place in Alaska.” (emphasis added)

—Original post, February 5, 2013—

By now, you’ve probably read some of the recent stories about two things that the vast majority of Americans will never see in person: 1) North Dakota (which is too bad; it’s a beautiful place with great people), and 2) flaring at the wellhead.

Flaring is a tightly controlled, closely regulated process — one that’s used both as a safety mechanism to regulate and control pressure levels, and as means of converting methane gas into CO2, especially in those cases where there’s not enough natural gas to produce in commercial quantities from the well. Of course, in a perfect world, you wouldn’t need to flare any natural gas – you’d direct every bit of it into a pipeline, and then send it out for sale. But transport infrastructure takes time to build, and it’s tough to build a pipeline out to a wellsite if you don’t even know if there’s enough natural gas out there to produce.

Most of the big national stories on the flaring phenomenon haven’t really focused on any of that stuff, though. Much more intriguing to them is that some flaring sequences can apparently be seen from space. National Public Radio – apparently puzzled that any lights were present in that part of the country at all – links flaring to everything from air pollution to rising tempers. A feature piece for New York Times Magazine also mentions flaring in North Dakota – just before the author describes the state as a place “where winters are brutal and culture is thin.” (Geez, New York — tell us how you really feel about the Midwest…)

So then, notwithstanding NYT’s dim and completely misguided view of North Dakota’s cultural scene: what is actually happening out there in the Peace Garden State? You know, aside from the virtual full employment and state budget surpluses that tight oil development from the Bakken continues to deliver? Below, EID takes a closer look at the facts.

Regulations and Infrastructure

As with any process related to oil and gas, the first (and almost always false) assumption put forth is that flaring is unregulated. How else to explain those bright lights that NASA has photographed from space? How could the state allow that?

Well, in reality, the entire system is heavily regulated and closely monitored, and a sober explanation of the facts should prove useful – even for us temper-prone and uncultured flat-staters.

As noted by the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources (DMR), the oil and gas division of the state’s Industrial Commission “implements and enforces rules and regulations to limit the production of oil produced from wells that are not yet connected to a gas-gathering system.” After a well is completed, a period of time must be allowed to assess flow rates and stabilize production, and the state limits the total amount of oil that can be produced during that process. This helps operators and regulators determine what, if any, added infrastructure will be needed. During this period, when gas is produced as a byproduct, it is flared off.

The alternative would be to either vent the gas or force a serious incident to occur. The state could also theoretically require costly new pipelines to be built before a well is even proven, but as mentioned, not every well drilled will produce commercial quantities of hydrocarbons. There’s also a fundamental economic problem: Why would any company underwrite millions of dollars in pipeline infrastructure without knowing that it will have a product to deliver to consumers?

Now, you might be saying, “That makes sense. But what about all these wells in the Bakken that are clearly proven?” The DMR has some reassuring words about that, too:

“Now that the size of the natural gas resource is proven, operators in the state are rapidly planning and building the gathering pipelines and processing plants as well as access pipelines to the large interstate pipelines that cross the state.”

In other words, before the infrastructure can be put in place, operators need to prove their wells will produce enough product to justify the expense. Remember, it was just a few years ago when North Dakota barely ranked in the top 10 of oil-producing states (it’s now ranked second, behind only Texas). Now that it’s known there are sufficient quantities of gas and its associated liquids, the industry has been investing billions of dollars in new pipeline and processing infrastructure.

Here’s how North Dakota’s governor, attorney general, and agriculture commissioner described it to members of the U.S. Congress a little over a year ago:

“Industry also plans to invest over $3 billion in natural gas gathering and processing infrastructure in 2011, 2012, and 2013. As this investment is made and gas gathering infrastructure is built, policy can be expected to focus even more toward preventing waste in the natural gas arena. By year end 2012, natural gas processing capacity is expected to increase 389% from 2006. North Dakota’s natural gas processing plants will have the capacity to process one billion cubic feet of natural gas per day.”

In his 2013 State of the State Address, Governor Dalrymple provided an update on the progress:

“Our production of natural gas has also more than doubled from two years ago. We have encouraged the gathering of natural gas and have also doubled processing capacity since the end of 2010. By 2014 we expect to have capacity to process 1.36 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. We are also promoting the use of natural gas at the well site instead of diesel fuel, and today we are seeing a leveling off of the percentage of natural gas that is being flared.”

However, even with these facts – clear regulations in place, growing investment in pipelines and other infrastructure – there’s still plenty more to the story.

Energy Context

Two other questions people ask about flaring are: “If we’re burning off all of that gas, aren’t we wasting a lot of energy? And what’s flaring mean in terms of air emissions?” Let’s address the first question…well, first.

The Financial Times recently reported on flaring and provided this nugget of information:

“More than 1,000 wells were connected to the gas-gathering system in 2012, but that has not been enough to cut the proportion of the state’s gas being flared, which has remained stuck at about 30 per cent.”

Flaring 30 percent of all gas produced sounds high, but it leaves out an important fact: the overwhelming majority of energy produced from North Dakota wells comes out in the form of oil or other liquids. Let’s look at flared gas as a percentage of the total energy produced in North Dakota, as highlighted by the state’s governor, attorney general, and agriculture commissioner:

Shale development in general – and hydraulic fracturing in particular – is typically discussed in the context of natural gas. That’s to be expected, especially when you consider all of the economic and environmental benefits that increased supplies of affordable natural gas have provided the United States. But in North Dakota, the story is clearly a bit different, and it’s important to recognize the amount of energy being harnessed and utilized by operators in the state, especially compared to the amount that’s being flared – which, as explained earlier, is clearly preferable to most of the alternatives.

As for environmental impacts, last summer the World Bank described flaring as a “warning sign” in terms of air emissions, and that the global increase in flared gas was “due largely to increased hydrocarbon production in Russia and shale oil and gas operations in the US state of North Dakota.”

That could be cause for alarm, but again, context is helpful.

First of all, despite the World Bank’s rush to judgment in its mentioning of North Dakota alongside Russia in terms of global flaring, just a few paragraphs later the Bank states that “Russia still tops the world’s flaring countries, followed by Nigeria, Iran and Iraq.” The United States – as a whole, not just North Dakota – is fifth.

Additionally, global flaring accounts for about 360 million tons of GHGs, according to the World Bank. In 2010, General Electric estimated that global flaring accounted for about 400 million tons of CO2 equivalent GHGs, equal to approximately two percent of global CO2 emissions from energy sources.

So, after we do a little arithmetic, we find the U.S. share of global flaring is actually incredibly low. The World Bank estimates global flaring at 140 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas, while the United States flared 7.1 bcm. That means the United States accounts for about five percent of all flaring worldwide – even though we’re now the largest natural gas producer in the world and are projected to overtake Saudi Arabia in oil production by the end of this decade.

As for North Dakota specifically, in 2011 the state produced approximately 156 billion cubic feet (bcf) of natural gas, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration notes that in May 2011, 29 percent of that gas was flared, or 45.2 billion cubic feet. Converting back to cubic meters, that’s approximately 1.28 bcm, or 18 percent of the total amount of gas flared in the United States. We’ll let you decide whether that’s good or bad, especially considering the fact that North Dakota is the second largest oil producing state in the country.

What does this mean in terms of emissions? Recall that the World Bank found 140 bcm of flared gas equated to 360 million tons of GHGs. Based on that ratio, GE’s estimates, and some additional basic math, flaring in North Dakota accounts for just 0.017 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions – less than two one-hundredths of one percent.

Conclusion

It’s not surprising that North Dakota’s new role as a major oil supplier to the U.S. energy portfolio is receiving the spotlight, nor is it unexpected that some folks would begin questioning a practice they don’t fully comprehend. The fact that we’re talking about a state that most NYT employees would have trouble finding on a map only adds to the confusion and sense of hyperventilation.

Examined in a vacuum, flaring in North Dakota might be seen as an escalating environmental problem – a “prairie fire” with no extinguisher in sight. Of course, the reality is quite the opposite. With billions of dollars being invested in new infrastructure and clear regulations on the books, it’s clear that continued development of the Bakken Shale will not only yield additional economic and energy security benefits, but also advance along an increasingly efficient and responsible path.

The Truth About Water Use
One of the most repeated claims about hydraulic fracturing is that the process will exacerbate or even create drought-like conditions. Looking at the facts, such a claim is demonstrably false. Data from states with long histories of oil and gas development also prove that hydraulic fracturing does not create a realistic threat of water shortages. To make life easier, we've aggregated all of the best data on this topic into a single fact sheet.

Kyna
Field Director, Illinois

 

Last year, Illinois watched as a bill designed to regulate the safe and responsible development of New Albany Shale (SB3280) was turned into a proposed moratorium on hydraulic fracturing. Unfortunately, that wasn’t enough for those committed to blocking energy development in our state: On February 6, 2013, yet another bill was put before our General Assembly (SB1418) calling for a two year ban to review, evaluate, and make recommendations regarding the regulation of hydraulic fracturing operations in Illinois.

These bills are simply smoke and mirror illusions that undermine the concerted efforts of legislators to develop meaningful regulation, which would provide our state with the possibility of tens of thousands of new jobs and represent an enormous amount of new investment in Illinois. They mask the real objective of these groups – to ban development entirely in Illinois and rob our state of the numerous benefits that other states around the country are already experiencing.

What these groups consistently fail to acknowledge is the fact that the safety of hydraulic fracturing has been repeatedly confirmed by state and federal regulators, choosing instead to repeat false talking points in an attempt to obscure the truth.

One of these oft-repeated claims is that hydraulic fracturing would exacerbate or even create drought-like conditions. Looking at the facts, such a claim is demonstrably false.

On the high end of estimates, a report from the U.S. Department of Energy estimated the water required for hydraulic fracturing in any given region to be roughly 0.8 percent of total demand. That’s certainly not a drought-inducing drain on Illinois’ water supply. Data from states with long histories of oil and gas development also prove that hydraulic fracturing does not create a realistic threat of water shortages.

Need more proof? Check out EID’s latest fact sheet, which can be viewed below or by clicking here.

Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Use by Energy In Depth

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.

Looking for facts on air quality in Pa.? Read the (whole) report
E&E News featured a story (subs. req’d) this week that paints an alarming picture with respect to air emissions in Pennsylvania. The article uses data from the Pa. Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and a recent study by the RAND Corporation to suggest shale development is emitting compounds linked to respiratory problems and even premature death. It’s an interesting tale. And an inaccurate one, thankfully -- disproven by the same data that’s cited in the story.

JD
Communications Director

E&E News featured a story (subs. req’d) this week that paints an alarming picture with respect to air emissions in Pennsylvania. The article uses data from the Pa. Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and a recent study by the RAND Corporation to suggest shale development is emitting compounds linked to respiratory problems and even premature death. It’s an interesting tale. And an inaccurate one, thankfully — disproven by the same data that’s cited in the story.

Truth is, according to the report, emissions from oil and gas development account for less than one percent of most emissions statewide. Also important: increased natural gas use has actually lowered emissions in the Commonwealth, including in counties where shale development is taking place. Perhaps that’s why the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported the same story under the headline “State, private data say gas industry creates only fraction of state’s air pollution.”

Unfortunately, E&E News overlooked all of that data, focusing (exclusively) instead on making the case that even the mere presence of any compound that might be emitted during shale development must imply a causal link to health problems.  Luckily, the picture is a lot clearer when the information is presented in a more objective light — good news for a state where natural gas development ushered in over $11.2 billion in economic activity in 2010 alone and has helped support over 200,000 jobs – many of which had an annual wage that exceeds the state’s average by $41,000.

Of course, these reports don’t exactly represent the first time the issue of air quality has been studied in Pennsylvania. Previous reviews were conducted by DEP in 2011, for instance, under then Democratic governor Ed Rendell. As part of that research, DEP conducted ambient air quality testing in each corner of the state where Marcellus operations were taking place, with the agency reporting in the end that it “did not identify concentrations of any compound that would likely trigger air-related health issues associated with Marcellus Shale drilling activities.” In addition, the reviews “did not detect concentrations above the National Ambient Air Quality Standards at any of the sampling sites.”

But E&E News doesn’t cite any of that. Nor does it include any mention of a key passage from page seven of the “leaked” emissions inventory document from DEP cited in the story. Here’s what that had to say:

“Emissions from point sources have decreased since the last complete emissions inventory was developed for 2008.  The following table shows the emissions have decreased as a result of the installations of control equipment on the electric generating units as well as the conversion to natural gas.”  (emphasis added)

 How big was that decline in emissions? This chart – also ignored by E&E – is included in DEP’s report:

So, in other words, natural gas helped reduce the level of air pollutants over the past four years, including carbon monoxide (CO) by 8,400 tons, nitrogen oxide (NOx) by over 43,000 tons, particulate matter by 8,000 tons, sulfur oxides by over 511,000 tons and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by over 4,000 tons. All of this represents a great success for Pennsylvania’s air quality – and it hinged on the increased use of natural gas in the state, which was of course made possibly by responsible shale development.

The good news doesn’t end there. A review of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s “2008 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring and Emissions Trends Reports” notes this downward trend is even deeper for VOCs and sulfur dioxide (SO2).  Specifically, the report notes that many of the counties where shale development took place – including Bradford and Washington counties – saw significant declines in emissions from 2004-2008. Over this time period, VOCs and SO2 in Bradford County decreased by 162 tons and 130 tons respectively, while Washington County saw a decrease of 11 tons and 1,340 tons.

What’s also worth noting – and again, something that is carefully avoided in any detail by E&E News – is that just last week, PA DEP announced new permitting requirements that will further reduce emissions from natural gas distribution systems and wellpads. When implemented, DEP’s tightened regulations governing compressor station emissions are expected to reduce emissions levels even further, including: an expected 90 percent reduction in NOx; an 87.5 percent reduction in CO and a 90 percent reduction in VOCs (see chart below).

So, in the end, it turns out the documents reveal a success story worth highlighting. Namely that natural gas development accounts for less than 1% of most sources of air pollution in Pennsylvania and has reduced the state’s harmful emissions by over 574,400 tons while providing significant economic benefits for residents from McKeesport to Montrose.  That’s good news for the Keystone State that’s only been made possible thanks to the safe and responsible development of the Marcellus Shale.

*UPDATE III* Shale Fueling America’s Chemical Industry
Back in December 2011, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) released a report on the major impact shale development was having on American manufacturing. The report, “Shale Gas: A Renaissance in US Manufacturing?” highlighted how affordable, domestic supplies of natural gas will save U.S. manufacturers more than $11 billion per year over the next decade, create one million new jobs during that same period, and increase disposable income for each household in the United States by as much as $2,000 per year. Now, nearly a year later, PwC has released a new report, “Shale gas: Reshaping the US chemicals industry,” focused on the direct impact of shale development on North America’s chemical industry.

Dana
Staff Geologist

 

UPDATE III (11:25 am ET, 2/1/13):  This week, Methanex Corp. announced it would be moving a methanol plant from Chile to Louisiana to take advantage of America’s abundant supply of affordable natural gas.  As the Globe and Mail reports:

“Methanex, which has plants in six countries, is one of a growing number of petrochemical companies locating manufacturing facilities in North America to take advantage of the booming supplies and low cost of natural gas.”

The company’s CEO, John Floren, also stated he expects to move a second Chilean plant to Louisiana in the coming years, which would of course mean even more U.S. jobs.

As forecasts by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC) find North America transforming into a “major, global, low-cost provider of energy and feedstocks,” today’s news from Methanex reconfirms the facts: Natural gas development from shale in the United States is a globally competitive force, and it’s putting American manufacturing back on top.

UPDATE II (5:07 pm ET, 12/13/2012): This week, the American Chemistry Council (ACC) released its “Year End 2012 Situation and Outlook,” highlighting a bright union in America’s economy: the chemical industry and natural gas. American Chemistry Council’s (ACC) chief economist Kevin Swift sums it up: “Following a decade of high and volatile natural gas prices that destroyed industrial demand and led to the closure of many gas-intensive manufacturers, shale gas offers a new era of American competitiveness that will lead to greater investment, industry growth, and employment.” And the evidence is already right in front of our eyes.   Dow Chemical Co.—a leader in America’s chemical industry—applied for a federal permit this week to build its largest ethylene plant in Freeport, Texas. (And as you can see here, ethylene is used in everything from shampoo to the tires on your car.) And according to Plastics and Rubber Weekly,  “chemical and related industries have announced $45bn in projects over the next few years.” Not bad for American business—and all thanks to inexpensive, job-creating, domestic natural gas.

UPDATE (5:39 pm ET, 11/15/2012): More good news for American manufacturing, thanks to shale.  From chemical plants relocating back to the United States, bringing jobs and opportunities along with them, to new major plant openings and expansions, natural gas development is revamping and expanding the American supply chain.  As a recent story by Steven Mufson at the Washington Post highlights, domestic shale development is “firing up an old-fashioned American industrial revival, breathing life into businesses such as petrochemicals and glass, steel and toys.”  The Post notes that manufacturers are planning “to invest as much as $80 billion” in new U.S. facilities and operations, which is due to the “massive competitive advantage the United States has with natural gas today,” according to Dow Chemical’s George Blitz. U.S. Steel – long a source of pride among hardworking men and women in the Rust Belt – added that affordable natural gas has allowed them “to realize important and significant cost savings.”

This one should really be read from start to finish, so be sure to check it out.

 —Original post, October 15, 2012—

This one should really be read from start to finish, so be sure to check it out.

Back in December 2011, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) released a report on the major impact shale development was having on American manufacturing. The report, “Shale Gas: A Renaissance in US Manufacturing?” highlighted how affordable, domestic supplies of natural gas will save U.S. manufacturers more than $11 billion per year over the next decade, create one million new jobs during that same period, and increase disposable income for each household in the United States by as much as $2,000 per year. Now, nearly a year later, PwC has released a new report, “Shale gas: Reshaping the US chemicals industry,” focused on the direct impact of shale development on North America’s chemical industry.

In addition to the natural gas that heats our homes and generates electricity, development often also yields valuable liquids such as ethane, butane, and propane. These “NGLs” (natural gas liquids) are used to make things like shampoo, the bumper on your car, and the sole of your shoe. So as natural gas production expands – thanks in no small part to proven technologies like hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling – NGL production also increases, spurring new growth in American manufacturing.

As PwC U.S. Chemicals leader Anthony J. Scamuffa highlights:

“As the U.S. chemical industry expands NGL conversion into a higher volume of downstream products, the positive impacts could flow through the value chain into other manufacturing sectors, particularly given that chemicals are used in an estimated 90 percent of all manufactured products.

“…Not only could the abundance of NGLs help drive reduced pricing for derivative products, it could also potentially drive domestic re-shoring activity and possibly bring about a favorable shift in the U.S. balance of trade as ethylene capacity comes on line.”

And the impact of this increased supply is being felt across the United States. Hector Rivera, president and CEO of the Texas Chemical Council, noted recently in the Houston Chronicle, “Low natural gas prices related to the shale gas boom have spurred an estimated $15 billion in planned expansions at Texas chemical companies.”

In Pennsylvania, Shell announced in April that it would be constructing a mulit-million dollar ethane cracker near Monaca, PA, a project that is estimated to create more than 10,000 permanent jobs, according to the American Chemistry Council.  And according to PwC, these types of investments are just the beginning.

To date, the U.S. chemicals industry has invested $15 billion based on the shale industry’s production of ethylene, increasing capacity by 33 percent. The result: affordable feedstock for America’s robust chemical and manufacturing sector and fuel for America’s economy.  And while ethane production has been historically fueled by the Middle East, North American shale development is redefining the supply-demand dynamic, putting America back in the lead. As PwC further explains:

“The Middle East ethane production chain is predominantly centered in Saudi Arabia, which has leveraged its historically low-cost raw material sources to become a global petrochemicals powerhouse. However, its newer ethylene production facilities rely on an ethane-butane mix, which yields higher-priced ethylene and other feedstock chemicals. These factors are serving to reduce the country’s historic competitive advantage.”

It’s clear that the economic and even geopolitical benefits of shale are being realized every day. In fact, a new report released Friday by a team of Yale University economic graduates shows that lower natural gas prices — a result of expanded shale development — saved consumers an estimated $100 billion in 2011. Amazingly, the report also found the economic benefits of shale gas drilling exceed the costs by an astounding 400 to 1.

Pretty convincing odds, and yet another reminder that shale development truly is a game changer for the United States.

Shale Royalties Driving Growth In PA
In June of 2012, an IHS CERA study found shale and tight gas development will contribute nearly $50 billion in federal, state, and local government revenue by 2015. A report this week by the Associated Press shows we are already well on our way.

Dana
Staff Geologist

 

In June of 2012, an IHS CERA study found shale and tight gas development will contribute nearly $50 billion in federal, state, and local government revenue by 2015. A report this week by the Associated Press shows we are already well on our way.

Natural gas royalties are changing people’s lives for the better, providing new forms of income for thousands who were previously struggling just to make ends meet.  And while many states have seen the benefits of energy royalties and investments for decades – states like Texas and Alaska, for example – private sector investment in shale development is catalyzing economic growth in some communities that haven’t seen anything like it before.

Take Range Resources: The company has over the past few years contributed more than $1 billion to Pennsylvania landowners, the majority coming after the financial downturn of 2008 when many across the nation feared what the future might bring to their own economic livelihoods. Now, in 2012 alone, the state of Pennsylvania is estimated to have received about $1.2 billion in total royalty payments from natural gas development, money flowing straight into schools and hospitals, dairy farms and family businesses.

Shawn Georgetti, a farmer from Avella, PA, described what the new income provided for him and his family to the Associated Press:

“‘We used to have to put stuff on credit cards. It was basically living from paycheck to paycheck,’ said Shawn Georgetti, who runs a family dairy farm in Avella, about 30 miles southwest of Pittsburgh….Before Range Resources drilled a well on the family property in 2012, Georgetti said, he was stuck using 30-year-old equipment, with no way to upgrade without going seriously into debt.

“‘You don’t have that problem anymore. It’s a lot more fun to farm,’ Georgetti said, since he has been able to buy newer equipment that’s bigger, faster and more fuel-efficient. The drilling hasn’t caused any problems for the farm, he said.”

And royalties aren’t the only investments to speak of. Just this week, Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation announced the completion of its successful community-based campaign: The Cabot / EMHS Community Match Fund.  After the community struggle to raise funds for over four years, Cabot stepped up to provide financial support for the 55 year-old hospital and the community.  By working with the private sector, local government, and community members, the effort helped raise over $4.4 million for the construction of a new state-of-the-art health care facility in Susquehanna County. This not only does this mean jobs, but the other closest hospital is about an hour away, meaning the continued operation (and expansion) of this particular facility is incredibly important to the local community.

The new facility will have 25 rooms, a new emergency room, an outpatient facility, an intensive care unit, and more. As Ruth Wilmarth of Brooklyn, PA described the project, “this is going to be monumental, it’s the biggest project our County has ever seen, it’s sorely needed.”

Real investments with real benefits for communities, all made possible by American energy development.

To EHS Today – Its Own Facts
EHS Today recently featured a study by Eric Esswein, a Senior Industrial Hygienist at the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH), who examined oil and gas workers’ potential exposure to crystalline silica. The publication used an alarming lead-in for its story – “What the Frack? Safety Concerns Surface in Hydraulic Fracturing” reads the headline. Instead of focusing on the whole story – or even making a half-hearted attempt to examine the issue objectively – the magazine offered an incomplete and manufactured narrative that doesn’t quite comport with the facts as they actually exist.

JD
Communications Director

EHS Today recently featured a study by Eric Esswein, a Senior Industrial Hygienist at the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH), who examined oil and gas workers’ potential exposure to crystalline silica. The publication used an alarming lead-in for its story – “What the Frack? Safety Concerns Surface in Hydraulic Fracturing” reads the headline – before declaring that the process is associated with a “ravaged environment and damaged communities.” Perhaps no one told EHS Today that “Promised Land” was a work of fiction.

To its credit, the Esswein report notes that silica exposure isn’t a factor in or even relevant to all shale plays, and that the oil and natural gas industry “runs very, very safe work practices and sites.”  Of course, EHS Today left out those details, along with the fact that the industry served as a willing partner in Esswein’s research and even began implementing the study’s suggestions well before EHS Today ever thought to write about the subject.

Instead of focusing on the whole story – or even making a half-hearted attempt to examine the issue objectively – the magazine provided an overview of the study’s findings and quoted two groups: the Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy (PSE) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The latter is a well-known commodity in the anti-hydraulic fracturing camp, suggesting last year that hydraulic fracturing is “poisoning the drinking water of at least 20 families” in Dimock, PA. Yes, that’s the same Dimock where EPA declared the water safe after conducting extensive water testing. And we all know that the objective of PSE has little to nothing to do with health, science, or engineering.  In fact, E&E News noted in a story a couple months back that the “language on the group’s website suggests an anti-development viewpoint.”

Read through the actual paper, and what you find is that Esswein’s research points to industry working actively and voluntarily with public officials to identify potential risks, and then helping to manage and mitigate those risks before a problem occurs. In fact, the National STEPS Network, a consortium of industry officials and OSHA representatives founded to “reduce injuries and fatalities in the oil and gas sector,” made the silica issue a top priority shortly after the study’s release, convening a task force to implement NIOSH’s recommendations. That effort included no less than 167 individuals representing over 64 industry groups and companies. Working with representatives from OSHA and others, the group established guidelines for minimizing oil and gas workers’ exposure to crystalline silica and began implementation of these guidelines in shale development operations nationwide.  These guidelines include:

This, of course, serves as a clear example of the industry’s commitment to safe operating practices, which requires a dynamic approach to fixing a problem before it actually becomes one. Federal statistics suggest those investments are paying off: The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ latest “Survey of Occupational Injuries and Illnesses” shows that the oil and gas industry’s incident rate declined by 33 percent from 2010 to 2011. It’s worth mentioning this reduction occurred even as the volume of activity in the oil and gas space increased significantly nationwide.

Of course, all this is bad news to those who oppose oil and natural gas development based on ideological – as opposed to scientific – concerns. Groups  like NRDC and PSE do – both funded by the anti-development Park Foundation – certainly fit into this category.  Thankfully, for everyone else – and especially those who work their tails off to produce the energy our country needs – the constant and fairly dramatic improvement in practices, processes, and technology is good news indeed, with the upshot being: fewer accidents, lessened exposure, less risk, and greater efficiency.

The full story about Esswein’s research paints a much less alarming picture than what EHS Today leads us to believe, and in fact the details explained above would have made for an interesting story itself: industry meeting the challenge of safety to improve working conditions for its employees. But alarmism clearly proved too enticing to EHS Today, resulting in the incomplete and manufactured narrative that doesn’t quite comport with the facts as they actually exist.

Letterman Misses the Mark on HF. Again.
Last night on the "Late Show with David Letterman," the host and self-anointed expert on all things hydraulic fracturing attempted to have a factual conversation with former Vice President Al Gore about onshore oil and gas development. The subject was discussed in between jokes about how the industrial revolution will kill off the human race, Gore's support of President Obama in the 2012 election, and questions about Gore's decision to sell his television station to Al Jazeera.

Steve
Spokesman

 

Last night on the “Late Show with David Letterman,” the host and self-anointed expert on all things hydraulic fracturing attempted to have a factual conversation with former Vice President Al Gore about onshore oil and gas development (spoiler: they failed). The subject was discussed in between jokes about how the industrial revolution will kill off the human race (high brow comedy for sure!), Gore’s support of President Obama in the 2012 election, and questions about Gore’s decision to sell his television station to Al Jazeera.

Before getting into the juicy details, it’s worth mentioning that this isn’t the first time Letterman stepped on a rake trying to discuss shale development. Last summer he went on a rant about flaming water and every other claim imaginable, which EID examined with our own Top Ten list of Dave’s errors. There was also Letterman’s comical interview with Promised Land‘s John Krasinski (comical for all the wrong reasons, mind you), which included its own swing-and-a-miss conversation about hydraulic fracturing.

So, the fact that Letterman brought up the subject last night with Al Gore — a noted environmentalist — is unsurprising, although it’s still unfortunate that the “Late Show” keeps providing a forum for people to spread misinformation about a process that’s so important to American energy development.

Without further ado, here’s the most relevant excerpt, and what they got wrong.

Letterman: “Fracking, people setting fire to their tapwater. That can’t be good. We have to stop that. We’re poisoning the great aquifers that keep the, uh… and with the drought coming on.. uh, we’re nothing but screwed.”

Letterman: “Where, uh… is there safe fracking?”

Gore: “It should be very tightly regulated. There are serious questions about the way they put the concrete down in the uh, the wells. It tends to fall apart too often. There’s a real problem with the amount of water that’s required and when the water is used it comes back up poisonous. And then they dispose of it by putting it back deep in the ground.”

Letterman: “But didn’t the EPA waive requirements for certain elements that are used…?”

Gore: “It wasn’t the EPA, it was in the Bush-Cheney administration. In their first year, former Vice President Cheney got a law passed that exempted fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act.”

Letterman: “That’s right. Why..why would he do that? What’s the matter with that guy? Honest to God…”

New Duke Study Confirms Shale’s Water Efficiency
A new study released by Duke University this month finds that on a per-unit basis, the development of natural gas from shale formations actually produces less wastewater than so-called “conventional” wells. That’s certainly good news, especially considering the fact that the U.S. EPA, numerous experts, and many public officials (including President Obama himself) have all stressed the need to increase production of natural gas in the United States.

JD
Communications Director

 

A new study released by Duke University this month finds that on a per-unit basis, the development of natural gas from shale formations actually produces less wastewater than so-called “conventional” wells. That’s certainly good news, especially considering the fact that the U.S. EPA, numerous experts, and many public officials (including President Obama himself) have all stressed the need to increase production of natural gas in the United States.

From the report (subs. req’d):

“For the Marcellus shale, by far the largest shale gas resource in the US, we quantify gas and wastewater production using data from 2,189 wells located throughout Pennsylvania. Contrary to current perceptions, Marcellus wells produce significantly less wastewater per unit gas recovered (~35%) compared to conventional natural gas wells.” (emphasis added, p. 2)

One of the most common talking points used by the other side is that hydraulic fracturing requires too much water, and that treating or disposing of wastewater poses too many risks to justify continued development. But as we can see, the technological advancements that have allowed us to access oil and natural gas trapped in shale and other tight reservoirs across the country have also come with increased efficiencies. That means more energy with less impact, which is good news for consumers and the environment.

Of course, the study also highlights a potential concern, albeit one that is being addressed far more comprehensively than the authors care to admit: the total volume of produced water coming from shale wells.

As development has increased in the Marcellus, a lot of other things have increased too: jobs, economic opportunity, and even the quality of the air folks are breathing. And, as one would expect, development has also brought with it an increased need to process and even recycle wastewater. The authors state that growing volumes of wastewater are “challenging industry to identify and develop alternative disposal methods” beyond underground injection.

Luckily, that’s a challenge the industry has met head on – and well before this Duke/Kent State study was ever released. Last summer’s headline said it all: “Marcellus flowback recycling reaches 90 percent in SWPA [Southwest Pennsylvania].” Last spring, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette similarly observed: “Gas drillers recycling more water, using fewer chemicals.”

Of course, the researchers point out the difference between flowback (which comes out of a well after the fracturing process) and produced water, or brine, which is produced from the well over time. But the researchers also opined that “most estimates focus on flowback and do not specifically consider drilling and brine wastewater…likely underestimating the total wastewater volume generated.”

But as the Pittsburgh Business Times reported back in August: “About 65 percent of brine from this region [Southwest Pennsylvania] was reused.” PBT even has a handy searchable tool of state data that includes drilling fluid, produced fluid, flowback, and many other categories of wastewater. Also worth mentioning is that, back in 2010, then-Governor of Pennsylvania Ed Rendell (D) said: “The technology in treating [produced] water is improving rapidly,” a reflection of real-world industry advancements in the Marcellus.

Unfortunately, the decision to leave out these details leaves readers with the impression that the industry is essentially unaware of the issues related to wastewater treatment, reuse, and disposal. In that respect, the researchers make a pretty significant error of omission, although the good news is that reality paints a much more reassuring picture than what was portrayed in the report. (Be sure also to check out LearnAboutShale.org for more facts about water usage, disposal, and recycling.)

But hey, if you are willing to cite the Howarth study as credible science – as the researchers for this study do (p. 3) – then you’re probably going to make at least a few errors when discussing responsible development. Thankfully, though, on the most important point – shale’s relative efficiency when it comes to water usage – these guys (despite their best intentions) appear to have gotten it right.

*UPDATE III* What the AP Forgot to Mention about Parker Co. Case
Associated Press reporter Ramit Plushnicik-Masti’s most recent assessment of the Parker County case appears to have been designed from the very beginning to ignore the validity of the EPA's endangerment order itself, and instead weaves a dubious narrative of industry manipulation of the regulatory process.

Steve
Spokesman

 

UPDATE III (1/23/2013, 10:57am ET): A U.S. House Representative from Texas is now calling out the AP for its flawed report on Parker County. Congressman Pete Olson (R) writes in the Houston Chronicle that last week’s story “falls well short of the AP’s claim to journalistic standards” and omitted important facts about the case it attempted to describe, including the vast scientific literature that exonerated Range Resources. Olson adds that the central allegation — that Range pressured EPA to drop the order in exchange for cooperation in the agency’s hydraulic fracturing study — is “ludicrous and not supported by facts.”

Olson concludes:

“The AP has a duty to give the public accurate and balanced information that includes all of the facts. The debate on the safety of hydraulic fracturing, a technological breakthrough that is revolutionizing our energy supply and providing energy security, is critically important. The public deserves the truth and an organization like the AP should live up to its reputation of honest reporting. Excluding relevant facts to claim that EPA dropped its case because the company threatened to withhold cooperation with a national study is dishonest. This article is a blatant disservice to the public on an important national issue.”

Be sure to read the full op-ed by clicking here.

UPDATE II (1/22/2013, 9:04am ET): Will Brackett, Managing Editor of the Powell Shale Digest (which is headquartered in north Texas), has an excellent editorial detailing the flaws in AP’s reporting on Parker County. Among many of his salient points is the observation: Why, with so many companies available to cooperate with EPA on its hydraulic fracturing study, would the agency withdraw its allegation of contamination merely to get one company on board? If the EPA had a concrete scientific case — or even a marginally acceptable one — how is it plausible that the agency would ever abandon that, especially as they still cling to a fundamentally flawed conclusion in Pavillion, Wyoming? From Brackett:

…Given the EPA’s track record, does anyone really believe industry and political pressure could sway the EPA to back down if the federal agency really did have solid scientific evidence against the natural gas industry and hydraulic fracturing? Get serious here.

The assertion that the EPA changed course against Range because the company refused to cooperate in the EPA’s hydraulic fracturing study is just as absurd and defies common sense. With hundreds of oil and gas companies available, why would the EPA be so desperate that it would drop its order just to cut a deal for its frac study?

UPDATE (1/16/2013, 3:39pm ET): The Fort Worth Star-Telegram has posted a version of the AP’s story, but with some additional details that the official Associated Press version neglected to include:

Thyne’s report appears at odds with evidence introduced by Range at a hearing into the matter before the Texas Railroad Commission in 2011. At that hearing, which the EPA did not participate in, the agency’s examiners found that the gas in Lipsky’s well and other water wells in the area was “most likely” from a much shallower formation called the Strawn.

Examiner Gene Montes said geochemical fingerprinting analysis of the gas in the contaminated wells indicated that it likely came from the Strawn, and didn’t match Barnett Shale gas. The three-member Railroad Commission in March 2011 ruled Range was not at fault.

How did the AP characterize that portion of the story? By merely stating: “state regulators declared in March 2011 that Range Resources was not responsible” for the presence of methane in the Lipsky’s well. No discussion of the fingerprinting analysis – a process that was given attention with respect to Thyne’s paper, though, as if it were some new and never-before-used technique in this case – and certainly no mention of the hearing where experts presented scientific evidence disproving the link between Range’s operations and methane found in the water.

Also of note: Range Resources is not part of the EPA’s hydraulic fracturing study. That begs a pretty important question: How could Range “pressure” the EPA to drop its endangerment order in exchange for participating in the study if Range is not, in fact, participating in the study?

Finally, for those interested, the now-infamous Thyne paper – which we are supposed to believe is a slam dunk, and that the enormous data sets showing otherwise do not exist – can be accessed here.

—Original post, January 16, 2013—

Back in 2010, then-administrator of EPA Region 6, Al Armendariz, appeared before an audience in north Texas and explained that his method of enforcing the law against oil and gas operators was similar to hostile Roman takeovers of outer territories. “It was kind of like how the Roman used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean,” he explained. “They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they would crucify them. And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”

Later that year, working behind the scenes with activists who had developed a “strategy” to make a water well appear to be on fire so they could get the EPA to blame natural gas development, Armendariz sent a friendly heads-up email to folks opposed to oil and gas development. “We’re about to make a lot of news,” Armendariz wrote to his friends and allies, some representing the most active anti-shale organizations in Texas. He added: “There’ll be an official press release in a few minutes … time to Tivo channel 8.”

That news was the issuance of an unprecedented “endangerment order” against Range Resources, which accused the company of contaminating drinking water. The order was a direct result of the aforementioned “strategy,” which consisted of a hired consultant suggesting people attach a garden hose to a gas vent and lighting it on fire, then filming the whole thing to make it appear that a household’s drinking water posed a threat of explosion. Doing so, they reasoned, would get the more aggressive EPA involved. “It is worth every penny,” the consultant wrote, “if we can get jurisdiction to EPA.”

After a lengthy court battle, a judge ruled that the resident himself created a “deceptive video” designed to attract attention. The judge wrote: “This demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning.”

Of course, you literally wouldn’t know any of this from reading Associated Press reporter Ramit Plushnicik-Masti’s most recent assessment of the Parker County case – a story that appears to have been designed from the very beginning to ignore the validity of the endangerment order itself, and instead weave a narrative of industry manipulation of the regulatory process.

For context, here’s Plushnick-Masti’s point of view:

At first, the Environmental Protection Agency believed the situation was so serious that it issued a rare emergency order in late 2010 that said at least two homeowners were in immediate danger from a well saturated with flammable methane. More than a year later, the agency rescinded its mandate and refused to explain why.

Now a confidential report obtained by The Associated Press and interviews with company representatives show that the EPA had scientific evidence against the driller, Range Resources, but changed course after the company threatened not to cooperate with a national study into a common form of drilling called hydraulic fracturing. Regulators set aside an analysis that concluded the drilling could have been to blame for the contamination.

So it’s pretty clear that this AP story hinges entirely on the validity of that supposed “scientific evidence” linking Range Resources’ operations to water contamination. Unfortunately for the AP, that “confidential report” was authored by Geoffrey Thyne, a known quantity in the world of poorly-written – and anti-industry – “scientific” papers.

Most notable was Thyne’s 2009 research in Colorado, which attempted to link natural gas development with degradation of water quality (anyone noticing a trend here?) in Garfield County. Thyne claimed that chloride and methane concentrations in groundwater were increasing as the number of gas wells increased, suggesting a causal link between the two. But in research presented to Colorado regulators, the Bill Barrett Corp. pointed out that those compounds were not actually increasing over time, based on actual data.

Thyne’s other observation was that the only source for the methane and most of the chloride was the formation into which the gas wells were drilled – the Williams Fork. But Bill Barrett analysis patiently explained that the Wasatch Formation contained elevated chloride levels prior to the start of drilling, as well as thermogenic methane. In response to Thyne’s report, Colorado regulators even noted that one “cannot ignore alternate mechanisms that explain the observations.”

Finally, Bill Barrett Corp. explained that the methane detected in groundwater didn’t match the fingerprint of methane from the producing formation – the final nail in the coffin to Thyne’s thesis.

Of course, this is also the same Geoffrey Thyne who claimed that the Colorado School of Mines threatened to fire him based solely on his opinions of hydraulic fracturing research and regulation. CSM pointed out that “no one in the Mines administration recalls having anything but cordial conversations” with Thyne, but CSM officials did contact Thyne to remind him that he needs to be clear that his opinions are his and not necessarily those of the school for which he works (his comments on the subject to NPR, for example, were not bracketed with any such disclaimer). Thyne has also done work for the Oil and Gas Accountability Project (OGAP), a program of the anti-development group Earthworks that receives funding from the Park Foundation. Remember them?

Once again, none of this would have been known from reading the AP’s latest story, even though the validity of Thyne’s research is the basis for the entire piece.

After ignoring the fundamental flaws with the endangerment order itself, and Dr. Thyne’s questionable history of dubious research and association with anti-drilling groups, the AP makes the stunning claim that Range refused to participate in EPA’s ongoing hydraulic fracturing study based upon the Agency’s continued prosecution of the endangerment order. That, according to Plushnick-Masti, served essentially as a bullying tactic, and the EPA thus decided to ignore the “scientific evidence” provided by Dr. Thyne and rescind the order.

What the AP refuses to acknowledge, though, is the mountain of scientific and peer-reviewed evidence showing that Range’s activities were not responsible for the methane found in the water wells, and thus Plushnick-Masti ignores even the possibility that EPA rescinded its order based on credible scientific findings.

That includes data submitted directly to the EPA – which E&E News’ Mike Soraghan recently obtained in a FOIA request – showing water quality in the affected wells was consistent with historical trends. That data also showed methane at a concentration half that of what would be considered an “action level.” Even Duke University’s Rob Jackson – whom the AP cited as an “expert reviewer” for the Parker Co. story – said the readings “are not dangerous levels.”

And what about all of the data presented at that January 2011 meeting with the Texas Railroad Commission (the entity in Texas that regulates oil and gas development) – the same meeting that the EPA, having been invited to present its evidence, flat out refused even to attend?

Those of us who have followed this case for more than a couple of days will remember that it was this meeting where experts showed conclusively that nitrogen fingerprinting of methane – a detail the EPA completely ignored in its analysis, by the way – proved that the gas was coming from the Strawn Formation, not the Barnett Shale, and thus not due to Range’s activities. Research from Collier Consulting from way back in December 2003 even identified a significant presence of Strawn-based methane in the region’s water wells – long before Range arrived on the scene.

But again, if you willfully ignored the details and validity of the actual endangerment order – which the AP piece quite clearly did – then that sort of evidence isn’t really important. For those interested in understanding why the case against Range was scientifically bankrupt from the very beginning, however – an audience that likely includes many if not most of AP’s actual readers – information showing a lack of cause for the EPA’s order in the first place would be considered quite relevant.

On a concluding note, and perhaps indicative of the intent of the story itself, this particular line from AP’s Plushnick-Masti stood out:

The method [hydraulic fracturing] has contributed to a surge in natural gas drilling nationwide, but environmental activists and some scientists believe it can contaminate groundwater. The industry insists the practice is safe.

Just the industry insists it is safe? We know that’s not the case, as federal officials, independent experts and state regulators have affirmed time and again. But what’s more notable is that the standard Associated Press description includes mention of regulators’ opinions, probably because the AP typically has an interest in accuracy.

Take, for instance, this AP story from January 11th, which states: “Regulators contend that water and air pollution problems are rare…”

Or this AP story from January 6th: “The industry and many federal and state officials say fracking is safe when done properly…”

Or this AP story from November 27, 2012: “Regulators nonetheless contend that overall, water and air pollution problems related to fracking are rare…”

Or this AP story from November 8, 2012: “Regulators contend that overall, water and air pollution problems related to gas drilling using hydraulic fracturing are rare…”

Or this AP story from October 14, 2012: “The industry and many federal and state officials say the practice is safe when done properly…”

Spurning the publication’s own established and well-vetted characterization, Plushnick-Masti chose to suggest only “the industry insists” hydraulic fracturing is safe. That’s hardly an accurate characterization, but given the rest of the story, I guess that’s just par for the course.

Tenn. Volunteering Massive New Energy Supplies to U.S. Energy Portfolio
When people hear “Tennessee,” many think of Nashville – the home of the Grand Ole Opry and a mecca of live music. What very few people would associate with Tennessee, however, is oil and natural gas development. According to the EIA, the Volunteer State produced 245,000 barrels of oil in 2011– roughly the same amount of oil that New Mexico produces every day. But some news this week suggests that could all be changing.

Dana
Staff Geologist

 

When people hear “Tennessee,” many think of Nashville – the home of the Grand Ole Opry and a mecca of live music. Others look farther west, toward delicious Memphis barbecue and Graceland. And, of course, there’s a certain SEC football team in Knoxville, located next to the Great Smoky Mountains and currently, desperately, looking for someone, anyone to coach their team.

What very few people would associate with Tennessee, however, is oil and natural gas development. According to the EIA, the Volunteer State produced 245,000 barrels of oil in 2011– roughly the same amount of oil that New Mexico produces every day.

But some news this week suggests that could all be changing. A single horizontal well in the Mississippian Fort Payne limestone in Tennessee has just been completed, and the operator – Miller Energy – estimates that it could produce 200 to 225 barrels per day. Such production would represent an increase in Tennessee oil production of roughly 30 percent. And every bit of it, all from a single well.

So, does this mean Tennessee has officially joined the ranks of large shale producing states like Texas, Pennsylvania, and North Dakota? Well, no, not exactly – not yet at least. But it does suggest that the development of tight resources in Tennessee could increase in the near future, providing more economic opportunity, more tax revenue, and more jobs to a state currently suffering from a 7.6 percent unemployment rate.

Talking of future economic benefits based on the completion of a single well might seem a bit presumptive, but let’s recall recent history: For decades, the industry acknowledged the enormous potential of shale and other tight reservoirs throughout the country, but technological and economic obstacles prevented large-scale commercial activity. Once George Mitchell cracked the code in the Barnett Shale of Texas by combining hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, however, the opportunities in shale basins all across America skyrocketed.

Still, even with industry-wide best practices and the benefit of scalable technologies, each geological formation still represents its own code to be cracked, and investing the time and effort to complete the first successful well can be overwhelming. But once that’s achieved? Subsequent wells benefit from knowledge of “what works” for that specific formation, which means new wells are often easier to drill and complete. That can mean lower costs and, ultimately, an increase in production.

Of course, it’s not surprising that this potentially great sign of things to come in Tennessee was made possible by an independent company like Miller Energy. Indeed, independents are the backbone of America’s oil and natural gas industry, drilling 95 percent of all new wells in the United States and producing nearly 70 percent of the country’s oil. Not for nuthin’, but independents were also what made the “shale revolution” possible to begin with – and what will ensure it remains the phenomenon it’s become for decades for decades into the future.

So, in summation: no, the Volunteer State likely won’t surpass Texas any time soon in oil production. But it is hard to see this successful horizontal well as anything but a positive development for the state – and one that observers of this space will be watching very closely over the next 12 months.

Shale Helps United States Reach Historic Oil Production
In November 2012, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released its 2012 World Energy Outlook Report, which found that North American oil and natural gas development is redefining the global energy landscape. Now just a few weeks later, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has released its "Short-Term Energy Outlook" for January, which actually shines an even brighter light on this historic shale-driven news.

Julia
Researcher

 

In November 2012, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released its 2012 World Energy Outlook Report, which found that North American oil and natural gas development is redefining the global energy landscape. Now just a few weeks later, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has released its “Short-Term Energy Outlook” for January, which actually shines an even brighter light on this historic shale-driven news.

According to the report, oil production increased by more than 800,000 barrels per day from last year.  As E&E News (sub req’d) highlights, this growing output from the Bakken and Eagle Ford shale plays averaged 6.4 million barrels per day over 2012.  The EIA says this is “the largest annual increase [in oil production] since the birth of the U.S. oil industry in 1859.”

And things aren’t slowing down anytime soon. The first EIA report of its kind to contain 2014 data projects U.S. crude oil output will rise to 7.3 million barrels per day in 2013 and 7.9 million barrels per day in 2014. According to EIA, this would “mark the highest annual average level of production since 1988.”

EIA’s glowing outlook is not alone. A report released in September 2012 by Goldman Sachs highlighted America’s energy revolution, which is made possible by hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. According to Goldman, this growth “will transform the domestic and global economy over the next decade.” And it’s certainly a boost for American energy security. Numbers from IEA and research by Bank of America Merrill Lynch found the United States was by far the largest contributor to non-OPEC oil supply growth in 2011:

Just a few decades ago, the United States was in the midst of the Arab Oil Embargo, facing a ban on petroleum imports from Arab oil-producing nations and left in the throes of the 1973 energy crisis until conflict resolved in spring of 1974.  Now that story has reversed. Thanks to shale, the United States stands to double its historic production, decreasing reliance on foreign energy and increasing our own domestic energy capacity. Meanwhile, countries like Saudi Arabia are forced to scratch their heads about an outlook that no longer places them as the global oil leader.

From helping us become more energy secure to providing a major boost to our economy, the responsible development of America’s shale reserves is a vital component of our country’s energy future.

Examining the Facts in Portage Co. Methane Case
Just this morning, the Today show ran a story about a family in northeast Ohio that blames oil and gas development on methane in their water well. But facts, the science, a 50-year-old report from the U.S. Geological Survey, and even Ohio’s top environmental regulatory agency all seem to disagree – and an even cursory review of the facts of the case lay out pretty clearly why they’re right.

Dan
EID Ohio, Communications Director

This week, a local NBC affiliate out of Cleveland did a story on a Portage County family (the Klines) concerned about the levels of methane in their water well, and pretty convinced that a natural gas well drilled more than 1,800 feet away from their property is the sole reason why it’s there.

To their credit, the producers in Cleveland did a pretty good job of laying out the situation in a pretty balanced way, noting several important facts (we’ll get to those in just a bit) that, taken together, render the notion of oil and gas development having anything to do with this event a virtual impossibility. Unfortunately, producers with the Today show in New York didn’t quite apply the same standard of accuracy in running with the story on its broadcast this morning, airing a piece that carefully avoids mention of the facts, even in the face of a mountain of evidence that directly contradicts its thesis.

Since the focus of NBC’s “investigative” report was on the presence of two substances (methane and chloride) in the Kline water well, let’s examine each of those with the kind of attention to detail to which we hope news outlets – and, separately, the Today show — will adhere in the future.

Methane

It’s important to note right up top that the operator of the nearby natural gas well in question conducted extensive baseline water testing before any development activities ever proceeded – sampling the Kline well even though it technically resides outside the “presumptive liability” zone of 1,500-feet from the well. A copy of those test results can be found here.

As you’ll see, methane was found in the Klines’ water well before the natural gas well was even drilled. Other baseline water tests focused on the area in question confirm that methane is commonly found in water wells throughout the region. Again, these findings come from samples taken before drilling began, meaning the methane detected is naturally occurring, and sometimes present in fairly high concentrations.

But perhaps the most important detail concerning the Klines’ water well is this: According to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), the Kline water well was actually drilled through the existing water aquifer and into a rock formation below called the “hard blue shale.” According to the statement that ODNR submitted to Today: “The water well in question was found to be drilled into shale, which is known to contain methane and is naturally occurring.”

In other words: natural gas was found in a water well that was drilled into a shale formation that contains natural gas.

Here’s why that’s relevant: According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the relatively shallow shale rocks that underlie Portage Co. have long been known to house some pretty low-quality drinking water. In a report filed by USGS in 1966 – 56 years ago, mind you – the agency found that:

“the shale units in Portage County generally have not been used as a source of water because of either the poor quality of the water or its insufficient quantity.”

The fact that the Klines’ water well was drilled into one of those shales explains a lot about the composition and quality of their water.

One of the other points the reporter made sure to highlight in the Today show piece was that methane levels discovered in water sampling tests from December 2012 (based on tests conducted by ODNR) were higher than what was detected in the baseline samples collected in August 2012. So even if there were methane in the water beforehand – and lots of it – what could explain the increase in concentration?

Here, a 2008 report that appeared in a prominent scientific journal examining how and why levels of methane can change in groundwater might prove useful. That report, entitled “Spike-Like Concentration Change of Methane,” observed that it’s common for methane levels in groundwater to increase or decrease over time, as methane concentrations are “controlled by the hydrostatic pressure gradient in the aquifer.” According to the study, the pressure gradient can change for a number of reasons — not only due to withdrawals from the well, but also from atmospheric conditions, such as changes in barometric pressure. Because of this, changes in temperature can cause methane concentrations in groundwater to fluctuate.

The baseline tests were taken in the summer, whereas ODNR’s tests were taken in the late fall/winter.

Chloride

Another substance that came up in samples of the Kline water well was chloride. Once again, baseline water tests provide much-needed information in this case, including before and after measurements of chloride itself.

In those baseline tests, chloride was detected in the Klines’ water at a concentration of 414.8 mg/L. The U.S. EPA’s standard, however, is 250 mg/L, meaning the chloride concentration significantly exceeded the acceptable limit set by the EPA before drilling even began.

With all of these facts spread out on the table, NBC News chose only to say that, according to ODNR’s investigation, “the well water’s chloride levels were nearly twice the safe limit.” No mention of the baseline data, and certainly no mention of the fact that chloride levels far exceeded safe limits before the company ever drilled its natural gas well.

But chloride levels were slightly higher in ODNR’s tests (taken in December) than the baseline samples from August. How to explain that?

For one, a 2004 report on Ohio groundwater from USGS found elevated levels of chloride in Portage Co., specifically in the winter months. The reason, according to USGS, was the “direct application of deicing chemicals” to roadways. USGS added that “downgradient dissolved chloride concentrations (mean 124-345 mg/L) rarely returned to background concentrations (mean 7-37 mg/L) throughout the study period.” In Portage Co. specifically, two of the three wells sampled registered average chloride concentrations of between 406 mg/L and 534 mg/L, with some readings over 1,900 mg/L.

In other words, during the winter months, water aquifers in Portage Co. often experience spikes in chloride levels, and significant ones at that – a phenomenon that was observed, recorded and lamented in the area long before any shale development came to town.

There’s another element that may have contributed to the rise in chlorides, as detailed in a Nov. 2011 story in the Columbus Dispatch. The headline of that piece? “Stored road salt might have tainted well water.” Elsewhere, the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services has recognized road salts and other de-icers as significant hazards to groundwater quality, identifying the threat of chloride leaking into water supplies as a key reason. The Washington Post put it more bluntly: “Road salt melts snow, but it contaminates groundwater and damages habitats.”

Notably, Portage Co. experienced a large snowstorm last month – the same month as ODNR’s tests.

Also worth noting: Another report from ODNR, this one issued in 1990, identified Portage County specifically as having a high risk for naturally induced water contamination: “The diversity of hydrogeologic conditions in Portage County,” ODNR observed, “produces settings with a wide range of vulnerability to ground water contamination.”

Conclusion

With all of these facts available, the Today show nonetheless chose to ignore each and every one of them, opting instead to focus on sensationalism and “expert analysis” from well-known anti-shale activist groups – even shoehorning in a quick interview with a Washington, D.C.-based staffer from the NRDC. The segment then officially jumped the shark by trying its level best to compare the Klines’ situation with the infamous “flaming faucet” scene in Josh Fox’s thoroughly discredited movie Gasland.

But actually, linking the Portage Co. case with Gasland’s flaming faucet may be entirely fitting. As we remember, the initial reaction to that scene was to connect it to shale development, specifically the process of hydraulic fracturing. But according to an investigation by Colorado’s oil and gas regulators – whom Fox refused to allow in his documentary to explain the facts – the flaming faucet was “not related to oil and gas activity.”

Sounds familiar, huh?

Cutting Through the Internet Echo Chamber
Have you seen all the reports out there on the Internet about how Tulsa, Okla. -- a town that oil and gas built -- recently passed a ban on the use of hydraulic fracturing technology? Turns out, it's a complete falsehood. But don't tell that the reporters who picked up the piece on social media and ran with it like they stole something. Guess they just thought it was too good a story not to be true.

Meagan
Researcher

There’s a commercial for a big insurance company making the rounds right now poking fun at the veracity of some of the things you find online. In the ad, a woman tells her State Farm agent that if something appears on the Internet, well then, that means it must be true. “Where did you hear that?” the agency asks. “The Internet,” she says. The commercial ends with the lady walking away with a (rather slovenly) gentleman on their way to a date — someone whom she had met online, and who had claimed to be a French model.

We were reminded of that commercial recently, when “news” started to circulate around the Internet that Tulsa, Okla. had passed a ban on the use of hydraulic fracturing within its city limits. Almost immediately, the item was picked up on Twitter, and from there, it was off-and-running. No one really bothered to check it out, of course. It was too good to fact-check. None of the articles even cited a source.

In the most recent article on the topic, James Burgess with Oil Price wrote that “some cities, even those in the heart of oil and gas country have moved to ban fracking within their limits. Tulsa, Oklahoma (once the self-proclaimed oil capital of the world) has completely banned fracking within the city limits.”  Suzanne Goldenberg echoed the same inaccurate statement in London’s The Guardian.  With a few words changed here and there, each article regurgitates the same sentences and point.  And fortunately, the point couldn’t be farther from the truth.

You want to know the truth? Here it is:

In 2010, Tulsa City Council voted (see item 7) to lift the 104 year old moratorium on drilling within the city limits, under certain circumstances.  District 7 City Councilor John Eagleton led the charge to propose the moratorium be lifted, much to the praise of many local oil and gas leaders.  According to the Tulsa World, the council began researching the moratorium two years prior to the January 2010 vote as an answer to budget concerns and a possible increased revenue stream option.  The proposed ordinance was mirrored after a similar ordinance passed in Oklahoma City, which has proven to be very successful.  Lifting the ordinance was unanimously approved by the city council.

Eagleton points out that the moratorium on drilling in the city of Tulsa was set in place over 100 years ago when the process of drilling was not what it is today, when “drilling activity was toxic, and many wells literally were explosive”.  Advanced technology and sophisticated safety measures have allowed the oil and gas industry to advance by leaps and bounds in protecting the environment and public safety, and Eagleton argued that the drilling business is “environmentally friendly and compatible with city life”.  With that in mind, the concept of drilling within the city limits was an “out of the box-idea” and one Eagleton said was imperative to combat the city’s budget concerns.  Tulsa chose to lift the ban and open up exploration and drilling options for private companies, hoping to see results.

In a November 2012 article in E&E News, the reporter focuses on the fight between local and state governments across the country, the issue being local governments bringing tighter regulations and restrictions to the oil and natural gas community, state governments empathizing with industry groups, and the lack of uniformity that is a result.  The article appears to be the genesis for the misinformation in the OilPrice.com and Guardian articles, stating “And in Oklahoma, where the fervor for drilling is no less intense, some cities flat-out ban drilling within their city limits.  Among them is Tulsa, which once billed itself as the Oil Capital of the World.”  The issue and controversy of a lack of uniformity is not present in Tulsa.  Like Oklahoma City, Tulsa chose to embrace the oil and gas industry to boost its economy, and develop the city’s own mineral rights.  And while the process took some time, along with a handful of sensible restrictions, Tulsa devised a plan that works best for them.

This continuous recurrence of such inaccurate information proves how the Internet echo chamber can erroneously impact an issue.  The least we can do is observe the truth – a city council vote lifted a 104 year-old moratorium on drilling within the city limits of Tulsa, Oklahoma and proved that city and state governments can see eye to eye, and work together to promote safe and responsible energy development across the nation.

60 Percent of Statistics are Made Up
Writing in The New York Times on Christmas Day 2012, none other than Yoko Ono declared that 60 percent of wells producing natural gas from shale will fail – perhaps surprising those who weren’t previously familiar with Ms. Ono’s background and experience as a petroleum engineer. Expertise (or lack thereof) aside, could it really be the case that more than half of all wells will be “poisoning drinking water” sometime in the not too distant future?

Steve
Spokesman

 

Writing in The New York Times on Christmas Day 2012, none other than Yoko Ono declared that 60 percent of wells producing natural gas from shale will fail – perhaps surprising those who weren’t previously familiar with Ms. Ono’s background and experience as a petroleum engineer. Expertise (or lack thereof) aside, could it really be the case that more than half of all wells will be “poisoning drinking water” sometime in the not too distant future?

First of all, this isn’t a new claim. Opponents of responsible shale development have been using that “60 percent fail” statistic ever since Cornell professor (and anti-natural gas activist) Anthony Ingraffea invented it and passed it along to Josh Fox, Yoko Ono, and numerous other anti-shale audiences, including some among our friends to the north. Ingraffea even claims to have “industry documents” as his source, but as with so much bandied about by folks dedicated to shutting down hydraulic fracturing, the claim is pure fabrication.

Let’s start by taking a look at these “industry documents” that opponents would have us believe are the Holy Grail of anti-shale activism. The main source is a decade-old article in Oilfield Review examining what’s known as sustained casing pressure, or SCP. There is indeed a graph on the second page detailing that, over a 30 year time span, 60 percent of wells will be affected by SCP.

But what’s listed in the caption – and what no activist ever mentions – is just as if not more important: the graph refers to offshore wells in the Gulf of Mexico. The data came directly from the now-defunct Minerals Management Service, which was the federal agency tasked with regulating offshore oil and gas development in federal waters.

The caption also states clearly: “These data do not include wells in state waters or land locations.”

So, right off the bat, we can see that opponents are trying to pull the wool over the public’s eyes by pretending that casing pressure in offshore wells is actually referring to wells developed onshore in deep shale formations. Even worse, the documentation explicitly states it does not refer to onshore production, which is where shale development is actually occurring!

Do they not understand the difference? Or do they refuse to disclose this information because they fear the public actually would? Either way, the statistic is misleading, if not completely meaningless.

Now let’s dig a little deeper into the specific claim that 60 percent of wells are “leaking” or “failing” based on the Minerals Management Service data in the Oilfield Review article. In reality, sustained casing pressure (SCP) is a much more complex issue, and simply saying that the presence of SCP is evidence of a leaking well reflects an incredibly poor understanding of even basic facts about well construction.

Some quick background: As this handy diagram from Encana shows, a typical well includes many layers (casings), each with its own specific purpose.

The outer layers – the conductor and surface casings – are typically the ones designed to protect groundwater, while the inner casings are designed to protect against any other potential abnormalities (some have even said the intermediate casing is run “as an insurance” against unforeseen problems). The innermost layer, the production casing, is what provides the pathway for oil and natural gas to flow from the target formation underground to the surface – through tubing that is inserted into the casing itself. Cement fills the space between the casing strings, providing yet another layer of protection between what’s inside the pipe and everything that’s outside of it. You can learn more about the well construction process by clicking here.

Sustained casing pressure, meanwhile, is essentially the buildup of pressure in an annulus — the space between the casings. This occurs because of “inadequate zonal isolation” – meaning a gas bearing zone deep underground is not fully sealed off from one of the layers of the well. Of course, this doesn’t mean the well is fatally flawed, and it certainly doesn’t mean that methane inside the pipe is leaking into water supplies (more on that in a moment). Indeed, the purpose of the Oilfield Review article in question was to highlight the options available to the industry not only to prevent SCP, including better cementing procedures and other well construction techniques, but also how it can be reduced and mitigated.

The upshot: SCP is preventable, but when SCP is detected, there are a variety of technologies and processes that can address it – directly contradicting Ms. Ono’s claim that “no one can be sent thousands of feet under the earth to make repairs once this happens.”

According to the article, 47.1 percent of SCP is detected in the production string, and 16.3 percent is in the intermediate string. That means 63.4 percent of the supposed “leaks” that opponents are referencing are actually pressure abnormalities that are limited to inner layers within the well. And since the conductor and surface casings are installed specifically to protect groundwater, there are still multiple layers of concrete and steel separating water from the affected area.

Does that mean SCP is not a problem in these 63.4 percent of cases? Absolutely not. But the good news is that a combination of improved industry practices and new government regulations has helped reduce the occurrence of SCP, and when it is detected, there are a variety of remediation tools available to the operators. As mentioned, the purpose of the article in Oilfield Review was to highlight the steps that the industry has been taking to address and mitigate SCP.

Of course, that still leaves us with 35 to 40 percent of SCP cases – at least according to this MMS data from 2003 – affecting the conductor or surface casing. The lowest percentage by far is the conductor string, for which the data show SCP impacting about ten percent of the time. In many cases, the conductor casing is what actually isolates onshore wells from shallow drinking water resources, so we can already see how the “60 percent of all wells leak” suggestion has been, based on the facts, mostly reduced to “ten percent of 63 percent of offshore wells in 2003 experienced sustained casing pressure in the outer layer of the well.”

After a little arithmetic, we find the incidence rate is actually six percent — dramatically better than 60 percent, and certainly much less alarming.

But even this is based on the assumption that pressure data for offshore wells is materially relevant to onshore shale development. We know, for instance, that offshore wells typically have higher pressure readings than onshore wells – a product of the many differences between a deep shale well and one drilled thousands of feet below the sea floor. And there’s also that inconvenient fact mentioned in the Oilfield Review article: the MMS data do not refer to onshore wells.

Thankfully, there are data available that show the actual failure risk of onshore wells – and it’s far below what Yoko and the Incredible Hulk would like us all to believe.

An August 2011 report from the Ground Water Protection Council examined more than 34,000 wells drilled and completed in the state of Ohio between 1983 and 2007. The data show only 12 incidents related to failures of (or graduate erosions to) casing or cement – a failure rate of 0.03 percent. Most of those incidents (more than 80 percent) occurred in the 1980s and 1990s, too, before modern technology and updated state regulations came online over the past decade.

That same GWPC report also looked at more than 187,000 wells drilled and completed in Texas. The Lone Star State is the largest oil and natural gas producing state in the country by far, so it stands to reason that high failure rates – if they existed – would be present there. As it turns out, there were only 21 incidents related to well integrity, which works out to an error rate of 0.01 percent.

So, if we’re interested in understanding well integrity for shale development, which should we trust more: Data from 15,500 shut-in and temporarily abandoned offshore wells, or an analysis of more than 200,000 onshore wells, including tens of thousands of wells that were stimulated with hydraulic fracturing? The answer is clearly the latter – unless, of course, your interests lie in cherry picking and misrepresenting data to craft a pre-determined narrative.

None of this is to suggest, however, that well integrity issues should be ignored; they absolutely should not, and even an error rate registering in the hundredths of a percent shows room for improvement. But the industry continues to address those problems head on, and states have strong rules and regulations regarding construction standards, casing strength and pressure requirements (Colorado’s are here, Pennsylvania recently updated its rules, Texas regulators have proposed updated wellbore integrity regulations, and Ohio’s standards are among the most robust in the country, just to name a few). Many of these rules have been supported or even encouraged by the industry itself.

The suggestion that 60 percent of shale wells will leak may draw media attention and even scare the general public, but it has no real basis in fact. It’s not science, and it’s certainly not based on “industry documents” that opponents believe have validated their claims. Data that are more relevant to shale development reveal an industry that is committed to safe operations, including maintaining well integrity. That commitment is further supported by strong state regulations, which have been and continue to be crafted in an open and transparent manner.

They may not make for a catchy headline, but hopefully the facts provide a degree of comfort to the general public that shale development is — and will continue to be — a safe process.

*UPDATE* USGS Study Again Confirms Safety Record of Hydraulic Fracturing
A report released today by the United States Geological Survey again confirms that hydraulic fracturing does not pose a serious risk of polluting drinking water resources. The study examined the water quality of 127 shallow domestic wells in the Fayetteville shale in Arkansas – a region with 4,000 completed producing natural gas wells. As report lead and USGS hydrologist Timothy Kresse stated, “none of the data that {USGS} looked at as part of this study suggests that any groundwater contamination is resulting from natural gas production activities.”

Dana
Staff Geologist

 

UPDATE (4:45 pm ET, 1/10/2013): Today, Senator David Vitter (R-La.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee, acknowledged the USGS study of groundwater quality in the Fayetteville shale region. Senator Vitter applauded the USGS’s use of sound science in its investigation, contrasting that commitment with flawed prior assessments by EPA in Parker County, Tex.; Pavillion, Wyo.; and Dimock, Pa. (among others):

“It’s certainly encouraging to see this positive result from a study using sound and transparent science to draw conclusions instead of ideology.  The EPA’s mishaps with fabricating evidence in Texas, Pennsylvania, and Wyoming caused an unnecessary attack on an effective, efficient and safe method of developing domestic energy. Studies like these from the USGS help set the record straight.” [link]

—Original post, January 9, 2013—

A report released today by the United States Geological Survey again confirms that hydraulic fracturing does not pose a serious risk of polluting drinking water resources. The study examined the water quality of 127 shallow domestic wells in the Fayetteville shale in Arkansas – a region with 4,000 completed producing natural gas wells.  As report lead and USGS hydrologist Timothy Kresse stated, “none of the data that {USGS} looked at as part of this study suggests that any groundwater contamination is resulting from natural gas production activities.”

It’s worth noting up front that two of the authors of the study are none other than Robert Jackson and Avner Vengosh — the same Duke University researchers whose work has been cited far and wide by opponents of shale development as “proof” that hydraulic fracturing contaminates groundwater. Bloomberg News cited their prior findings as suggesting shale development will “put water at risk,” while the Christian Science Monitor claimed their prior work provided evidence hydraulic fracturing is “polluting ground water,” as did even Scientific American.

But what’s abundantly clear, especially now, is that these bold assertions were premature at best — and incorrect at worst. If hydraulic fractured posed a serious and indeed imminent risk to groundwater resources (how else to interpret the alarmist headlines?), then this latest study would not have come to the conclusions that it did. It is unclear, however, if the same media outlets and opposition groups who latched on to research from Jackson and Vengosh – no doubt because they viewed them as credible scientists – will express the same eagerness in reporting what those researchers have now found on the same subject.

As for how the study itself was conducted, all 127 well samples were tested for chloride — a naturally occurring ion that can be used as a “fingerprint” to identify groundwater impacts from development (though it’s worth noting that the mere presence of chloride does not necessarily establish a causal link). These samples were then compared to samples taken from nearby areas between 1951 and 1983.  The result? The concentrations observed in the samples were consistent with the previous ones, indicating no instances of contamination. The report also highlighted that the chloride concentrations from wells within a two mile range of a producing well were similar to concentrations from wells located more than two miles away, which indicates no connection between chloride levels and proximity to natural gas production.

Methane concentrations were also tested in 51 wells. According to the report, methane that was detected was found to be biogenic (naturally occurring) and not a result from natural gas development. From the report:

“Seven samples had methane concentrations greater than or equal to 0.5 mg/L. The carbon isotopic composition of these higher concentration samples, including the highest concentration of 28.5 mg/L, shows the methane was likely biogenic in origin with carbon isotope ratio values ranging from -57.6 to -74.7 per mil.” [link]

That’s good news for the state of Arkansas, and indeed great news for the millions of Americans who rely on clean-burning natural gas developed from shale to heat their homes and keep their lights on.

Of course, for those of us who have always been interested in the facts, this report comes as no surprise.  As state regulators and even the EPA have noted time and again, hydraulic fracturing does not pose a serious risk for groundwater contamination. In fact, those same regulators have noted that they have never once observed a confirmed case of hydraulic fracturing polluting drinking water resources. Today’s results merely reconfirm these facts.

USGS Director Marcia McNutt described the significance of today’s results:

“For more than one hundred years, the USGS has been a source of freely available, unbiased information on our natural resources such as oil, gas, and water, helping government and local leaders make wise decisions for the public good. This new study is important in terms of finding no significant effects on groundwater quality from shale gas development within the area of sampling.”

Shale development in Arkansas in 2012 alone has generated $530 million in state and local taxes and supported more than 33,000 jobs in the state. Today’s report from USGS proves once again that the immense benefits of shale production do not come at the expense of the environment that we all have a vested interest in protecting.

The Real Promised Land Scores on Facebook
Perusing Facebook yesterday we noticed something. EID's "The Real Promised Land" Facebook page has surpassed the film's official Facebook page in popularity. Proving online what the box office has already borne out in communities across the U.S. Namely, that the real stories of ordinary Americans and natural gas development are more appealing than the false narrative of a Hollywood actor who thinks hydraulic fracturing “poisons human relationships.”

Tom
EID-Marcellus Campaign Manager

 

Perusing Facebook yesterday we noticed something rather incredible.  The story is best told with screenshots of the official Promised Land movie Facebook page and our Real Promised Land page.  First, here is the movie Facebook page yesterday, January 8, 2013:

Screen Shot 2013-01-08 at 5.00.37 PM

10,717 Likes

Notice the number of “likes” and the count of Facebook users talking about the movie Facebook page.  The movie has garnered 10,717 likes and 5,883 people are talking about it.  This is, bear in mind, a movie that cost $15 million to produce.

Now, take a look at The Real Promised Land, Energy In Depth’s Facebook page showing “real Americans, real stories, no scripts,” which was produced by one our staffers working with a budget only slightly larger than $1.98, using videos of (and contributed by) ordinary Americans:

Screen Shot 2013-01-08 at 5.01.08 PM

10,729 Likes

Well, how about that?  EID’s little Facebook page of real Americans in the real promised land has garnished a dozen more likes than a Matt Damon movie page.  Not only that, but our page has 1,174 more folks talking about it.

It looks like the real stories of ordinary Americans and natural gas development are more appealing than the false narrative of some Hollywood actor who thinks hydraulic fracturing “poisons human relationships.”

My faith in humanity is restored.  Congratulations, also, to those folks in the back office who developed this page.  I hope they don’t learn Matt Damon gets $10 million per film.  Then again, the way the movie is selling, Matt Damon may be taking IOU’s.

Cuomo Confidential: Secret N.Y. Dept. of Health Review of HF Concludes It is Safe
Over the past few months frustration has mounted in New York as the state struggles to finalize its natural gas regulations. What may have originally been an attempt at a pragmatic review has quickly devolved into political theater, with each day bringing new information to light on the actions – or, all too often, inactions – of state officials who seem content to let the issue drag on indefinitely. The latest example? A secret health review from Governor Cuomo’s hand picked Health Secretary which found that “significant adverse impacts on human health are not expected from routine HVHF operations.”

John
Communications Director

Over the past few months frustration has mounted in New York as the state struggles to finalize its natural gas regulations. What may have originally been an attempt at a pragmatic review has quickly devolved into political theater, with each day bringing new information to light on the actions – or, all too often, inactions – of state officials who seem content to let the issue drag on indefinitely.

The latest example? A secret health review from Governor Cuomo’s hand picked Health Secretary which found that “significant adverse impacts on human health are not expected from routine HVHF operations.” The February 2012 report, which was never publicly released and only today uncovered by the press, noted that “the state’s proposed regulations would prevent any potential health risks from air emissions, water contamination, and radioactive materials unearthed during the drilling process.”  The report added that “human chemical exposure during normal HVHF operations will be prevented or reduced below levels of significant health concern.”

Wait, what? Weren’t we told that the health risks from hydraulic fracturing were “unknown,” thus necessitating yet another missed deadline for finalizing the state’s regulations so the state could complete a health review? Why did it take 11 months for this existing review to surface, and why did the state see fit to keep it hidden from the public view?

The answer to that last question could have something to do with the findings in the review itself, which refute nearly every significant criticism levied by opponents working day and night to stop natural gas development in New York. If the state has already determined those charges to be bogus, then how could it also credibly call for yet another analysis based on the content of those same accusations?

Three other findings are of particular note:

The review also found that the proposed regulatory system for transporting produced and flowback fluids “will be subject to recordkeeping requirements similar to the treatment of medical waste, which are more stringent than requirements for conventional wastewater hauling.”

That, of course, would be news to Catskill Mountainkeeper and others who frequently declare that the state has “no plan” for disposing of wastes from the fracturing process (see point 8).

Taken together, all of this makes us wonder: If the Governor had clear answers refuting some of the most serious claims made by opponents, then why would he encourage his agencies to sit on that information? In that same vein, why would he appear on the Fred Dicker Show (Nov. 20th) to make inflammatory statements like “people are afraid of being poisoned” if he had information that could alleviate those public fears? What’s more, with 80,000 New Yorkers seeking answers to questions about potential health impacts from hydraulic fracturing, why would he purposely keep those answers hidden from the very people he was elected to represent?

For someone who has indicated that science should determine the outcome of this discussion, this is undoubtedly an odd course to take. It appears the Governor is obstructing the opinions of qualified experts in order to cater to the needs of influential downstaters who want to ban hydraulic fracturing in the Empire State. Worse yet, this chain of events provides some credence to a recent New York Post editorial, which suggested the Governor’s end goal on HF regulation is for the current moratorium never to be lifted.

Regardless of the motives, all of this has to be frustrating for landowners in upstate New York who want nothing more than to be able to enjoy a respectable living in a state that contains the nation’s 10th highest unemployment rate and one of the nation’s highest property tax burdens. While the Governor plays a game of political Chess with the one option that could actually provide them relief, men and women throughout the state struggle to pay the bills, find jobs, and in some cases hold onto their family farms.

Of course, the Governor should also recall how voters in the Empire State took their frustration to the ballot box by voting against candidates who called for more delays and outright bans on hydraulic fracturing.

As residents in New York continue to struggle, more of whom support responsible shale development than oppose it, an important question lingers: Is Governor Cuomo really being guided by science and concern for the state’s residents, or is all of this being carefully manufactured based on a reading of the political tea leaves four years from now? Stay tuned.

 

 


Four Things to Know about HF Incident in Canada
This week, the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) in Canada released information about an incident in Alberta involving oil and gas development and hydraulic fracturing. As with any news of this nature, opponents have been quick to seize on it as “proof” that “oil and gas companies cannot adequately manage the risks” of development. We know that’s false, but we also know that anti-shale activists will try to leverage the event into as much media attention as possible. Before leaping to conclusions, though, we’re going to take a look at the actual facts of the case.

Steve
Spokesman

 

This week, the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) in Canada released information about an incident in Alberta involving oil and gas development and hydraulic fracturing. As with any news of this nature, opponents have been quick to seize on it as “proof” that “oil and gas companies cannot adequately manage the risks” of development. We know that’s false — the safety record of tight oil and gas development speaks for itself — but we also know that anti-shale activists will try to leverage the event into as much media attention as possible. We’ve seen this movie before.

Before leaping to those conclusions, though – how about we try something different this time around? Instead of limiting your understanding of the event to just what was crammed into a news headline, we’re going to take a look at the actual facts of the case: and let those lead us wherever they may go. Here are four of the biggest ones included in ERCB’s report:

Fact One: This was not a failure of hydraulic fracturing

As the ERCB release notes, the incident occurred in September 2011 when Crew Energy “improperly perforated and hydraulically fractured at a shallow depth.” Put differently, the company perforated the wrong section of the pipe, and did so in proximity to ground water (but not drinking water — more on that below). That’s an important distinction, for reasons that should be obvious: Opponents have been claiming — and will no doubt continue to claim — that hydraulic fracturing occurring a mile or more below drinking water resources poses a serious risk of contamination. That wasn’t true prior to the Alberta incident, and it still isn’t true after it.

Fact Two: No one’s drinking water was impacted in any way

On page 7 of the full report, ECRB states flat-out: “Based on the groundwater monitoring-well data to date, there is insignificant risk to drinking water in the area.” ECRB also concluded: “No compounds indicating the presence of the fracturing fluids were detected in the shallow monitoring well,” which refers to the area’s drinking water reservoir.

The reason drinking water was not impacted was that the incident itself occurred at a depth of 136 meters (446 feet), but the drinking water source (called a domestic use aquifer, or DUA) was at a depth of only 81 meters (265 feet). To put that in perspective, the DUA and the location of the incident were separated by a distance equivalent to the height of an 18-story building. Spanning that distance is a thick layer of sandstone, which isolates the DUA from the impacted ground water zone.

Fact Three: No threat to the public

You might be asking, “If the incident occurred in September 2011, why are we only hearing about it now?” According to an ERCB spokesman, the incident location was not only remote, but — as described above — it also had no impact on the public. Does that mean we should dismiss the incident? Absolutely not. But it is worth highlighting that, contrary to claims about “inherent safety risks” that we hear from dedicated opponents of hydraulic fracturing, even an incident of this nature, which ERCB deemed “very rare,” the impact on people’s everyday lives was essentially non-existent.

Fact Four: Implications for the United States

As with any incident, the industry can learn from the mistakes and hone its operations to make them even safer than they already were. And, establishing smart rules of the road in terms of state regulations is a critical part of that, which is why the industry here in the United States has been proactively advocating for strong but fair regulatory regimes in the states where it is operating.

But the incident also underscores a less appreciated component of the regulatory system in the United States. Individual states remain the best authorities for regulating hydraulic fracturing, chiefly because they have a better understanding of local geology and local community concerns than any regulatory entity in Washington, DC. The Marcellus, for example, is located between 4,000 and 8,500 feet from the surface. The Haynesville in Louisiana, meanwhile, starts at a depth of about 10,000 feet, and development in the Bakken Shale in North Dakota has reached depths exceeding 20,000 feet. (See page 17 of this report from the U.S. Department of Energy and Ground Water Protection Council for depth information on the various shales and tight reservoirs in the United States.)

With so much variability between the different reservoirs among the various states, does anyone really believe that a single entity in Washington, DC — far removed both in proximity and culturally from the areas of development — is the best equipped to regulate this activity?

Numerous reports and independent experts — including federal officials — have stated clearly that hydraulic fracturing can be done safely when proper regulations and operating practices are in place.  That was true in 1949, it was true in 1983, it was true in August 2011, and it’s still true today.  Companies also have high operating standards to ensure drinking water resources are protected.

What happened in Alberta was a “very rare” occurrence, and even though an incident did occur, no one’s drinking water was impacted in any way. No one should claim this incident is insignificant, of course — but those who believe it “proves” the industry cannot adequately manage risks clearly haven’t been paying attention. And as this post explains in crystal clear detail, they certainly did not bother to look at the facts surrounding the incident in question.

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:

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)

 

Bloomberg’s Misleading Hydraulic Fracturing Poll
A recent Bloomberg National Poll that found an increase in public support for more regulation on hydraulic fracturing appears to have made three key mistakes – asking a question of the wrong group of people, asking it in the wrong way, and asking it after a series of other questions that may have affected the results. As a result, this poll doesn’t add any substance to the debate over hydraulic fracturing, and is actually quite misleading.

Simon
Research Director

 

Measuring public opinion can be a tricky task. The answers you get really depend on who you ask, and how you ask the question, and – less appreciated – where in the interviewing process you ask the question. Ask the wrong group of people a question, or ask the question in the wrong way, or ask the question after a series of other questions, and the results of your public opinion poll won’t accurately measure public opinion.

Unfortunately, a recent Bloomberg National Poll that found an increase in public support for more regulation on hydraulic fracturing appears to have made all three mistakes – asking a question of the wrong group of people, asking it in the wrong way, and asking it after a series of other questions that may have affected the results. As a result, this poll doesn’t add any substance to the debate over hydraulic fracturing, and is actually quite misleading.

The Dec. 13 Bloomberg poll found 66% of the American public wants “more” regulation of hydraulic fracturing – the technology that makes the production of oil and natural gas from deep shale formations possible. That’s an increase of 10 percent since September. There were more than 20 questions in the survey, which took in a wide range of subjects, including the meaning of President Obama’s election win, why Grover Norquist’s Taxpayer Protection Pledge makes Republican lawmakers resistant to raising taxes, and which Democrats would make good presidential candidates in 2016. To conduct the poll, Bloomberg surveyed 1,000 people randomly selected across the country.

Mistake #1 – Asking a national audience about state-by-state issues

It’s understandable that when fielding a national poll, Bloomberg would want to add a question about hydraulic fracturing – in some eastern U.S. states, it’s a topic that’s in the news a good bit. But sampling a group of 1,000 randomly selected adults from all across the country doesn’t provide a meaningful measure of public sentiment toward hydraulic fracturing and the American energy production it makes possible.

In recent years, opponents of the oil and gas industry have intensely lobbied the news media to nationalize the debate over shale development to support a political outcome – the federal government taking regulation of fracturing technology away from the states. It hasn’t worked, and states remain the primary regulators, as they have been since fracturing was first pioneered in the 1940s. As a result, the debate over hydraulic fracturing is also very state-centric, and this issue isn’t covered or talked about equally across the country. In some states, it’s a hot topic, and in others, it’s barely discussed at all. In Florida, few have probably even heard of the thing.

Rather than ask 1,000 randomly selected adults from across the country about hydraulic fracturing, a more relevant exercise would have been polling in states where tight oil and gas development is actually relevant. Had Bloomberg done this, they may have found the public more evenly divided on the question. For example, recent polls from New York have found much narrower margins on questions tied to hydraulic fracturing – 42%-38% support (Siena College Poll), and 44%-42% support (Quinnipiac Poll).

Again, it’s understandable that Bloomberg wanted to write a story about what “the American public” thinks about hydraulic fracturing. But besides generating some (of its own) headlines, polling a national audience fails to provide any meaningful information about how public opinion in individual states may influence regulation in those states. Just as national opinion polls don’t show who’s winning the battleground states during a presidential election, a national poll about hydraulic fracturing tells you nothing about how the issue is being handled state by state.

Mistake #2 – Asking a clearly biased question

The National Council on Public Polls has the following warning for reporters who write about poll numbers:

“You must find out the exact wording of the poll questions. Why? Because the very wording of questions can make major differences in the results. Perhaps the best test of any poll question is your reaction to it. On the face of it, does the question seem fair and unbiased? Does it present a balanced set of choices?”

In other words, how you ask the question can influence the answer you get. Let’s take a look at the question in Bloomberg’s poll:

“A process known as ‘hydraulic fracturing’ or ‘fracking’ involves injecting liquids into the ground. It has resulted in a significant increase in production of natural gas, accompanied by a steep drop in its price. Critics have said it is linked to tainted water supplies and earthquakes. Based just on what you know, do you think there needs to be more regulation or less regulation of fracking?”

This question is hardly neutral. It starts with a poor explanation of hydraulic fracturing, and follows with a description of natural gas production and price trends that’s devoid of any context about job creation and economic growth – topics that most Americans care deeply about. Then the question quotes misinformation from oil and gas critics, and doesn’t even mention what supporters of hydraulic fracturing say. The net result is a question that invites someone to express support for more regulation, because if they don’t, they’re effectively expressing support for “tainted water supplies and earthquakes.”

Bloomberg’s pollsters should rewrite this question to be fair to all sides of the debate. As a starting point, they need look no further than the news copy from the Bloomberg reporter who wrote up the results of the survey:

“Industry groups for chemical, fertilizer and steel companies are trumpeting gains for the U.S. economy as natural gas supplies become more accessible. Low-cost natural gas could generate $72 billion in capital investment as petrochemical companies relocate or boost investments in the U.S., according to the American Chemistry Council.

‘This trend is vital to America’s prosperity,’ Rayola Dougher, chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute, told reporters yesterday. ‘However, costly or duplicative regulation of hydraulic fracturing could be incredibly’ harmful, she said.

And while it’s perfectly reasonable to reference environmental concerns in a question about oil and gas development – or any commercial activity, for that matter – the question shouldn’t simply parrot alarmist and ideologically motivated allegations from anti-industry activists. On “tainted water supplies,” Bloomberg’s pollsters should review what environmental regulators have been saying for years, and the expert conclusion of Stanford University geophysicist Mark Zoback, an advisor to U.S. Secretary Steven Chu on hydraulic fracturing:

“…the injection 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. Fracturing fluids have not contaminated any water supply and with that much distance to an aquifer, it is very unlikely they could.”

As for earthquakes, Bloomberg’s pollsters should also read the National Research Council’s recent study, which concludes “[t]he process of hydraulic fracturing a well as presently implemented for shale gas recovery does not pose a high risk for inducing felt seismic events.” And they should talk to U.S. Geological Survey geophysicist Bill Ellsworth, who set the record straight after his research was misrepresented by the news media: “We don’t see any connection between fracking and earthquakes of any concern to society.”

Finally, notice that Bloomberg’s question said nothing about the current state of regulation. So when they reference “more regulation or less regulation” … that’s compared to what, exactly? The question provides no information on what regulations are currently in place. For all the respondents know, hydraulic fracturing could be unregulated altogether. This is especially possible among those respondents in areas where “hydraulic fracturing” is rarely if ever discussed (see Mistake #1).

This is actually very important, because despite Bloomberg’s lack of context, the reality is that shale development is heavily regulated. For example, here’s how the U.S. Department of Energy and state-led Ground Water Protection Council summarized it:

“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.”

And that doesn’t even include all of the strong state regulations in place, many of which have been updated since the above-referenced report was published.

Would the respondents have given the same answer on “more regulation or less regulation” if they were presented with even a paraphrasing of what’s listed here? How can you ask someone to register an informed opinion about whether hydraulic fracturing needs additional regulation when you don’t even provide basic baseline information?

Mistake #3 – “Priming” the respondents  

When conducting a public opinion poll, there’s another concern about how you ask the question: where it appears in the survey relative to other questions. According to the American Association for Public Opinion Research:

“In some surveys, the order of the questions may be designed to ‘lead’ the respondent to a kind of conclusion that produces a predictable response. This form of bias would not have been present if the prior questions had not been asked. This is also referred to as setting up a ‘context effect.’”

Among pollsters, this is commonly called “priming.” A respondent’s answer to a question can be influenced by the question asked immediately beforehand, because the earlier question “primed” them to think about a particular topic.

In the Bloomberg survey, respondents to the hydraulic fracturing question were primed not just with a question about environmentalism, but a question about one of the biggest environmental issues of the past 20 years:

“Do you believe the temperature of the Earth is or is not warming because of human activity?”

Anyone who has followed the debate over global warming knows that asking someone whether they blame human activity for rising temperatures is just like asking: “Do you care about the environment, or not?” Asking a question like this immediately before the hydraulic fracturing question primes the respondents to give an answer that’s perceived as environmentally conscious. Coupled with the fact that no information on current regulations was provided, it’s easy to see how respondents were primed for a particular answer.

Conclusion

None of this is to suggest that Bloomberg deliberately misled the public. As described above, it’s understandable why a national news outlet would try to gauge national opinions on a subject like hydraulic fracturing. But the combined effect of a biased question and a primed audience clearly steered the respondents towards the “more regulation” answer.

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.”

Setting the Record Straight on LNG Exports, Health, and Hydraulic Fracturing
This week, a group called Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy (PSEHE) organized a petition to urge the United States to block natural gas exports. Their reasoning? Exports of natural gas would increase the use of hydraulic fracturing and thus, they claim, the public’s exposure to adverse health effects. We’re here to set the record straight.

Steve
Spokesman

 

This week, a group called Physicians, Scientists and Engineers for Healthy Energy (PSEHE) organized a petition to urge the United States to block natural gas exports. Their reasoning?  Exports of natural gas would increase the use of hydraulic fracturing and thus, they claim, the public’s exposure to adverse health effects. We’re here to set the record straight.

For starters, PSEHE is funded by the Park Foundation – an organization that is behind nearly every anti-natural gas initiative to date. As EID’s Marcellus team has explained time and again, the foundation has funded everyone from Josh Fox’s Gasland to Earth Justice, Earthworks, and the Catskill Mountainkeeper’s education and outreach program to “stop unsafe gas drilling”. Not exactly unbiased.

Secondly, the health concerns that make up the backbone of this petition have been debunked time and again. The petition notes “exposure to polluted air, water, and soil” as the primary concerns. Yet in reality, there is a bounty of hard evidence to the contrary.

Air Pollution claims: In Pennsylvania, where Marcellus shale development has catalyzed the state’s energy outlook and economy, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has found that there are no emissions from Marcellus shale activities that reach levels harmful to human health. As the 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.”

And in Texas, a state with a long history of oil and natural gas development, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has found no connections between oil and gas operations and immediate health concerns:

“There are no immediate health concerns from air quality in the area, and that when they are properly managed and maintained, oil and gas operations do not cause harmful excess air emissions.”

In fact, ozone levels have declined even as production has dramatically increased in the Barnett shale. In the Dallas-Fort Worth area, as total gas production in 2009 increased by 94 percent from 2000 levels, the levels of ground level ozone fell by nearly 15 percent.

Water and soil: Federal and state regulators have noted time and again that there is not a single case of hydraulic fracturing contaminating groundwater in the past 65 years of its use. In May 2011, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson herself told the U.S. Senate that she wasn’t aware “of any proven case where the fracking process itself affected water.” And on the surface, state and federal laws are in place to regulate the handling of materials, setback distances to nearby water weighs, and potential interfacing between materials used throughout the lifecycle of a well and the surrounding area.

After all, a review shows that officials in three presidential administrations — Clinton, Bush and Obama — have testified to the safety of natural gas development and hydraulic fracturing. This is supported by statements made by regulators in more than 16 U.S. states and by countless government and academic studies. Even respected environmental groups like the Environmental Defense Fund have affirmed that state regulatory agencies are well-equipped to manage natural gas development (although the Park Foundation has funded groups who tried to suggest otherwise).

The effort to stand in the way of natural gas exports is just another attempt from anti-natural gas advocates to put an end to hydraulic fracturing.  Unfortunately for them, the facts surrounding this safe and proven technology are undeniable.

Natural gas exports are just one more way to use our abundant supply of clean-burning natural gas to bring jobs and economic opportunity into our communities. In fact, studies have shown that exports would generate net economic benefits for our economy, including consumers. This means thousands of new jobs and millions of dollars in new tax revenue for the federal, state and local governments—not to mention a rejuvenation of connected industries like steel, turbine manufacturing, and pipefitting.

Without adequate demand, the homegrown benefits of production will be forfeited and our domestic energy supply will ultimately dwindle. That may be welcome news for anti-natural gas activists who don’t want to keep their lights on and would rather use dirtier fuels to heat their homes, but it would be disastrous for the millions of Americans who rely on this secure domestic energy resource – including the nearly two million Americans who have jobs thanks to its responsible development.

Seriously? Are We Really Fact-Checking Jim from “The Office” Now?
Folks who stayed up after Led Zeppelin’s interview and guest performance on the Late Show with David Letterman last night were treated to a short segment featuring John Krasinski, one of the stars of “Promised Land." The two discussed several topics, but when the conversation turned to the technical details of hydraulic fracturing, things got really silly.

Julia
Researcher

 

Folks who stayed up after Led Zeppelin’s interview and guest performance on the “Late Show with David Letterman” last night were treated to a short segment featuring the talented actor John Krasinski, known by most for his role as “Jim” on “The Office,” but now carving out some new credentials as the writer of the screenplay for “Promised Land,” a film in which he co-stars with the dreamy (notwithstanding that buzz-cut he’s currently sporting) Matt Damon.

Heretofore, the promotional activities associated with the soon-to-be-released movie have been pretty low-key – a few interviews with the film and entertainment rags, a Facebook post or two, a quick sit-down with The Today Show, and a fairly subdued online chat with the New York Times. And the funny thing is, for a movie that’s supposed to be some sort of polemic about “hydraulic fracturing,” that topic really hasn’t come up a whole lot yet as part of the interviews they’ve done. Indeed, Krasinski (and Damon too) continue to go to great lengths to assure us that this film isn’t about hydraulic fracturing at all – insisting instead that it’s a story about “American identity,” which we assume is something really profound that only folks in Hollywood would fully understand.

Anyway, Krasinski’s interview with Letterman was going along just fine last night – lots of talk about how Led Zeppelin’s the greatest band ever (we agree); good bit of chatter about how Krasinski’s career has really taken off; some friendly banter about how gorgeous Matt Damon is, the usual stuff. But then the topic turned to hydraulic fracturing, and, as sometimes they do on Letterman, things turned really silly really quickly from there – with Letterman querying whether he could ask the decidedly non-technical Krasinski “a technical question” about hydraulic fracturing, leading to a two-minute, fact-free explanation of a process about which neither participant proved to have any real, actual, discernible knowledge.

So then: since it can be assumed that John Krasinski will be doing more of these promotional interviews in the weeks and months to come – and likely will be fielding additional questions about what hydraulic fracturing is, how it’s done, and how it’s regulated – here below, a quick “cheat sheet” with information on everything he talked about last night … so that next time, he can get it right.

Krasinski: Hydraulic fracturing is “drilling into shale deposits rather than oil deposits.”

Letterman: “Now let me ask you a technical question. There is the ‘deep fracking’ that you go deep, and then, and then, horizontal – and then there is the more shallow version of it. … And it’s my understanding that the more shallow version of it is the more dangerous – the more …”

Krasinski: “Yes. Because it’s releasing gases, um, they’re not able to trap it as much, um, it’s coming right through the ground.”

Letterman: “And chemicals are used to blow it back out of the shale.”

Krasinski: “Correct.”

Letterman: “And chemicals which not necessarily need to be identified …”

Krasinski: “Ahhhh, who needs that?”

Letterman: “So. And a provision removed from the EPA Clean Water bill …”

Krasinski: “You’ve done your homework …”

Letterman: “So these oil companies and go ahead and use whatever they want. And would only have to reveal what was in there if there was a problem.”

Letterman: “And that’s where we see the stories of … ‘er, turn on the water, ma’ … whoosh. And you know, the sink explodes.”

Krasinski: “Yeah. Gives new meaning to ‘fire water.’”

Letterman: “But the thing about the film. I know it happens. There are towns in the north and the west where people are divided. Because some towns are in desperate economic need. And some towns want to preserve the culture that they like about their hometown.”

Krasinski: “100 percent.”

Important Lessons on Life and Shale – from Tim Allen?
On Friday, ABC aired an episode of the sitcom “Last Man Standing” entitled “Mother Fracker,” a reference to the fact that the show’s on-screen mom (Vanessa Baxter) works as a geologist for an energy company. When Vanessa goes to her daughter Eve’s school to discuss her job, the class of early teens (and the teacher) all accuse her of harming the environment and apparently even causing cancer. Ultimately, however, the show provides some much-needed perspective on today’s ongoing debate over hydraulic fracturing.

Dana
Staff Geologist

 

On Friday, ABC aired an episode of the sitcom “Last Man Standing” entitled “Mother Fracker,” a reference to the fact that the show’s on-screen mom (Vanessa Baxter) works as a geologist for an energy company. When Vanessa goes to her daughter Eve’s school to discuss her job, the class of early teens (and the teacher) all accuse her of harming the environment and apparently even causing cancer. Ultimately, however, the show provides some much-needed perspective on today’s ongoing debate over hydraulic fracturing.

After Vanessa and Eve return home from school, Eve and the other kids begin discussing the supposed harms from hydraulic fracturing. When Mike Baxter (played by Tim Allen) informs them that energy use requires tradeoffs, and then asks if they would “go off the grid” to be ideologically consistent, the kids agree that they should.

One of the daughters, Mandy, is excited to oppose hydraulic fracturing because Hollywood actor Mark Ruffalo also opposes it. When Mike takes her laptop, Mandy replies: “That doesn’t use energy — it runs on a battery!” – a frustratingly symbolic comment. Of course, after Mike cuts electricity to the whole house, most of the kids relent immediately.

Eve, however, remains steadfast in her beliefs and decides to go live out in the yard in a tent (itself made of and from hydrocarbons, but let’s set that aside for a moment). As she walks out, Vanessa asks Mike, “Why don’t we just send her to her room?” Mike’s reply: “Oh, with all that evil electricity? No way.”

For much of the rest of the episode, Vanessa feels guilty that her daughter is living outside in the snow. She wishes it were summer instead, so that her daughter could “take a stand” without risking freezing to death. Wouldn’t that be nice: only having to live by your principles when the weather outside allows for it!

Mike, however, is unflagging, believing not only that the daughter cannot live without electricity, but that she needs to apologize to Vanessa for making her mother feel guilty.

Already we can see that the episode is a fascinating encapsulation of the debate not just over hydraulic fracturing, but natural gas development as a whole – indeed all forms of energy production. On one side are the adults, who recognize that living with basics like electricity, central heat, and hot food requires the production and delivery of affordable, reliable energy. Earlier in the episode, both of them dismiss solar as being “too expensive” and say that wind power “kills birds.”

But here’s the truth: All forms of energy development do involve risks. But the truly adult question is whether the benefits – in the case of natural gas: jobs, affordable energy, and a clean-burning fuel – outweigh the costs. If we listen to state regulators, independent experts, and peer-reviewed research, there’s no question that shale development is an overwhelmingly net positive.

That actually brings us to another scene later in the show. As Eve sits outside in front of a burning pile of wood, Mike leaves the house with a cup of water and douses the flame. “You’re producing way too many greenhouse gases out here,” he says. Indeed, according to the EIA, wood burning has a methane emission factor that is 25 to 50 times larger than natural gas, and nitrous oxide emissions for wood are more than 30 times larger than those from natural gas.

Do opponents of natural gas really believe we should revert back to a greenhouse-gas spewing fuel like … wood?

Finally, Vanessa – good mother that she is – cannot stand to see her daughter shivering in the cold any longer. She exits the house to go talk to Eve and try to reason with her. “When you’re an adult,” Vanessa says, “things aren’t so black and white. You have to pay bills, which means we have to make choices, and sometimes, we have to compromise.”

Ultimately, Eve is moved by her mother’s speech and comes back in, to which Mike’s first response is that she needs to talk to her mother (although not before recommending she take a shower). He does, however, make a valid point about Eve’s actions: “You’re not wrong about caring about stuff.”

Perhaps the most instructive line of the episode, however, comes from Vanessa in her plea to Eve to come in from the cold. Her statement is a fascinating metaphor for the real-life challenge of convincing ideological opponents of hydraulic fracturing (symbolized by Eve) that their cause simply is not compatible with reality:

“Eve, the world isn’t perfect, and everybody has to compromise. Unless you’re a trust fund millionaire or a fourteen year old living in a tent. Someday you’ll understand that. I just wish that day was now.”

Don’t we all.

*UPDATE* The Truth about Food, Ag and Hydraulic Fracturing
A recent article in The Nation magazine, in collaboration with the Food & Environment Reporting Network (FERN), made a series of declarations and assertions about the impacts of hydraulic fracturing, specifically with respect to agriculture and America’s food supplies. It was a frightening tale, but the facts that were left out were just as notable (if not more so) than what was selectively chosen to be included.

*UPDATE* (Dec. 3, 2012; 11:30 a.m. ET) — NBC News posts EID response online. Click here to view.

Steve
Spokesman

A recent article in The Nation magazine, in collaboration with the Food & Environment Reporting Network (FERN), made a series of declarations and assertions about the impacts of hydraulic fracturing, specifically with respect to agriculture and America’s food supplies. It was a frightening tale, but the facts that were left out were just as notable (if not more so) than what was selectively chosen to be included.

The central thesis of the article is that shale development, including hydraulic fracturing, is contaminating the food we eat. As the author states early on, “there’s growing evidence that these two impulses, toward energy and food independence, may be at odds with each other.”

From there, the story advances as one would imagine. Using the fatally flawed Bamberger-Oswald “study” on hydraulic fracturing as the focal point, the author weaves a carefully constructed narrative that does everything from repeating common (and debunked) activist talking points to claiming America’s cows are being poisoned to death by oil and natural gas development.

Of course, the story would have been much different had the author included (instead of deliberately omitting) scientific assessments that weren’t tailor-made for an anti-natural gas crowd.

How do we know they were deliberately omitted? Well, to her credit, Elizabeth Royte (the author of the piece) reached out to Energy In Depth several weeks ago about this article. She acknowledged having read EID’s work on the subject, and then asked me some pointed (but fair) questions about potential impacts on livestock and crops from hydraulic fracturing. I sent her a detailed response, including links to studies (more on that below) that demonstrate little if any negative impact on health as a result of nearby shale development. I also emphasized that concerns about public health should always be taken seriously, and the industry naturally does exactly that. But I also cautioned that simply blaming impacts on the most convenient thing (i.e. hydraulic fracturing) without scientific evidence does not solve problems, nor does it encourage the proper kind of public dialogue to address concerns.

Unfortunately, Ms. Royte did not see fit to print any of that, choosing only to include a brief mention of the lack of scientific pedigree in the Bamberger-Oswald paper – which was promptly bracketed by ascribing fault to the natural gas industry for a supposed lack of disclosure.

So, what else didn’t make it into the report?

First of all, the flaws in the Bamberger-Oswald study have been publicly documented. Dr. Ian Rae, for example, a Co-Chair of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee for the U.N. Environment Programme, called the study “an advocacy piece” written by individuals who “cannot be regarded as experts” in the subject about which they were writing. “It certainly does not qualify as a scientific paper,” Rae added. Rae also critiqued the journal that published the study – New Solutions: A Journal of Environmental and Occupational Health – by saying “the refereeing process evidently was not very stringent.”

I shared all of this information with Ms. Royte, but Dr. Rae’s commentary on the Bamberger-Oswald paper was omitted entirely from the story.

Secondly, although the article purports to be part of an “investigative reporting” effort, there was clearly a lack of interest in discussing anything that deviated from the Bamberger-Oswald paper’s conclusions. Here are just a few items relating to health impacts from development that I shared with the author, who nonetheless did not see fit to print:

There are, of course, many more examples, including hard data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics that undermine the suggestion that hydraulic fracturing is a grave threat to occupational or community health. Most of us also know about the AP investigation earlier this year, which found that activists’ claims about hydraulic fracturing causing cancer and other health problems had little or no basis in fact, much less scientific evidence.

So again, why were these examples omitted from the report? It’s really anyone’s guess. The one common denominator, however, is that none of them conforms to the notion that hydraulic fracturing is somehow a “tornado on the horizon” – as Sandra Steingraber, the lead-in voice to the Bamberger-Oswald paper, once put it. In fact, a sober review of these materials – and a proper weighting of the credibility of those who released the information – might even lead people to realize that claims about impending doom are hyperbolic and, in many cases, flat out untrue.

Here’s the bottom line: Landowners, farmers, and any other individuals can and should ask questions about the impacts of natural gas development. Those who ask questions should demand answers based on facts, and communities weighing the costs and benefits should, by definition, seek input on both sides and make decisions based on a careful review of that information.

The problem with Ms. Royte’s report, though, is that it did not seek to be a part of that good faith dialogue. By relying on anecdotes and a single, fundamentally flawed research paper – and refusing to even discuss findings that contradict the singular message that those sources conveyed – the story that was presented to readers was not only one-sided, but actually harmful to the broader public discussion about developing oil and natural gas from shale.

Despite that, the story has been reprinted in news outlets and other media as if it carefully weighed competing viewpoints and came to a frightening conclusion. But the truly scary part is that the author, in more than 4,000 words, flat out refused to include even a few sentences about the scientific findings that fell outside what was apparently a pre-determined conclusion.

Maybe the next investigative report will examine the reasoning behind such a glaring omission, though we won’t be holding our breath.

MIT Report Takes Square Aim at Howarth’s “Unreasonable” Inputs
A new paper by two experts at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and published in the journal Environmental Research Letters suggests that Cornell professor (and activist) Robert Howarth’s thesis about greenhouse gas emissions from shale is even more irreconcilably divorced from the facts than was previously thought.

Steve
Spokesman

 

A new paper by two experts at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and published in the journal Environmental Research Letters suggests that Cornell professor (and activist) Robert Howarth’s thesis about greenhouse gas emissions from shale is even more irreconcilably divorced from the facts than was previously thought.

The MIT paper — coauthored by one of the lead authors of the forthcoming Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC — is appropriately titled “Shale gas production: potential versus actual greenhouse gas emissions.” As many will remember, Dr. Howarth erroneously assumed that every single cubic foot of natural gas that he couldn’t account for was vented into the air as pure methane, contrary to technological realities and regulations requiring at least partial capture (more on that in a minute). You might also remember that Howarth’s paper has been widely panned by the U.S. Department of Energy, various universities, and even his own colleagues at Cornell. Many of these critiques stemmed from Howarth’s unreasonable leakage assumptions, not to mention an inflated global warming potential of methane far above what even the IPCC recommends.

Lo and behold, the new paper finds that the use of existing field technologies and “reduced emission ‘green’ completions” have resulted in actual GHG emissions that are “substantially lower than several widely quoted estimates” – and Cornell’s in particular. As the MIT researchers note:

“Although fugitive emissions from the overall natural gas sector are a proper concern, it is incorrect to suggest that shale gas-related hydraulic fracturing has substantially altered the overall GHG intensity of natural gas production.” (p. 1)

But wait, there’s more.

As we pointed out in our critique of the NOAA study earlier this year — which also claimed methane leakage rates were abnormally high — the current operating environment in Colorado and many other states renders such an assumption useless. Why? Because new regulations have taken hold that require companies to reduce emissions, sometimes by as much as 95 percent. That’s another key point in the MIT report:

“Some of the contemporary analysis on shale gas-related fugitive emissions has not attempted to account for the impact of real world gas handling field practice. For example, in Howarth et al (2011b) it is assumed that all potential fugitive emissions are vented. This is an unreasonable assumption, not least because some producing states have regulation requiring flaring as a minimum gas handling measure.” (emphasis added, p. 4)

Although folks like Howarth want to believe that natural gas operators are venting methane because it’s apparently more profitable to do so (notwithstanding basic rules of economics), the truth is actually the opposite. In its report, MIT actually quantifies several scenarios that show how much money operators would be losing if they vented as much natural gas as Howarth claims in his hypothetical model. Their conclusions suggest an assumption of high leakage does not reflect operational reality. For example:

“If the cost of reduced emission completion is $1000 per day as stated by Devon (2008), 95% of the 2010 Barnett [Shale] wells yielded positive net revenues, i.e. operators added to the value of their wells by capturing the potential fugitive emissions. Even at twice this reported capture cost, $2000 per day, 83% of the 2010 Barnett wells would still [yield] positive net revenues, and this trend is repeated in all the other shale plays.” (p. 4-5)

Activists constantly accuse the industry of being motivated only by “profits” and bottom lines, and they use that reasoning to suggest that operators are venting methane at an alarming rate because it’s cheaper than capturing it. But as with so many other claims made by activists, this line of reasoning reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the industry they so desperately want to malign.

Companies are using green completions and capturing more methane than opponents will ever admit, and the bombshell reason is because it’s not only environmentally responsible to do so, but it also makes very good business sense.

It will never be convenient for opponents to face the scientific reality that developing natural gas from shale is both an environmental and economic boon to the United States, but that shouldn’t preclude the rest of us from enjoying that fact.

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* Cuomo Comments Suggest Fix May Be in on Shale in NY
The past few weeks have left many in New York wondering if Gov. Andrew Cuomo actually wants to see responsible Marcellus development move forward in his state. Unfortunately, if the comments he made on Tuesday’s edition of the Fred Dicker show are any indication, it’d be tough to conclude that he genuinely does.

JD
Communications Director

 

UPDATE (10:00 am ET, 11/21/2012): A must-read editorial by the New York Post provides a potential motive behind Governor Cuomo’s recent comments on the Fred Dicker Show and continued inaction on the state’s SGEIS.  The paper is the first outlet to note that the Governor may be intentionally slow-walking the regulations so they are never released. According to the editorial: “this delay could invite another public comment period — translating into further delay, possibly leading to the state’s four-year-plus moratorium on fracking never being lifted.” The Post editorial also includes  a few of the worst nuggets from the governor’s interview on Fred’s show yesterday and highlights how those comments are at odds with statements made by officials at the U.S. EPA and just about every other credible source that has examined hydraulic fracturing.

- Original post, November 20, 2012 -

The past few weeks have left many in New York wondering if Gov. Andrew Cuomo actually wants to see responsible Marcellus development move forward in his state. Unfortunately, if the comments he made on Tuesday’s edition of the Fred Dicker show are any indication, it’d be tough to conclude that he genuinely does.

In relaying a question from a listener, Dicker asked the governor if he could understand the frustration that many New York residents are dealing with right now over a Marcellus review process being led by the state that’s been delayed more times than a LaGuardia flight on Christmas Eve – thus denying tens of thousands of hard-working residents the ability to produce (and earn much-needed income off) the minerals they own. Here is a key excerpt from that interview (full podcast available here):

Dicker: “There is legitimate frustration out there, probably on both sides, but homeowners and others down in the Southern Tier who hoped that this could be getting under way, people looking for jobs, unemployment is very high down there. Certainly you can understand their frustration.”

Cuomo: “Look you have it on both sides right. People need jobs and people don’t want to be poisoned.” (50:26)

Dicker: “But there is no evidence of poisoning, have you seen any in Pennsylvania?”

Cuomo: “That’s the whole question right. There’s fear of poisoning.” (50:34)

Dicker: “There’s an answer to it though: fear is artificial in the view of a great many people including myself. The U.S. EPA has said it found no evidence of any water supplies being damaged.”

Cuomo: “Yeah and there is a great number of people who say the jobs aren’t going to happen either.” (50:44)

Dicker: “And you believe them?”

Cuomo: “Well, I am just saying, there is an argument on both sides.” (50:48)

Dicker: “Not necessarily of equal weight though.”

Cuomo: “Well, not to you.” (50:54)

Dicker: “No, not to experts. Not to the U.S. EPA, not to Joe Martens who said it could be done safely.”

Note here how the governor’s response to EPA’s finding that fracturing technology is safe was not to rebut the notion, but rather to dodge it entirely – as if Dicker had not even uttered the concept. It’s as if the governor was rattled by scientific evidence and had to find something – anything – to change the subject. (It’s also worth noting that it was the state’s own assessment that predicted 50,000 jobs could be created from shale development, so Cuomo was effectively changing the subject to argue against his own administration.)

But in this back and forth, Dicker makes an important point: The only folks putting forth arguments against hydraulic fracturing right now are the folks whose opposition to shale development is based on ideology – not on science. Maybe that’s why the USA TODAY noted in a front-page article this week that public acceptance of shale development continues to grow – especially in those areas where real development is actually taking place.

Another reason for this shift in public opinion may be related to the steady stream of comments and testimonials on the safety of the fracturing process that continue to flow from folks who know a thing or two about the issue – and aren’t exactly shills for the oil and gas industry, you feel us? Here are just a few of the ones that really drive the anti-shale folks mad:

Lisa Jackson, EPA Administrator: “In no case have we made a definitive determination that the fracking process has caused chemicals to enter groundwater.” (April 2012)

Ken Salazar, Secretary of the Interior: “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…It can be done safely and has been done safely hundreds of thousands of times.” (February 2012)

John Hanger, Former Pa. DEP Secretary: “We’ve never had one case of fracking fluid going down the gas well and coming back up and contaminating someone’s water well.” (2012)

Dr. Stephen Holditch, Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University: “I have been working in hydraulic fracturing for 40+ years and there is absolutely no evidence hydraulic fractures can grow from miles below the surface to the fresh water aquifers.” (October 2011)

Dr. Mark Zoback, Professor of Geophysics, Stanford University: “Fracturing fluids have not contaminated any water supply and with that much distance to an aquifer, it is very unlikely they could.” (August 2011)

U.S. Dept. of Energy and Ground Water Protection Council: “[B]ased on over sixty years of practical application and a lack of evidence to the contrary, there is nothing to indicate that when coupled with appropriate well construction; the practice of hydraulic fracturing in deep formations endangers ground water. There is also a lack of demonstrated evidence that hydraulic fracturing conducted in many shallower formations presents a substantial risk of endangerment to ground water.” (May 2009)

You can also view the list of nearly a dozen state regulatory agencies affirming that hydraulic fracturing does not contaminate ground water.

So then: According to Governor Cuomo, claims made by the likes of Yoko Ono, Lady Gaga, Josh Fox, and various other groups ideologically committed to shutting down responsible energy development are on equal footing with the experts and conclusions listed above. Is that what he’s saying here? Does he really believe that? Or has he already decided that shale won’t be given a go in NY, having made the political calculation that, since no one wants to spend $10 million drilling a well for $2 natural gas right now, he’ll just shift the blame for shale’s demise over to people at his health office.

Speaking of: Cuomo’s comments today come on the heels of news leaked (not even released, leaked) last week by New York’s Department of Health about the academics it has chosen to review the state’s environmental study on shale — Lynn Goldman (George Washington University); Richard Jackson (University of California-Los Angeles); and John Adgate (Colorado School of Public Health).

EID decided to do some research into what these “experts” have said about hydraulic fracturing (see our letter submitted to the New York Department of Health here). It didn’t take but a few quick searches in Google to uncover that these individuals have made some pretty inflammatory (and baseless) accusations about hydraulic fracturing, all of which cast a disturbing light on how they view shale development.

Here are a few examples:

Dr. Lynn Goldman: “But along with the promise of economic benefits and a healthier planet comes the worry that the exponential growth in the industry is spawning troubling health risks in communities near fracking operations. These hazards include toxic chemicals in the water, polluted air, and even seismic activity caused by disposal of fracking waste waters. … “In addition, some of the chemicals — not just those added as part of the fracking process but also chemicals brought to the surface in the waste water — are linked to health problems such as disruption of the endocrine system or even cancer.” (Huffington Post, Oct. 24, 2012; emphasis added)

Dr. Richard Jackson: “Pick up any newspaper in any city in the world any day of the year; you will find a headline that involves health and environment. As I write this many states are grappling with the challenge of hydraulic fracturing of shale and other natural gas sources, and yes there is “fracking” in California. These most unregulated drilling processes numbering in the hundreds of thousands have impacts on air quality including global warming, drinking water and other waters, soils, air quality, and nearby populations including by noise. Fracking involves serious worker exposures and will likely cause silicosis and other lethal diseases. What we extract from the earth– methane, coal, mercury, metals and more–all eventually embed in the natural world and in our bodies. What we make to help grow food, control pests, move our cars and flameproof our computers; all these chemicals end up in the biosphere and in our children. How we build our communities shapes our energy use, socializing, and physical activity.” (Fielding School of Public Health, Introduction to UCLA Environmental Health Sciences Program; emphasis added)

Professor John Adgate: Adgate serves as the Chair of the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at the Colorado School of Public Health (CSPH), which recently conducted a controversial health impact assessment that claimed natural gas operations would likely cause negative health impacts. Adgate was one of the contributing authors to that report.

Because of these and many other errors, the assessment received strong criticism from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, and the study was decommissioned by the Garfield County commissioners in May 2011. The CSPH researchers claimed to have been working closely with Garfield County officials to collect their data, but the county’s chief environmental health official, Jim Rada, told the press he had “no knowledge” of what the researchers were even studying.

As the above examples attest, an individual could be forgiven if they assumed these recent actions were meant to derail, or at the very least significantly delay, the approval of responsible shale development in the Empire State – which is precisely what opponents of development want.

In fact, anti-hydraulic fracturing activists admitted as much in an Associated Press story on the Governor’s announcement today that the process would once again be delayed. The AP reported opponents were “cheered at word of the latest delay,” and Sandra Steingraber – a well-known opponent of hydraulic fracturing – even suggested the fix is already in.

“We are confident,” Ms. Steingraber said, “that a thorough, independent review of the health impacts of fracking will show it can’t be done safely.”

With Governor Cuomo’s statements and the state’s hand-picked review panel, one has to wonder if that’s not exactly what they’re going to get.

And that raises another important question: With the Governor looking out for the interests of Hollywood, rich musicians, and discredited activist groups, who is looking out for the unemployed upstate – the same folks who rejected “fracktivism” in the recent election and support responsible development?

CRS Report: Shale Benefits the Economy and the Environment
A new report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) examines the numerous avenues for economic growth resulting from American natural gas development, especially from shale. Thanks to a combination of factors – large resource base, affordability, environmental benefits, and manufacturing demand – natural gas is at the center of an economy built for the future.

Dana
Staff Geologist

 

A new report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS) examines the numerous avenues for economic growth resulting from American natural gas development, especially from shale. Thanks to a combination of factors – large resource base, affordability, environmental benefits, and manufacturing demand – natural gas is at the center of an economy built for the future. Strong yet fair regulation must also continue to play a role, but the CRS report makes clear that the economic benefits of shale are indeed very real.

For some quick background: the Congressional Research Service is a widely respected organization that provides policy analysis to the U.S. Congress. As a non-partisan entity that is housed within the Library of Congress, CRS is treated as an authoritative source by Democrats, Republicans, and independents, a reputation that the organization has enjoyed for nearly 100 years. You can learn more about CRS by clicking here.

Getting back to the CRS study, those who read the EID blog regularly won’t be surprised by its findings. We’ve cataloged the numerous studies and reports highlighting how responsible natural gas development from shale has helped revive America’s manufacturing base, created millions of jobs, and boosted local economies across the country.

So, what does the CRS have to say?

Benefit 1 – The United States has abundant supplies of natural gas, likely more than we think:

The term reserves has a specific industry definition that includes a technological component, an economic factor, and a probability of success among other criteria. To more fully understand the changes to the U.S. natural gas sector it is more appropriate to look at reserves and estimates for undiscovered, technically recoverable resources (UTRR) (see Figure 2). UTRR is an estimate of what can be extracted using current technology regardless of price. Using UTRR plus reserves, the United States has a natural gas resource base of 1,809 tcf or enough gas for approximately 79 years of production at 2011 levels. Compared with data from 2006, U.S. UTRR for natural gas has jumped almost 25%. Even this measure may not accurately reflect what will be extracted from the ground as technology is constantly changing. Just over the last few years, industry has been able to improve its shale gas extraction rate from about 5% to about 15%, thereby tripling what is recoverable. (p. 2-3, emphasis added)

In other words, when you hear people talk about how much energy we have in proven reserves – especially the misleading statistic that we only have “two percent of the world’s oil” – now you know that they’re actually understating U.S. energy capacity.

Benefit 2 – Consumers enjoying lower energy prices:

U.S. shale gas was beginning to come to market in 2007/2008 and by 2010/2011 it changed the trajectory of U.S. natural gas prices from those of the rest of the world. In 2011, the rest of world faced higher prices than in 2010 for natural gas, but the United States saw its natural gas price decline by 9%. U.S. natural gas prices have continued to trend lower ever since, and many analysts forecast U.S. natural gas prices to remain relatively low at least through the end of this decade and possibly for longer. (p. 6, emphasis added)

What does this mean, more specifically? CRS explains:

Expanded supply, coupled with low natural gas prices, has the potential to contribute to a transformation of important sectors of the U.S. economy. Increased output and employment, expanded investment, income growth, improved competitiveness, and a reduction in the foreign trade deficit are likely outcomes. These conditions in the natural gas markets are likely to benefit certain key industries directly, while many other industries could experience indirect benefits. (p. 13, emphasis added)

Benefit 3 – A cleaner environment:

An apparent consequence of the shift to more natural gas-fired electric power generation in the first quarter of 2012 has been a decrease of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions by almost 8% to their lowest levels since 1992. (p. 12, emphasis added)

Hear that, Sierra Club and Food & Water Watch? The United States is reducing CO2 emissions thanks to expanded and responsible development of our abundant natural gas supplies.

Benefit 4 – Increased U.S. competitiveness, including expanded domestic manufacturing:

In the international economy, those U.S. industries directly affected by expanded supply and low natural gas prices are likely to experience a competitive advantage over the producers of similar goods in other countries, resulting in increased exports from, and decreased imports to the United States. These effects would likely improve the U.S. trade deficit position. (p. 14, emphasis added)

In 2012, a number of chemical companies announced plans to invest in new plant capacity, expand existing facilities, or re-open plants near shale gas supplies. In April 2012, Dow Chemical announced $4 billion in expansions and new investment in Texas. Shell Chemical announced plans for an ethane cracking unit costing between $2 billion and $4 billion, to be constructed in Pennsylvania near Marcellus Shale natural gas supplies. Chevron announced plans for a $1 billion investment at its Baytown facility in Texas. In addition, Phillips Chemical, Westlake Chemical, and others announced investment plans related to low-cost shale gas availability. (p. 16, emphasis added)

For some additional context on the benefits to American manufacturers, here’s what the American Chemistry Council says about abundant natural gas supplies from shale:

Chemical manufacturers have already announced 50 new chemical projects to take advantage of new supplies of natural gas and expand their production. A recent ACC study found that the expected increase in natural gas production is not just revitalizing the chemical industry but could create 1.2 million new jobs across a broad sector of America’s manufacturing base.

Benefit 5 – Lower costs for America’s farmers:

Natural gas is the primary raw material in nitrogen-based fertilizer production. From 70% to 90% of the estimated cost of producing nitrogen-based fertilizers is related to the cost of natural gas. In the 2000s, when natural gas prices for industrial consumers more than doubled, closure of ammonia plants, which supply the raw material for fertilizers, followed suit, rising from 13 in 2002 to 26 in 2007. While some of this capacity moved overseas, some was permanently closed. It would take time and investment to reinstate U.S. capacity. If U.S. fertilizer production could recover and pass on lower costs to farmers, this could lower the cost of food and ethanol for use in transportation, and have employment benefits in the fertilizer industry as well as those industries whose costs had decreased. (p. 17, emphasis added)

CRS adds that “there are many other industries that stand to benefit that have not been addressed in this report.” Indeed, as we see in communities across the country, local businesses on Main Street have been given a boost through increased economic activity, from restaurants to hardware stores and everything in between.

A growing economy, more jobs, and a cleaner environment – all made possible by the responsible development of American energy. Opponents of oil and natural gas have done a masterful job pretending these benefits don’t exist, but at the end of the day, the facts speak for themselves.

*UPDATE* A Much Needed Injection of Truth
A recent “investigative report” from ProPublica argued that injection wells used by the oil and natural gas industry aren’t subject to enough regulation, and the rules that do apply are “ignored or circumvented.” Fortunately for the public, the facts demonstrate these wells are in fact tightly regulated, deemed safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and subject to much more oversight than the authors of the report would like you to believe.

JD
Communications Director

 

UPDATE (9:21am ET, 11/13/2012): A story in E&E News (subs. req’d) casts even more doubt on the validity of the ProPublica “report” on injection wells, specifically with respect to the claim that Pennsylvania has deemed such wells to be unsafe: The EPA has issued permits for two wastewater disposal wells in that state, which are in an addition to a handful of other disposal wells in Pennsylvania. Once again, this begs the question: How can ProPublica claim Pennsylvania deems the wells to be unsafe if they not only exist in the state, but also continue to be permitted?

—Original post, November 8, 2012—

A recent “investigative report” from ProPublica argued that injection wells used by the oil and natural gas industry aren’t subject to enough regulation, and the rules that do apply are “ignored or circumvented.” Fortunately for the public, the facts demonstrate these wells are in fact tightly regulated, deemed safe by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and subject to much more oversight than the authors of the report would like you to believe.

ProPublica’s research hinges upon a handful of anecdotes, which are buttressed by statements suggesting the problems are indicative of a much bigger issue: there’s just not enough regulation of the oil and natural gas industry, especially wastewater disposal wells, and there certainly aren’t enough inspections taking place.

It’s a troubling and even frightening story. It would be even scarier if it were true.

We all know opponents go to great lengths to exaggerate risks, using loaded terms like “loophole” and “unregulated” – even (and especially) when neither term accurately describes the situation. So, it’s worth putting some of ProPublica’s claims under the microscope – or magnifying glass – to see just how much they diverge from reality.

–

ISSUE 1: IGNORES EXPERT OPINIONS AND FACTS ABOUT SAFETY

ProPublica: “Injection wells have proliferated over the last 60 years, in large part because they are the cheapest, most expedient way to manage hundreds of billions of gallons of industrial waste generated in the U.S. each year. Yet the dangers of injection are well known…” (emphasis added)

ISSUE 2: USES EXCEPTION AS THE RULE

ProPublica: “Our examination shows that, amid growing use of Class 2 wells, fundamental safeguards are sometimes being ignored or circumvented.” (emphasis added)

ISSUE 3: INVENTS SAFETY FEARS WHERE THERE ARE NONE

ProPublica: “Ohio injected twice as much waste in 2011 as it did in 2006 and is evaluating applications for dozens of new injection sites…largely for waste exported by Pennsylvania and New York, where such wells are deemed unsafe.” (emphasis added)

ISSUE 4: MISREPRESENTS REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

ProPublica: “The EPA employs just six people to check its wells across the southeast, not just in Kentucky, but in Tennessee and Florida, too. Those same people are also responsible for working with state inspection programs in North and South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi, which have their own inspection staffs.” (emphasis added)

Speaking of state regulatory environments, let’s now take a look at what states are doing specifically with respect to injection well monitoring and enforcement. All of the proceeding information came directly as a result of phone calls and/or emails to the regulators in the respective states:

–

The problem with writing a report that works backwards from a conclusion is that the authors omit or conveniently ignore crucial details that would provide a more complete representation of the issues discussed. That’s exactly what happened with ProPublica’s latest report, and it raises several questions: Why were those details withheld? Why was the information presented without proper context? Wouldn’t adding some of this information actually strengthen the report by demonstrating that the authors were genuinely interested in the truth – not just building a narrative they had already formulated?

The reality is this: state regulators, in conjunction with the U.S. EPA, carefully oversee injection wells with tight regulations and high operating standards. The incident rate for these wells is quite low, which is a testament to the efficacy of the regulations in place, as well as the industry’s commitment to safety. Like any industry that has achieved economies of scale – which, in this case, means delivering abundant supplies of affordable energy to consumers – there are going to be errors. And, yes, there will also be bad actors. The question then becomes, whether it’s the oil and natural gas industry or anything else: are regulations adequate enough to reduce those risks to manageable levels?

ProPublica’s report focuses on examples of errors and bad actors, but does not even attempt to engage in a discussion about relative risk, much less mitigation. The authors found enough self-serving quotes to support their thesis, and then cherry-picked or even blatantly misrepresented data to suggest the problems identified were indicative of a more systemic problem.

As we’ve shown here, ProPublica has not captured a snapshot of the entire industry, but rather inflated a handful of cases in an attempt to paint the industry with broad and inaccurate strokes.

Jesse’s Junkyard Plaintiff Attacks DEP
A state representative from Western Pennsylvania has attacked the Pennsylvania DEP in a story reported in the New York Times and elsewhere with some fanfare, but readers need to know the background of the accusers, the real causes underlying their complaints and the facts about what belongs and doesn’t belong in a testing report.

*** Cross-posted on EIDMarcellus.org

 Tom
Campaign Manager, EID-Marcellus

 

A state representative from Western Pennsylvania has attacked the Pennsylvania DEP in a story reported in the New York Times and elsewhere with some fanfare, but readers need to know the background of the accusers, the real causes underlying their complaints and the facts about what belongs and doesn’t belong in a testing report. 

State Rep. Jesse White of Washington County has attacked the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on the word of a junkyard plaintiff, leaving out essential background on the circumstances of the complaint as well as the plaintiff and offering no discussion of how Pennsylvania’s procedures line up with other states.  This has generated some misleading headlines and excited natural gas opponents – but a closer look at the facts reveals a tale quite different from the one being reported in The New York Times.

The first thing you need to know is that lawsuit in question involves a Washington Co., Pa. junkyard owner named Loren Kiskadden against Range Resources for what are alleged to be health issues related to a natural gas wellsite nearby.  Kiskadden claims, according to the Times, to have nausea, bone pain, breathing difficulties and severe headaches he says are consistent with exposure to “hazardous chemicals and gases through air and water.”  The Times also then picks up on the theme of Mr. Kiskadden’s attorney, who, with the help of Rep. White, asserts that DEP had somehow kept testing data from them all.  DEP very effectively countered the last part of the story with the facts and EID has offered further perspective here.

But there’s still more to the story – a lot more – and it relates directly to the allegations being made.  A discerning reader will want to know the rest.

Loren Kisdadden has a water well located here:

Kiskadden Water Well Site
Loren Kiskadden Water Well Site

And, here’s some more perspective on the junkyard Kiskadden operates:

Soils Map Excerpt from Google Earth

Is it possible the junkyard on Kiskadden’s property is the actual source of the impact to his water?  DEP thinks so and expressed this view in a letter to the owner in September, 2011.  Additionally, DEP took notice of the hydrologic conditions in the area and, in the picture above, you can see the property is located in an area of Newark Silt Loam (Nw) with a soil profile that – according the county soil survey (above) – characterizes the limitations for development of dwellings as severe (page 75) due to wetness and flooding.  It also has a shallow seasonal high water table (page 19) and is moderately permeable, which means the fluids and other substances that drain from or come off junked vehicles are easily transmitted to groundwater.  Of course, flooding doesn’t help either.

What might those pollutants be?  Well, the EPA offers some hints in the fact sheet that follows, which indicates they include oil, grease, arsenic, organics, heavy metals and total suspended solids (TSS).  Heavy metals?  Heavy metals are defined by the EPA as  ”Metallic elements, such as mercury, lead, nickel, zinc, and cadmium, that are of environmental concern because they do not degrade over time. Although many are necessary nutrients, they are sometimes magnified in the food chain and in high concentrations can be toxic to life.”

Representative Jesse White’s news release challenged DEP for not giving Kiskadden test results relating to “Silver, Aluminum, Beryllium, Cadium, Cobalt, Chromium, Copper, Nickel, Silicon, Lithium, Molybdenum, Tin, Titanium, Vandium, Zinc and Boron” – and several of these just happen to be on both lists.  How about that.  More important, though, none of them are used in natural gas development.  Kiskadden’s legal counsel is quoted in the Times as saying “the metals not reported in Mr. Kiskadden’s tests have been identified by industry studies as being found as contaminants in water produced from oil and gas operations.” But those are  studies relating to flowback and produced water – both primarily generated from using local water sources that already contain those contaminants at low levels.  Suggesting this is evidence of contamination from natural gas development is circular reasoning.  Saying “you used my water to fracture your gas well and now those pollutants that were in that water to begin with have polluted my well” doesn’t make the cut.

It appears Mr. Kiscadden, Rep. White and his fellow “fractivist” friends all want DEP to tell this plaintiff he could be polluting his own well, even though everything falls below EPA thresholds for contamination and, again: none of these elements are employed in natural gas development.  It’s hard to take such arguments seriously.

It’s even harder to take this junkyard plaintiff seriously.  Mr. Kiskadden is a very litigious individual.  Here is a list of the legal matters involving him that are on record in the Washington County Courthouse:

Record of Cases Involving Loren and Grace Kiskadden in Washington County Courthouse

The Kiskadden’s have been involved in 23 civil cases in Washington County since 1987, almost one a year.  It’s not clear if this qualifies for an honorable mention in the Guinness Book of World Records, but one suspects it should.  This is only the civil list, however.  Kiskadden, according to MugShots.com, also did prison time and has a mugshot that does him no flattery.

Loren Kiskadden

Kiskadden has had several run-ins with the law, in fact, as this article from 1995 and a search of Google archives indicates:

Loren Kiskadden is hardly a plaintiff who would seem to warrant the special attention of a state representative.  One suspects, therefore, this is really about something bigger – about Representative Jesse White’s desire to appeal to a particular constituency of natural gas opponents who consider him one of their own.  He’s certainly aligned himself, over and over again, with the same folks and the same attorneys.  Mr.Kiskadden’s legal counsel, in fact, comes from the same firm, Smith Butz, that also represents Cecil Township, which is challenging Act 13 and has enacted an ordinance regulating details of natural gas development plainly prohibited by this legislation.  Attorney John Smith, of Smith Butz and Solicitor for Cecil Township, is also a contributor to Jesse White’s campaigns.  His firm’s letter to DEP is what White offers as an excuse for his own actions, even though that letter offers not a single piece of evidence to suggest the contaminants in Kiskadden’s water exceeded Safe Drinking Water Act standards and no indication the lab technician quoted thought DEP had done anything inappropriate.  Interestingly, the letter also quotes a report to the Marcellus Shale Commission to suggest it documented the contributions of heavy metals to water streams by the natural gas industry.  Here’s what it actually says (page 34, emphasis added):

Heavy metals of toxicological concern that are often associated with urban industrial activity (including chromium, copper, nickel, zinc, lead, cadmium, mercury and arsenic) are at very low levels in all of the shale gas water samples compared to levels reported for municipal wastewaters.  Table 10 presents range values from the 5-Day Flowback samples which are compared to median heavy metals concentrations measured in sewage sludges (biosolids) generated by Penn State for the State of Pennsylvania (Stehouwer, 2000); note that concentrations in this table are reported in mg/l.  The comparison shows that the levels of heavy metals of concern are 100 to 10,000 times higher in municipal biosolids (sewage sludges that are routinely transported across communities to disposal sites) than the levels measured in shale gas waters.

Moreover, that same report ties into DEP’s September letter to Kiskadden, which notes the presence of Chloride is the best method for detect possible contamination from surface spills or wellbore integrity issues.  This is fully explained on pages 37-39 of the report.

All this, of course, only goes to credibility and motives.  What is more important than any of this is the patently obvious nature of what is taking place with Jesse White’s attack on the DEP.  He has somehow had access to a deposition in a legal case that hadn’t yet even been give to all the parties.  He made that deposition public and then twisted the words to suggest, incorrectly, that the person disposed was a “whistleblower” when all she did was tell the truth about a process that matches what takes in other states, meets best practice standards and has revealed no contaminants above safe levels in the case of the plaintiff’s water supply.  Even worse: whatever contaminants exist in that water supply are far more likely to come from the plaintiff’s own activities, as demonstrated above.  This, then, predictably became a New York Times headline entitled “Pennsylvania Report Left Out Data on Poisons in Water Near Gas Site.”  It is a powerful illustration of how the natural gas opposition works and Jesse White has provided a window into this world of deception.

*UPDATE* Water Regulators from Other States Confirm Pa. DEP Got It Right
Pa. state Rep. Jesse White released a press release yesterday making accusations against Pa. DEP with regard to water sampling in Washington Co. White and the plaintiff’s attorneys say DEP committed a “criminal” act by only screening for eight of 24 metals as part of a investigation into water contamination. The reality: Pennsylvania does the same thing as every other state – and by the way: those other metals have nothing to do with oil and gas.

*** Cross-posted on EIDMarcellus.org

 Nicole
EID Marcellus – Deputy Campaign Director

 

UPDATE (11/3/2012, 8:45pm ET): Independent experts are now confirming that DEP’s testing procedures are standard protocol, and clearly not an example of regulators “withholding data” to skew their findings. A story in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review cites David Yoxtheimer, a hydrogeologist at Penn State University, as saying DEP is following “standard industry procedure” for testing water supplies for particular contaminants. Jerry Parr, executive director of the National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program, adds that DEP’s methods are comparable to what occurs in other states, including Ohio and Michigan. And Radisav D. Vidic, a civil and environmental engineer at the University of Pittsburgh, notes that if DEP’s tests don’t find certain chemicals (barium, strontium and calcium), then it’s unlikely oil and gas development is to blame.

Rep. White, however, claims that it doesn’t matter who is at fault, maintaining that DEP is actually hiding information deliberately. “If they did the test, and they know you have elevated levels of chemicals, what possible reasons would they have for not telling you this?” White asked. “They know, and that’s the crux of all of this.”

So, either outside experts and other state regulators are working in cahoots with DEP in some sort of grand conspiracy, or Rep. White’s haste to malign responsible natural gas development has met the brick wall known as the truth once again.

—Original post, November 3, 2012—

State Rep. Jesse White released a press release yesterday making accusations against the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in regard to water sampling in Washington County.  White and the plaintiff’s attorneys say DEP committed a “criminal” act by only screening for eight of 24 metals as part of a  investigation into water contamination.  The reality: Pennsylvania does the same thing as every other state – those other metals have nothing to do with oil and gas.

State Representative Jesse White had a conversation with Mike Knapp of Knapp Acquisitions on Twitter this past July, and when asked about his first hand experiences with the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) that have contributed to his negative opinion of the agency, he made this statement:

Jesse White:  Some are in litigation and some are being investigated, and if I start naming specifics, it’s going to end up on Energy In Depth in an hour as me ‘making wild accusations’.

It seems Representative White’s conscience might have been speaking to him, or, at the very least, he had an inkling he might be making some wild accusations someday and now he has.  White issued this press release yesterday claiming DEP acted “criminally” by not testing for constituents not relevant to natural gas development. The reality is Pennsylvania’s DEP has acted no different than any other state, and White, an outspoken critic of the natural gas industry and DEP, seems to have fired first and asked questions later.

White is claiming DEP unlawfully omitted test results to landowners who had filed grievances regarding potential contamination from natural gas development because DEP’s report “only includes eight of the 24 metals actually tested for: Barium, Calcium, Iron, Potassium, Magnesium, Manganese, Sodium and Strontium. The homeowner would not be given results for: Silver, Aluminum, Beryllium, Cadium, Cobalt, Chromium, Copper, Nickel, Silicon, Lithium, Molybdenum, Tin, Titanium, Vandium, Zinc and Boron.”

DEP spokesperson, Kevin Sunday, explained why the agency only tests for certain constituents in his response:

“If you’re looking at runoff from a mine site, that is different from looking at runoff from a landfill, and different from contamination due to hydraulic fracturing,” he said.  “These are a Marcellus shale specific list of parameters that are most indicative to that contamination.”  Using the same suite, the report would not include results for silver, aluminum, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, chromium, copper, nickel, silicon, lithium, molybdenum, tin, titanium, vandium, zinc and boron.  Sunday also said that in order to deduce contamination brought on by Marcellus drilling, there are a plethora of other tests done.  “We have a full set of analysis that we run and gives us a very clear indication whether there was any contamination from drilling,” he said.  This analysis includes a pre-drilling baseline water test, testing for volatile organic compounds and hydrocarbons, an examination of the geology, the distance to any drilling operations, and whatever other site-specific factors there may be, he said.  Suite 943 and 946 also include additional testing parameters. (Beaver County Times, 11/2/12)

Was it too much to ask that White research the basic facts before leveling his accusations?  Apparently.  A little investigation using the Frac Focus gateway to state regulations would have quickly revealed other states, with long histories of oil and natural gas development, follow similar practices as Pennsylvania when testing for potential fluid migration or contamination and test for the same things.  They follow the lead of the National Groundwater Association (NGWA) and the Groundwater Protection Council (GWPC) which have developed this brochure for landowners discussing recommended steps for testing water both before and after natural gas development.  Notice the list of constituents for which they suggest testing and their acknowledgement this can differ from state to state based on several factors:

Step 2: The following list from NGWA and GWPC is a general overview of the basic constituents that should be considered for water quality analysis before oil and gas operations begin. (Please note that you should check with the appropriate state agency to see if it has a specific list of suggested chemical, physical, or organic constituents to test for in your area.)

  • Major ions: alkalinity, calcium, chloride, magnesium, potassium, sodium, and sulfate
  • Minor and trace elements: arsenic, barium, boron, bromide, chromium, iron, manganese, selenium, and uranium
  • Water quality parameters: pH, specific conductance, total dissolved solids (TDS), and turbidity
  • Organic chemicals: benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, xylene (BTEX); diesel range organics (DRO); dissolved methane; gasoline range organics (GRO); total petroleum hydrocarbons or oil and grease (HEM).

Did you see anything missing from this list?  White’s suggestions of silver, aluminum, beryllium, cadmium, cobalt, copper, nickel, silicon, lithium, molybdenum, tin, titanium, vandium, and zinc, none of which have anything to do with natural gas operations, don’t make the GWPC and NGWA list and for good reason.  They aren’t used by the industry and, therefore, don’t matter, unless one is trying to score political points with an anti-gas constituency.  Other major oil and gas producing states have taken the same position.

Oil and gas development has been taking place in Colorado, for example, for well over a century.  What do its regulations say? Well, on page 19 of Colorado’s regulations one will find this:

C. Sample analysis. Ground water samples shall be analyzed for benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and API RP-45 constituents, or other parameters appropriate for evaluating the impact. The analytical parameters shall be selected based on site-specific conditions and process knowledge and shall be agreed to and approved by the Director.

API RP-45 constituents include items such as chloride, calcium, magnesium, iron, sulfate, sodium and barium. Again, the testing parameters do not come close to the laundry list of constituents White has claimed the DEP unlawfully omitted.

So, national third party organizations established to protect groundwater aren’t suggesting anything close to what White proposes and neither is Colorado.  What about right next door (literally for Washington County) in Ohio?

Ohio references a set of “Best Management Practices for Pre-drilling Water Sampling” within their regulations. Those practices include testing for the following:

That’s a far cry from the list of 24 constituents White claims DEP is criminally negligent not to test.

If any state was to come close to matching White’s list, New York, which will have the most stringent regulations in the country, would have to get the honors, right?  Nope.  In fact, their list is pretty short when held up next to White’s.

We could do this all day, moving from state to state, but the reader will get the point.  DEP’s laboratory was peer reviewed by the Association of Public Health Laboratories, an independent, non-profit organization that reviews public laboratories and makes recommendations to improve organizational structure and scientific practices.  The Association found DEP’s lab to be “well-managed, efficient and highly functional” and also tested within the parameters necessary to determine if the oil and gas industry should be held responsible for water quality issues.

DEP stands by their lab, employees, and protocols, and after reviewing the regulations and protocols for water sampling across the country, we do too.  It looks like Rep. White (who claims on his personal website to be a member of MENSA) maybe should have held his tongue a little longer and conducted a bit more fact checking if he wanted to avoid being on our blog for crying wolf and making a mountain out of a molehill.

*UPDATE II* Public Health and Hydraulic Fracturing: A Review of the Data
We’ve all seen the frightening headlines and read about so-called “experts” linking any number of negative health impacts to oil and gas development, specifically hydraulic fracturing. But what’s more telling about these allegations is what they are missing, namely: a basis in fact.

Steve
Spokesman

 

UPDATE II (9:53 am ET, 10/26/2012): New data released from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that injuries in the oil and natural gas industry declined in 2011 by an amazing 33 percent — from a rate of 1.2 to 0.8 for every 100 workers. A story from E&E News (subs. req’d) points out that the injury rate for oil and gas extraction (and indeed for the entire mining industry) is also “below the national incidence rate of 3.5 cases per 100 workers.”

UPDATE (10:21 am ET, 5/17/2012): NPR has been running a series of stories about the alleged horrors of hydraulic fracturing, relying mostly on anecdotal reports about health impacts to say there “isn’t an answer” to questions about whether the wells are emitting hazardous levels of pollutants (news flash: there is an answer, it’s just not convenient to folks who want to write scary stories.) Nonetheless, one of NPR’s segments actually let the cat out of the bag, specifically in reference to the town of Dish, TX (which was featured in Gasland and was also where Dr. Al Armendariz made his infamous “crucify” comments). From NPR (emphasis added):

Quite a few of the 225 people who live in Dish, Texas, think the nation’s natural gas boom is making them sick.

They blame the chemicals used in gas production for health problems ranging from nosebleeds to cancer.

And the mayor of Dish, Bill Sciscoe, has a message for people who live in places where gas drilling is about to start: “Run. Run as fast as you can. Grab up your family and your belongings, and get out.”

But scientists say it’s just not clear whether pollutants from gas wells are hurting people in Dish or anywhere else. What is clear, they say, is that the evidence the town has presented so far doesn’t have much scientific heft.

It’s truly amazing the kinds of conclusions one will reach when relying on scientific facts.

—Original post from April 18, 2012—

We’ve all seen the frightening headlines and read about so-called “experts” linking any number of negative health impacts to oil and gas development, specifically hydraulic fracturing. But what’s more telling about these allegations is what they are missing, namely: a basis in fact.

The claims have also made us wonder: If suggestions about negative health impacts were true, wouldn’t the men and women who are working in the industry – many as long as 60 to 70 hours per week, year round – be suffering from some of the worst health conditions? After all, if hydraulic fracturing or shale development as a whole were emitting dangerous levels of pollutants, then those working on the well pads day in and day out would be more exposed than anyone else. Right?

As it turns out, the facts tell a completely different story than what we’ve read in the newspapers or heard from opponents of shale. And to clear the air, we’ve done the research so you don’t have to. All of the information that follows, we should point out, is not based on anecdotal horror stories or unverifiable reports, but rather easily accessible data via the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). No smoke and mirrors, no secret decoder rings, just the facts.

According to the BLS:

This data also matches the conclusions of scientific research for specific areas across the country, including for two of the largest shale-producing areas in the country.

An air quality report for northeastern Pennsylvania, which was 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.” And although the report’s scope did not include an assessment of longer-term impacts, it did conduct air sampling for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and ozone. The sampling “did not detect concentrations above the National Ambient Air Quality Standards at any of the sampling sites.” A DEP report issued two months earlier for southwestern Pennsylvania came to the same conclusions.

In addition, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has conducted extensive air monitoring for the Barnett Shale in North Texas. Here’s what TCEQ Chairman Bryan Shaw said of TCEQ’s findings:

“After several months of operation, state-of-the-art, 24-hour air monitors in the Barnett Shale area are showing no levels of concern for any chemicals. This reinforces our conclusion that there are no immediate health concerns from air quality in the area, and that when they are properly managed and maintained, oil and gas operations do not cause harmful excess air emissions.”

In addition, a report issued by the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) collected blood and urine samples from residents in and around the town of DISH, which is located over the Barnett Shale. Here’s what the report concluded:

“Although a number of VOCs were detected in some of the blood samples, the pattern of VOC values was not consistent with a community-wide exposure to airborne contaminants, such as those that might be associated with natural gas drilling operations.”

DSHS concluded that the sources of exposure were likely tobacco (all those who recorded elevated levels of benzene were smokers); public drinking water systems, which include disinfectant byproducts; and common consumer products such as cleaners and lubricants. DSHS did note some limitations (including the fact that VOCs only stay in the body for a relatively short period of time), but nonetheless concluded that their assessment “did not indicate that community-wide exposures from gas wells or compressor stations were occurring in the sample population.”

A separate assessment of the Barnett Shale area took an in-depth look at health statistics, specifically in Denton County, Texas. 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.” The researchers also made this important observation:

“Health records indicate that while production increased, fewer residents were diagnosed with serious illnesses such as cancer, respiratory disease, strokes, and heart disease. This improvement occurred even as the population of residents age 65 or older increased by over 13,000, a significant uptick for any population segment.”

Bottom line: It’s easy to claim that any sort of nearby business or industrial activity – be it oil and gas, the construction of an apartment complex, or the opening of a new hardware store – has correlated with an increase in nosebleeds, headaches, or any other ailment. But that doesn’t mean such accusations are based in fact. More importantly, we’re not doing any justice to those suffering from those ailments – and we’re certainly not solving any problems – if we misallocate blame and focus attention on activities that are not responsible, merely because it’s convenient to do so.

Emissions from HF ‘At Least 53 Percent Lower’ than EPA Estimates
An updated study just released by URS Corporation shows that actual methane emissions from hydraulic fracturing of natural gas wells are substantially lower than what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has claimed. The data reinforce the fact that natural gas development, including the use of hydraulic fracturing, is occurring safely and responsibly across the country.

Steve
Spokesman

 

An updated study just released by URS Corporation shows that actual methane emissions from hydraulic fracturing of natural gas wells are substantially lower than what the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has claimed. The data reinforce the fact that natural gas development, including the use of hydraulic fracturing, is occurring safely and responsibly across the country.

According to the study, which was prepared for ANGA and API, methane emissions are “53 percent lower than EPA’s estimates,” based on a review of 91,000 wells nationwide. A fact sheet summarizes the findings, which include:

Interestingly, EPA’s inflated data comes from a data set that represents only a fraction of what was collected in this latest study. In fact, URS sampled more than ten times as many wells as EPA, making this the “most comprehensive look to date” at methane emissions resulting from hydraulic fracturing.

The URS data is an update to a previous study, which also found emission rates considerably lower than EPA’s estimates.

Equally important, this latest data set casts even further doubt on studies like the infamous Cornell paper, which suggested shale development had a bigger climate impact than coal and for which the authors claimed that EPA’s methane data served as a basis. Other studies, including one from NOAA released earlier this year that Michael Levi has since debunked, have similarly claimed inflated methane emissions resulting from natural gas systems, including hydraulic fracturing.

The Environmental Defense Fund earlier this year identified some concerns with EPA’s assessment of methane emissions, noting that EPA’s estimate “is double the prior estimate, which was itself twice as high as the previously accepted amount.” The latest research from URS — which, again, relied on the largest data set to date — appears to reinforce the fact that EPA’s data suffer from considerable flaws, not the least of which is their limited scope.

Opponents of hydraulic fracturing have tried relentlessly to paint natural gas development from shale as something that will accelerate climate change, chiefly by suggesting high methane emissions will minimize or even cancel out any perceived environmental benefits. But the findings from this latest study add to the growing list of reports and data showing the climate benefits of natural gas.

Earlier this year, the EIA reported that CO2 emissions are at their lowest level since 1992, an achievement that was made possible largely through the increased utilization of natural gas. The International Energy Agency reported this past summer that the United States led the world in cutting greenhouse gas emissions since 2006 thanks in part to natural gas, especially from shale.

And as John Hanger, former secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, so aptly stated in July, “the shale gas revolution, and the low-priced gas that it has made a reality, is the key driver of falling carbon emissions, especially in the last 12 months.”

As regulators and policymakers debate the merits of regulations on natural gas development, such discussions should rely on sound science, as well as the most current and comprehensive data available. In terms of methane emissions, this latest research from URS should arguably serve as the basis for such considerations, if not completely put to rest the alarmist claims made by opponents.

Bans, Moratoria, and Safe Development
Here in Illinois we’ve been developing oil and natural gas for more than a hundred years, and we’ve been using proven well completion procedures like hydraulic fracturing for decades. And our track record is pretty good, too: hydraulic fracturing has been used tens of thousands of times in our state, and not a single proven case of water contamination from the process. But to hear it from some opponents, the only way to achieve “safety” is to ban hydraulic fracturing, or at the very least impose a moratorium until “further study” can be completed.

Kyna
Field Director, Illinois

 

Here in Illinois we’ve been developing oil and natural gas for more than a hundred years, and we’ve been using proven well completion procedures like hydraulic fracturing for decades. And our track record is pretty good, too: hydraulic fracturing has been used tens of thousands of times in our state, and not a single proven case of water contamination from the process.

How have we been able to achieve this? It’s a couple of things really. First and foremost are high industry standards and a commitment to safety that is dynamic rather than static. As technologies evolve and improve, the industry is always on the cutting edge. We all know that more efficient development means more affordable development, which ultimately means lower energy prices for consumers.

Equally important is a strong but fair regulatory regime. In Illinois, oil and gas development has been tightly regulated by the state since 1939. The Division of Oil & Gas (part of the Department of Natural Resources) conducts tens of thousands of inspections every year, helping to ensure the public that oil and natural gas production is done safely and responsibly. The laws currently governing oil and natural gas development in Illinois can be found at the bottom of this page.

The combination of high industry standards and strong state regulation has facilitated safe development in Illinois, and there’s simply no evidence to suggest it won’t continue to do so.

But to hear it from some opponents, including our friends at Southern Illinoisans Against Fracturing Our Environment (SAFE), the only way to achieve “safety” is to ban hydraulic fracturing, or at the very least impose a moratorium until “further study” can be completed.

First of all, let’s just recognize reality. Both a moratorium and an outright ban are different means toward the same end; namely, an indefinite halt to domestic oil and gas development. We know this because the same groups who have stated they support a ban on the process of developing these resources also throw their weight behind moratoria, a clever ruse to make them appear as if they’re merely interested in additional research on the subject.

Need proof? Food & Water Watch is a national group that has been moving into states to try to ban hydraulic fracturing. Here’s a petition from F&WW calling for a moratorium “until it is proven safe for our environment and the public’s health.” But F&WW also proclaims on its website that hydraulic fracturing is “inherently unsafe” and that no amount of regulation will ever be enough. How less sincere could an organization possibly get?

Here in Illinois, let’s take a look at SAFE’s own website. In one call-to-action, the organization publicly calls for a moratorium “until research reveals that our air, water and soil can be protected from deadly toxins” (we’ll examine the enormous amount of research showing exactly that later in this post). But then take a look at SAFE’s own Mission Statement, which states: “Our mission is to ban fracking in Southern Illinois, most urgently horizontal fracking, until such a time as any extraction method presents no risk to our land, air, or water.”

One could argue that both of these positions just reflect a need for more research to be completed, notwithstanding the fact that hydraulic fracturing has been safely deployed more than 1.2 million times, across more than two dozen states, over a span of more than 65 years. But when a group’s mission is to ban a process it deems “arguably the most environmentally destructive and health-threatening technology,” does anyone really believe that hard evidence will sway them from their ideological predisposition?

Moreover, a petition from SAFE calling for a ban on hydraulic fracturing says that “the procedure itself is inherently unpredictable and dangerous; hence, regulations are not going to be able to ‘control’ an inherently unpredictable process.”

Again, groups like SAFE are not calling for a rational discussion of proper regulation. They’re looking for any avenue possible to ban hydraulic fracturing, even if it means claiming publicly that their goals are something more benign than their true intent.

Here are just a few examples of what experts and regulators (both at the state and federal level) have said about hydraulic fracturing:

State regulators from nearly a dozen states have also affirmed that hydraulic fracturing does not pose a risk to groundwater.

Air quality studies in southwestern Pennsylvania, northeastern Pennsylvania, and north Texas – all conducted by state regulatory agencies – have shown that emissions from shale development do not reach levels that would be hazardous to public health. Other independent experts have validated those findings.

And earthquakes? Here’s what U.S. Geological Survey geophysicist Bill Ellsworth said: “We don’t see any connection between [hydraulic fracturing] and earthquakes of any concern to society.” The National Academies of Science agrees.

Interestingly, the claim from opponents that “we need more study” actually makes sense. If you oppose a process that experts from across the board have determined to be safe, then you’re going to need to manufacture “more studies” to claim the opposite.

And that’s exactly what they have done, issuing “reports” that purport to show negative health impacts and water contamination. The level of inaccuracy in these “reports” is astounding, albeit not unsurprising. SAFE even continues to screen the movie Split Estate for public audiences as a way of suggesting hydraulic fracturing is going to ruin the environment, even though the claims made in the movie were thoroughly and definitively debunked several years ago.

Given the paucity of proof from opponents, we’re left with essentially two options in Illinois.

The first is to ignore credible science (and a consensus of regulatory opinions) and impose a moratorium or even a ban on hydraulic fracturing. At its core, this is a political statement, not a judgment rendered from a careful review of real world evidence.

The second, more responsible option is to encourage exploration and development, all while continuing to maintain strong regulatory oversight. Keeping oil and gas development tightly regulated – along with high operating standards in the industry – will allow us to reap economic benefits (jobs, tax revenue, etc.) safely and responsibly.

Illinois is broke. Our unemployment rate is a full percentage point above the national average, which, last time we checked, was pretty high itself. The economy in southern Illinois is in desperate need of a boost that provides more public revenue, more jobs, and frankly more hope for the future. Responsible oil and gas development could address all of these issues, as it continues to do in other states all across the country.

But if we let opponents impose their ideologically-crafted bans and moratoria, we’re only pushing ourselves deeper into debt and unemployment – based on shoddy evidence and non-existent science.

Modern Well Development Technology Produces Big Time Environmental Benefits for Michigan
Technology used to develop natural gas resources has taken giant leaps forward in recent years providing huge benefits to Michigan's environment. These improvements have enabled the state to develops its energy resources to the benefit of Michigan's consumers and economy while protecting the landscape that makes the Wolverine State unique.

Erik
Field Director, Michigan

 

Technology used to develop natural gas resources has taken giant leaps forward in recent years providing huge benefits to  Michigan’s environment. These improvements have enabled the state to develops its energy resources to the benefit of Michigan’s consumers and economy while protecting the landscape that makes the Wolverine State unique.  While the promise may sound too good to be true, the facts incontrovertibly support this conclusion.  The combination of horizontal well boring and hydraulic fracturing has reduced the footprint of modern natural gas development on the land, while also allowing our nation to achieve dramatic reductions of greenhouse gases thought unthinkable just a few years ago.

Natural gas development in Michigan was, until recently, was conducted with vertical wells which housed only one well per well pad.  Historically, vertical wells depended on the ability to target particular reservoirs of gas or hit natural fractures in the shale that would permit recovery of gas from an area of 20-40 acres on average, although 20 acre units are no longer practical.  Today, natural gas is being developed using directional and horizontal drilling technology that allows multiple wells to be drilled from a single well pad.

Horizontal wells have the advantage of magnifying the portion of a formation that can be tapped from a single well, simultaneously increasing production and reducing the footprint of development on the surface.  New development units are now, typically, a minimum of 160 acre. Assuming 160 acre units for multi-well horizontal well development, this would require 4 horizontal wells on a single pad to develop 640 acres.  This same 640 acre development would require 16 vertical wells and 16 pads assuming 40 acres units using vertical drilling technology.  This means what required 16 well pads with vertical wells now requires one well pad with horizontal wells.  Unit sizes are trending toward two square miles in some areas of the country, which means one horizontal well pad potentially replaces 32 vertical well pads.

Whether one is measuring initial land disturbance (typically in the neighborhood of 4-5 acres per pad for a vertical well) or final pad size (1-2 acres), the difference is huge.  Vertical well development of a square mile can require disturbing as much as 80-100 acres of land over time with access roads, while horizontal development may require as little as 5-10 acres even adding in the access road required.  It’s hard to imagine an economic activity with so much energy and income generation potential and so little land impacts.

Maps maintained on the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality website provide plenty of examples of older smaller units developed with vertical wells compared to new 160 acre units where horizontal drilling technology has been used. The below illustration provides a good comparison. A 4-well horizontal well pad will require 8 acres and a horizontal well pad with 6+ wells will require 8.5 acres.  Notice how disturbance is dramatically reduced by horizontal well development to the point that as little as 0.7% of the land is initially disturbed in larger units (not including access roads and the like) and this gets reduced even further upon completion of development.

Still another perspective is offered by the below illustration which depicts the development of a two square mile unit using 40 acre units (left) and a 1,280 acre unit (right), which is where the industry is headed long-term.  There have already been proposals to develop units of this size in Michigan.

A unit of 1,280 acres in size with one well pad of 8.5 acres, 5 acres of access road and another 5 acres for fresh water storage would disturb a total of 18.5 acres at the outset.  That is 1.4% of the land area involved and when the wells are all completed the impervious surface is likely to be closer to 0.5%.  Residential, commercial, industrial and, even agricultural uses, all require far more land disturbance.  Moreover, the income from natural gas royalties enables landowners to maintain farms, forests and open spaces.  A report from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, in fact, identifies the “increased tax burden on private individuals holding forestland, thereby creating incentives to sell such land for residential development,” as a major threat to Michigan forests.  Natural gas development is one of the answers to that threat, allowing forests to generate economic rent with minimal forest disturbance.

Not only does natural gas development contribute to maintaining open space, but it is, also, helping the U.S. near Kyoto targets for greenhouse gas reductions without even being a party to the treaty, far surpassing Western Europe and other nations who did sign onto the treaty.  My associates here at Energy In Depth earlier reported that, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), the increased use of natural gas in the United States may be the single largest factor in America’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions.  They noted the International Business Times Green Economy reports:

 “{GHG} emissions in the US and EU dropped, 1.7% and 1.9% respectively. The warm winter helped, and the sluggish economy was certainly a factor, but the biggest change was the drop in coal use in favor of natural gas.

“The replacement of coal by shale gas is a key factor and what happened in the U.S. could very well happen in China and other countries and could definitely help in reducing CO2 emissions,” says International Energy Agency (IEA) chief economist Fatih Birol.”

Carbon emissions have dropped in four of the last six years and are currently at their lowest point in the last 20 years. The main reason for this achievement is the increasing use of natural gas in U.S. power systems made available by hydraulic fracturing.  Here is what the Energy Information Administration says about the subject:

In 2011, GDP grew by 1.8 percent, but emissions decreased by 2.4 percent (136 million metric tons).  This indicates that the carbon intensity of the economy declined by about 4.2 percent.  The 2011 decrease is only the fourth year since 1990 to experience a decline in carbon intensity of greater than 3.5 percent for the economy as a whole and only the sixth year since 1990 to experience an emissions decline.  Since 1990, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions in the United States have grown much more slowly than GDP – in 2007 emissions were 19 percent greater than their 1990 level, but by 2011 were only about 9 percent above the 1990 level.  GDP has increased by 66 percent over that same time period. (emphasis added)

The EIA also, in comparing energy consumption to CO2 emissions by energy source, reports “Natural gas, on the other hand, provides 26 percent of the energy consumed but 24 percent of the emissions.”  This means every switch from other carbon sources to natural gas results in a net reduction in carbon emissions.  And, how is that natural gas produced today?  Well, with a combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing which are now involved with up to 90% of all new natural gas production.

According to IEA data, U.S. carbon emissions have fallen by 430 megatons (7.7 percent) since 2006. This drop is equal to eliminating the combined emissions of ten western states: Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Utah and Nevada.  That’s huge – huge enough to produce a headline saying “USA leads world in CO2 cuts since 2006” and the following chart:

 

What makes this success even more compelling is that just eight years ago many criticized our nation for not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. This criticism only grew when Congress failed to enact a cap and trade policy that sought to reduce carbon emissions via government regulation.  Yet, here we are approaching the targets and leading everyone else in doing so.  This is, in fact, what the IEA says:

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.

It doesn’t get better than this.  Natural gas is reducing footprints everywhere on the earth and in the skies.

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »