Home » Posts tagged "EPA"

EPA

EPA’s Methane Assumptions Still Way Too High
Last month, the EPA released its latest Greenhouse Gas Inventory, in which the agency significantly lowered its estimate of the amount of methane emissions from natural gas systems. But even with those dramatic revisions, EPA still has a long way to go to get this right.

Katie-Brown-EIDKatie
Researcher

 

Last month, the EPA released its latest Greenhouse Gas Inventory, in which the agency significantly lowered its estimate of the amount of methane emissions from natural gas systems. But even with those dramatic revisions, EPA still has a long way to go to get this right.

In its fact sheet about its changes to methane emissions estimates, EPA admits that at least some of its prior methods for collecting emissions data were flawed:

“The study data show that there is more widespread use of emissions control technologies than had been assumed in the previous Inventory.  It also demonstrated that duration of emissions from liquids unloading activities is shorter than had been assumed in the previous Inventory.”

The key word here is “assumed.” While EPA’s current revisions are certainly an improvement and bring its estimates closer to accuracy, there are still a number of assumptions that are simply wrong. Digging deeper, and frankly speaking, it’s difficult to ascertain anything other than a fundamental lack of understanding of the actual development process.

One of the biggest problems with EPA’s latest report is that it still grossly overestimates emissions from well completions, based an inappropriate interpretation of data from its own Natural Gas STAR program.  EPA assumes that the amount of methane that is captured from a “green completion” is the same amount of methane that is released in operations without green completions. Put differently, EPA assumes that operators not using a particular technology or process are just venting methane into the air that would have been captured by it. These faulty estimates have long been criticized, as a report by IHS CERA from 2011 made clear:

“EPA derives its new emissions factor from two slide presentations at Natural Gas STAR technology transfer workshops, one in 2004 and one in 2007.  These two presentations primarily describe methane that was captured during ‘green’ well completions, not methane emissions.  EPA assumes that all methane captured during these green completions would have been emitted in all other completions.  This does not reflect industry practice.” (emphasis added)

Got that? EPA is using data on captured methane to estimate how much methane is being emitted into the air. Try to wrap your head around that one!

EPA also does not properly assess the role of flaring, a process that burns off methane instead of releasing it directly into the air. Since EPA’s Natural Gas STAR program does not consider flaring a recommended technology, it does not provide any data on the process – therefore, EPA simply assumes it isn’t happening. This assumption wholly misrepresents industry practice.  Although states are rapidly moving toward reducing its usage (opting instead for methane capture), flaring is actually used for a whole host of reasons that the EPA is either unaware of or refuses to acknowledge. “Flaring is used not exclusively to limit potential greenhouse gas emissions from completions, but it is also often used due to safety concerns for the protection of industry employees,” according to Devon Energy, which – last we checked – is certainly no stranger to this whole shale development business.

Essentially, EPA assumes that, in states where flaring is not mandated, it’s never used there. This is like assuming that, in states that don’t mandate the use of hybrid vehicles, there are no hybrid cars on the road.

Furthermore, EPA’s prior estimate assumes that flowback duration is twice as long as it actually is in field practice, which in turn greatly distorted EPA’s estimates (again).  More specifically, EPA asserts that the flowback periods for wells that utilize green completions are identical to wells that vent or flare the gas. But according to a report by URS Corporation (see Appendix A in here), the average flowback duration from a well with green completion is 7.7 days, while wells whose emissions are flared or vented take an average of only 3.5 days.  That means the EPA assumes the duration of emissions (and, by extension, the total amount of emissions) from certain wells is more than double what it actually is.

According to EPA, well completions are the largest methane emission source within natural gas systems, which means EPA’s entire data set for this segment of the economy is not only inflated, but perhaps wildly so.

The worst part, however, is that future public policy decisions could be – and perhaps already are – based on EPA’s irresponsible use of data. By extension, the EPA has even justified costly regulations based on emissions that are not even occurring. For example, here’s what the EPA said in its overview of the New Source Performance Standard rule last year:

“In addition, the reductions would yield a significant environmental co-benefit by reducing methane emissions from new and modified wells. Methane, the primary constituent of natural gas, is a potent greenhouse gas – more than 20 times as potent as carbon dioxide when emitted directly to the atmosphere. Oil and natural gas production and processing accounts for nearly 40 percent of all U.S. methane emissions, making the industry the nation’s single largest methane source.” (emphasis added)

And yet, even with one small revision, in which the EPA adjusted its estimates based on better data, the agency was forced to recognize that methane emissions since 1990 have not been increasing, but have actually decreased – even as natural gas production grew exponentially. One can only imagine how significant of a downward revision would be made if the EPA actually corrected all of its errors.

As long as the EPA continues to rely on assumptions about industry activity that are not, in fact, based on actual industry activity, their estimates for methane emissions will remain wrong. The fact that those assumptions result in inflated emissions estimates makes the agency’s conscious decision not to adjust its methods even more troubling.

*UPDATE* EPA’s Massive, Downward Revision of Methane Emissions
One of the subjects that seems to have captivated the welter of reporters and bloggers now writing on shale, natural gas and climate on a fairly regularly basis is the infamous “methane leak” issue. How much of it is “leaking” from natural gas systems? At what rate does natural gas lose its greenhouse gas advantages under a scenario in which fugitive emissions continue to increase? New data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may not answer all of those questions in a comprehensive fashion, but they do strongly suggest that activists’ arguments about “the methane problem” for natural gas development are without merit.

steve_everleySteve
Team Lead

 

UPDATE (4/28/2013; 6:56 pm ET): The Associated Press reports that the EPA has “dramatically lowered its estimate of how much of a potent heat-trapping gas leaks during natural gas production,” based on data in the agency’s latest GHG Inventory. The AP further notes:

The scope of the EPA’s revision was vast. In a mid-April report on greenhouse emissions, the agency now says that tighter pollution controls instituted by the industry resulted in an average annual decrease of 41.6 million metric tons of methane emissions from 1990 through 2010, or more than 850 million metric tons overall. That’s about a 20 percent reduction from previous estimates. The agency converts the methane emissions into their equivalent in carbon dioxide, following standard scientific practice.

The EPA revisions came even though natural gas production has grown by nearly 40 percent since 1990. The industry has boomed in recent years, thanks to a stunning expansion of drilling in previously untapped areas because of the use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which injects sand, water and chemicals to break apart rock and free the gas inside.

Discredited Cornell professor Bob Howarth is cited in the story as saying, “I think EPA is wrong,” an ironic shift — especially considering how the Howarth/Ingraffea paper relied so heavily on data from the EPA. He also seemed puzzled that more people aren’t extrapolating larger meaning from NOAA’s research on emissions — the same research from which the Environmental Defense Fund said “conclusions should not be drawn,” and which has been categorically debunked.

Surprise, surprise. The more data that come out, the less accurate the Howarth thesis on “leakage” becomes.

—Original post, April 16, 2013—

One of the subjects that seems to have captivated the welter of reporters and bloggers now writing on shale, natural gas and climate on a fairly regularly basis is the infamous “methane leak” issue. Namely: How much of it is “leaking” from natural gas systems? And at what rate does natural gas lose its greenhouse gas advantages under a scenario in which fugitive emissions continue to increase?

New data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may not answer all of those questions in a comprehensive fashion, but they do strongly suggest that activists’ arguments about “the methane problem” for natural gas development are without merit. They also suggest that methane emissions aren’t increasing it all. They’re decreasing, actually — even as more wells and greater production come online.

The new data come from the EPA’s latest Greenhouse Gas Inventory, which was released earlier this week. You can read EPA’s release here and the full report here. The most notable part of the Inventory – in addition to the admission that, thanks to natural gas, U.S. GHGs declined once again – was the downward, post-hoc adjustment of the agency’s previous methane emission estimates from natural gas systems.

The chart below details what EPA found with respect to methane emissions from natural gas systems in this year’s report compared to the figures it used in last year’s report:

                            1990     2007     2008     2009     2010

2012 report:      189.6    205.3    212.7    220.9    215.4
2013 report:      161.2    168.4    163.4    150.7    143.6

Diff. (raw):            28.4      36.9      49.3      70.2       71.8
Diff. (%):               15%      18%      23%     32%       33%

(All raw numbers listed in million metric tons of CO2 equivalent)

So, then: what do all these data mean? Three things jump out immediately.

The first is that EPA’s 2012 report attempted to argue that methane emissions had increased every single year from 1990 through 2009, with a slight decline in 2010.  But revised data issued in 2013 demonstrate precisely the opposite: in fact, there has been a significant and consistent decline in total methane emissions since 1990. Last year’s report suggested an increase in methane emissions of 14 percent since 1990. EPA’s new data show a decline of 11 percent.

The second is that EPA’s 2013 data show an increasing gap between agency estimates in 2012 and what it released this year – and always in the direction of fewer emissions. This suggests, at a minimum, that EPA’s original data set was deeply flawed (more on that in a moment).

The third point is that methane emissions are falling even as natural gas production continues to increase dramatically. Since 1990, U.S. natural gas production has increased by 38 percent. Since 2007, it has increased by 26 percent. There is simply no credible explanation for this divergence – more wells, greater production, fewer emissions – other than the role that significantly and consistently improving technologies continue to play in making the development process safer, cleaner and more efficient.

Indeed, for the narrative to be true that natural gas systems have a “leakage” problem in the United States, we have to exit the realm of fact-based reality and enter the world of baseless assumptions: We have to assume, for example, that the same technologies that reduced emissions by 11 percent even as production expanded by 38 percent are also somehow mysteriously leaking like uncontrolled sieves across the country. But, looking at this data, can anyone really believe that?

So, then: what explains EPA’s downward adjustment of estimated emissions?

The answer lies in a fact sheet that EPA released yesterday summarizing its latest report. Among other things, EPA cites a study from URS Corporation released last year as having better data for the “liquids unloading” stage. From the fact sheet:

“The [URS] study data show that there is more widespread use of emissions control technologies than had been assumed in the previous Inventory. It also demonstrated that duration of emissions from liquids unloading activities is shorter than had been assumed in the previous Inventory.” (emphasis added)

So, in essence, updated and more accurate data reveal significantly smaller amounts of methane being emitted by natural gas systems.

But wait, there’s more.

The URS Corporation study that EPA cited as having better data than its own prior estimates is the same study that Cornell activists Robert Howarth and Anthony Ingraffea trashed as “fatally flawed.” Howarth and Ingraffea said the study was “almost useless,” but clearly the U.S. EPA disagrees.

So, to whom should we ascribe more credibility: two activists whose funding comes from an entity trying to “fuel an army” to oppose fracking (and whose research has been debunked throughout the academic community), or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency?

Of course, Howarth and Ingraffea also leaned heavily on EPA’s prior data in an attempt to validate their own research as it was continuously being called into question by their peers. In their response to Cornell colleague Lawrence Cathles, who comprehensively debunked their report, Howarth and Ingraffea cited EPA’s 2011 Greenhouse Gas Inventory as having data that fell “within our estimated range” of methane emissions from shale gas. Howarth and Ingraffea also admitted: “Our high-end methane estimates for both conventional gas and shale gas are substantially higher than EPA,” comparing once again their results to EPA’s 2011 inventory.

EPA’s 2011 estimates for methane emissions from natural gas systems were almost identical to the numbers released in the 2012 Inventory – the same numbers that EPA has now dramatically revised downward based on better data. That means Howarth and Ingraffea’s emissions estimates have been even further marginalized, if such a thing is even possible.

And remember: Howarth said that NOAA’s leakage estimates (from a study conducted last year) “are coming in very close to ours, maybe a little higher.” If that’s the case, then Michael Levi’s critique of the NOAA study is at the very least supported – if not entirely validated – by EPA’s latest Inventory.

What this all boils down to is both simple and significant: the “scholarly” argument against the climate benefits of natural gas – which was always premised on the Howarth and Ingraffea research, and then supposedly supplemented by NOAA’s findings – has now been rejected by EPA. And as technologies continue to improve, it’s hard to imagine those methane numbers going anywhere but down as we eagerly await the next installment of this EPA report.

*UPDATE* U.S. Shale is Undermining Russia’s Gas Monopoly
The Associated Press has a must-read story from this weekend about how hydraulic fracturing is “shaking up world energy markets from Washington to Moscow to Beijing.” The premise is one we’ve covered here at EID before, but it simply cannot be overstated: developing natural gas from shale is not only an unquestionable economic and environmental winner for the United States, but also re-centering global energy markets away from Russia and the Middle East and toward the United States and North America.

Julia
Researcher

 

UPDATE (4/15/2013; 1:55 pm ET) This week, the Russian Academy of Sciences noted that crude oil exports from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) – including Russia, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan — may drop 17 percent by 2040. The culprit? Increased supply from the United States, specifically from shale and other “tight” reservoirs. According to Bloomberg:

“CIS exports will decline to 293 million metric tons in 2040 from 355 million tons in 2010, according to the academy’s base scenario. Russian crude output will fall by as much as 50 million tons annually by 2020 in the report’s ‘shale breakthrough’ scenario, as high costs and the current tax system limit competitiveness on global energy markets.” (4/15/13)

Russian producers and President Vladimir Putin have historically opposed America’s shale development – and with nearly half of Russia’s budget coming from the production and export of oil and natural gas, it’s not surprising why. But as Moscow-based oil and gas analyst Ildar Davletshin noted, the country is beginning to be left behind due to its continued reliance on less sophisticated technology. Meanwhile, North America is only in the initial stages of a technologically-driven energy renaissance, which is turning the global energy mix on its head.

—Original post, Oct. 1, 2012—

The Associated Press has a must-read story from this weekend about how hydraulic fracturing is “shaking up world energy markets from Washington to Moscow to Beijing.” The premise is one we’ve covered here at EID before, but it simply cannot be overstated: developing natural gas from shale is not only an unquestionable economic and environmental winner for the United States, but also re-centering global energy markets away from Russia and the Middle East and toward the United States and North America.

From the AP:

The Kremlin is watching, European nations are rebelling, and some suspect Moscow is secretly bankrolling a campaign to derail the West’s strategic plans.

It’s not some Cold War movie; it’s about the U.S. boom in natural gas drilling, and the political implications are enormous.

Like falling dominoes, the drilling process called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is shaking up world energy markets from Washington to Moscow to Beijing. Some predict what was once unthinkable: that the U.S. won’t need to import natural gas in the near future, and that Russia could be the big loser.

“This is where everything is being turned on its head,” said Fiona Hill, an expert on Russia at the Brookings Institution, a think tank in Washington. “Their days of dominating the European gas markets are gone.”

And as we’ve mentioned before, the growth of shale development in the United States has been anything but a partisan issue:

The U.S. presidential campaigns have already addressed the strategic potential.

A campaign position paper for Republican Mitt Romney said he “will pursue policies that work to decrease the reliance of European nations on Russian sources of energy.”

In early September, President Barack Obama said the U.S. could “develop a hundred-year supply of natural gas that’s right beneath our feet,” which would “cut our oil imports in half by 2020 and support more than 600,000 new jobs in natural gas alone.”

The story also includes some he-said-she-said allegations about the Russians possibly funding environmental efforts in Europe to ban or restrict hydraulic fracturing. It’s a plausible theory, given how continued shale development means more competition for Russian gas giant Gazprom, and the fact that “Gazprom owns media companies throughout Russia and Europe that have run stories examining the environmental risks of [hydraulic fracturing].” But it’s also a theory for which little tangible proof currently exists.

In any event, the AP notes: “Regulators contend that overall, water and air pollution problems are rare,” something most of us interested in the facts already knew (see this list of statements from regulators for more proof). And it was none other than Lisa Jackson, current Administrator of the U.S. EPA, who recently said: “In no case have we made a definitive determination that [hydraulic fracturing] has caused chemicals to enter groundwater.”

In sum, hydraulic fracturing is a safe and tightly regulated process that is creating jobs and undermining Russia’s control over European energy markets, all while helping to deliver a clean and affordable source of energy to American consumers.

Those facts make Alec Baldwin and Josh Fox look even sillier, which most of us didn’t think was possible.

*UPDATE III* EPA Data Show 66 Percent Drop in Methane Emissions from Oil and Gas
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s latest report on greenhouse gases (GHGs) shows a significant drop in methane emissions from natural gas development, as compared to EPA’s prior data. The latest reporting from EPA suggests methane emissions from petroleum and natural gas systems were 82.6 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent in 2011. Last year, EPA’s GHG Inventory – which assessed data for 2010 – estimated that natural gas systems alone emitted more than 215 million metric tons, while petroleum systems added another 31 million metric tons.

Steve
Spokesman

 

UPDATE III (3/20/2013; 9:06am ET): Our friends at the American Gas Association have done some calculations on methane leakage rates based upon EPA’s latest data and information available from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The result is a leakage rate far lower than what the EPA had previously estimated (2.4 percent). As AGA explains:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released its annual GHG inventory public review draft, estimating that only 1.2 percent of produced natural gas is emitted to the atmosphere from wellhead to burner tip, and showing that leaks have been overestimated by more than 50 percent. Natural gas utilities invest billions of dollars each year on infrastructure to help ensure safe and reliable service. These continued investments will help decrease the level of emissions further.

According to an analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund (published last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences), natural gas offers climate benefits if the methane leakage rate is kept below 3.2 percent for power generation, and below 1.6 percent for vehicles. Although the AGA was estimating “from wellhead to burner tip,” the fact that the leakage rate is 50 percent less than what EPA had previously manufactured from old data is reassuring, as it suggests the industry has completed a much more rapid transition to cleaner and more efficient technologies.

UPDATE II (3/11/2013; 2:01pm ET): Yet another reminder of how bad EPA’s previous data was with respect to methane emissions: Devon Energy, a major natural gas producer in the United States, is withdrawing from EPA’s Natural Gas STAR Program. Devon observes that the EPA “irresponsibly and inaccurately” used data collected from the program to justify additional regulations on the industry. From the letter Devon sent to Roger Fernandez, the program’s team lead:

“…information provided in good faith by Devon and other operators has been irresponsibly and inaccurately used to justify costly regulations, taint policy research and, most recently, to provide the basis for the notice by seven northeastern states that they intend to sue EPA to require new methane emission standards for the exploration and production sector. Specifically, EPA has used Natural Gas STAR reported volumes for gas captured to represent gas that would otherwise be emitted. This is a seriously flawed misuse of the data that Natural Gas STAR program professionals should recognize, but have apparently made no effort to call to the attention of other groups within EPA.”

So, not only was the EPA using flawed data, it was also misusing the data actually provided in good faith by the industry (and not invented by EPA computer models).

UPDATE (2/9/2013; 10:45am ET): Bloomberg has granted our request for a headline correction, which now reads “Oil, Gas Production Among Top Greenhouse-Gas Sources.”

—Original post, February 7, 2013—

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s latest report on greenhouse gases (GHGs) shows a significant drop in methane emissions from natural gas development, as compared to EPA’s prior data. The latest reporting from EPA suggests methane emissions from petroleum and natural gas systems were 82.6 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent in 2011. Last year, EPA’s GHG Inventory – which assessed data for 2010 – estimated that natural gas systems alone emitted more than 215 million metric tons, while petroleum systems added another 31 million metric tons.

Taken together, EPA’s latest data on petroleum and natural gas suggest a 66 percent decline in methane emissions from the agency’s prior estimates. Here are some other noteworthy findings from EPA:

It is worth noting, however, that it’s difficult to make an exact apples-to-apples comparison between EPA’s previous estimates of total methane emissions from oil and gas and the data released this week. The agency’s latest data represent “85-90 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions,” according to the EPA, as they exclude smaller sources in the existing categories. The data also exclude agriculture, which can be a significant source of methane: EPA’s prior inventory of GHGs, released in 2012, showed enteric fermentation from livestock and manure management were two of the top five sources of methane in the United States.

Nevertheless, the bigger picture is certainly good news: greenhouse gas emissions are falling in the United States, led in part by an affordable and abundant fuel like natural gas. And given all of the attention on methane emissions, it’s great to see that the current data suggest a significant decline from the agency’s previous estimate.

Of course, you’d probably never know many of these facts if you accepted the media’s take on EPA’s data.

E&E News said the report revealed “massive methane emissions” from the oil, natural gas, and coal sectors, identifying only the methane-as-CO2-equivalent number for petroleum and natural gas systems – 82.6 million metric tons. As mentioned above, 82.6 million metric tons is two-thirds less than EPA’s prior estimate, some helpful context that was unfortunately ignored. Scientific American re-posted the E&E story, adding that methane emissions are “on the rise” in the United States, apparently unaware of the actual data related to oil and natural gas.

A separate piece for E&E led with the statement that petroleum and natural gas systems “accounted for 40 percent of the methane emissions reported to the U.S. EPA in 2011.” Again, no mention of the drop in EPA’s estimates, nor the acknowledgment that landfills, treatment plants, and other waste facilities had overtaken oil and gas with higher methane emissions.

But the worst offender was Bloomberg, which ran with the headline, “Fracking Seen by EPA as No. 2 Emitter of Greenhouse Gases” – a demonstrably false characterization. (That’s disappointing, too; the story that followed the bogus headline was actually decently written and captured a lot of the critical details from EPA’s report.)

Petroleum and natural gas systems were listed by EPA as the second largest GHG emitter, although the difference in emissions between number one (power plants) and number two was enormous: 2.2 billion tons versus 225 million tons. Petroleum and natural gas systems also include things like LNG import facilities, offshore oil and gas wells, pipelines and compressor stations – none of which could ever accurately be described as “fracking.”

In fact, several facilities studied were in places like the North Slope of Alaska and even Hawaii, where no hydraulic fracturing is even occurring. Additionally, some of the midstream infrastructure analyzed throughout the country has been in operation for decades and was constructed long before the “shale boom” ever began.

Even worse for Bloomberg is that EPA’s page explaining all of the components of its “petroleum and natural gas systems” category never once mentions the words “hydraulic fracturing” or “fracking.” That means the EPA said nothing about emissions specifically from hydraulic fracturing, rendering absurd Bloomberg’s suggestion that the process was somehow “seen by EPA” as the number two emitter.

But don’t just take our word for it. John Quigley, the former Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said of Bloomberg’s headline: “Imprecise language misinforms and clouds the discussions we should be having and the actions we should be taking.” A reporter for SNL Energy tweeted: “Bloomberg appears to be labeling ALL oil and gas activity as #fracking. Kind of a stretch, dontcha think?”

Interestingly, FuelFix.com (a blog for the Houston Chronicle) ran Bloomberg’s story and even used the same headline. A few hours later, however, the blog changed the headline to “Houston companies among top polluters on federal list” – not exactly a sparkling gem, but certainly a far cry from the previous misappropriation of emissions to hydraulic fracturing. It’s also telling that even a news outlet running a Bloomberg wire story was not comfortable using Bloomberg’s designated headline on its website.

Despite the media’s penchant for alarmist headlines and what often appears to be an insatiable need to link every aspect of oil and gas development to hydraulic fracturing, the facts are clear: EPA’s latest report on greenhouse gas emissions made several reassuring observations, including declines not only in greenhouse gases across the entire country, but also in methane emissions from oil and gas systems specifically.

For EPA, a Troubling (Email) Chain of Events
If you thought you knew everything there was to know about EPA’s fracking follies last year, a recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by E&E News (sub's reqd.) provides valuable insight into the agency’s deliberations on these matters. Namely, in a series of high-profile backtracks on natural gas EPA appears to be placing the unfounded claims of natural gas activists over the expertise of state regulators.

johnkrohnJD
Communications Director

As has been pretty well and widely documented by now, EPA’s ongoing effort aimed at inserting itself into state investigations broadly focused on shale and hydraulic fracturing issues has not, heretofore, gone especially well. First, there was Parker Co., Texas; then came Pavillion, Wyo. And who can forget Dimock, Pennsylvania? In each case, EPA came, saw, and eventually retreated. Not because of some grand conspiracy or back-room dealing – but because in the end, after all the data was collected and all the numbers were run, the science simply wasn’t on its side.

But if you thought you knew everything there was to know about EPA’s fracking follies last year, a recent Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed by E&E News (sub’s reqd.) provides valuable insight into the agency’s deliberations on these matters. Time and again reading through the emails, it appears the agency assigns greater weight to claims made by anti-shale activists rather than the testimonials and direction imparted by the professionals who regulate oil and gas activities on the state level. The same regulators, by the way, whose proven record led former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson to declare “states are stepping up and doing a good job” in regulating natural gas development.

Let’s examine these cases again, with the benefit of additional context from these newly recently internal EPA emails.

Parker County, Tex.

EPA’s troubled history in pursuing alleged claims of contamination first became publicly apparent following the agency’s fits and starts in Parker County, Texas. As we reported previously, the agency’s enforcement actions in Texas were pursued only after close coordination and prodding from local activists.

The collusion was epitomized in an infamous email from former EPA Region 6 administrator Al Armendariz, who gleefully alerted anti-shale activists of a forthcoming endangerment order again Range Resources:

“We’re about to make a lot of news…there’ll be an official press release in a few minutes … time to Tivo channel 8.”

Fifteen months later, EPA withdrew its order — no doubt due to the begrudging acknowledgment that its case was scientifically baseless. But the story doesn’t end there.

According to emails sent on January 4, 2011, former EPA communications officer Betsaida Alcantara and Associate EPA Administrator Seth Oster were corresponding with Josh Fox, the producer of the widely discredited 2010 documentary ‘Gasland.’

Following that exchange, Alcantra remarks to Armendariz that “Josh spoke very highly of you fyi!” Armendariz response was even more concerning as he noted “it was good working with [Fox] for Gasland, we try to keep in touch every so often.” (emphasis added)

The regional administrator not only happily accepts the interview, but then shifts into the film-maker’s production assistant, asking his colleagues to arrange an outdoor interview where Fox “can get good background shots.” Helping Josh Fox get the best scenery for one of his hyperbolic films is hardly indicative of an administrator — or an agency — interested in being a neutral arbiter.

Now, compare that exchange to communications between senior EPA officials and the Texas Railroad Commission (RRC), the state regulatory body that oversees oil and gas development in Texas. The Commission tried to warn the EPA that the agency’s findings were “premature” due to RRC’s ongoing investigation and a lack of data supporting EPA’s assertions. Armendariz’s response to those repeated warnings consisted of one single word, that word being “stunning.”

In separate correspondence, Steven Chester, Deputy Assistant Administrator at EPA for enforcement and compliance, and Bob Sussman, then Senior Policy Counsel to Administrator Jackson, attempted to console the regional administrator after RRC Commissioner David Porter calls for Armendariz to be terminated over the flap (the regional administrator would later resign only to later gain employment with the Sierra Club).

In their separate notes, Chester refers to the commissioner’s comments as being “a rant from someone with a myopic view” while Sussman notes the Commissioner’s request is “shameful.” (emphasis added)

Wait, what? On the one hand, senior EPA officials are giddy to receive praise from a known and discredited activist filmmaker; on the other, they reject the pragmatic advice of state regulators and then chastise those regulators for expecting the EPA to base its actions based on sound science.

Dimock, Pa.

A similar situation can be seen in correspondence unearthed by a Scranton Times Tribune FOIA request that yielded more than 3,000 emails relating to EPA’s actions in the small town of Dimock, Pa. Like the FOIA request in Texas, that correspondence shows an agency quick to respond to dubious claims from activists that, in this case, were rejected by state regulators. Here again, senior level EPA officials seemed to provide more credence to activists’ claims than the findings of state enforcement agencies who actually have expertise in the field.

To wit: In original correspondence EPA’s Chief of Groundwater and Enforcement in Region 3, Karen Johnson, sent Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) official Scott Perry an email confirming that the water in Dimock did not pose a threat to human health. In fact, Johnson even sought to assuage Perry’s concerns that EPA’s involvement would inflame the situation; a real concern given sensitivities with the topic at the time. From the email (page 284):

From: KarenDJohnson/R3/USEPA/US 11/07/2011 07:43 AM
To: “Perry, Scott (DEP)”

Subject RE: Dimock visit

Believe me we aren’t going to do anything to do that…the guy from ATSDR hopefully can alley fears about health effects…I’ve been going through the data , even the “outside” analytical services agree with range of sampling already done just fine…can’t figure out what is going on..

I’ll let you know how it goes…

Karen D. Johnson, Chief
Ground Water & Enforcement Branch

That sentiment would later be solidified when EPA sent an email to Dimock residents on December 2, 2011, stating “the data does not indicate that the well water presents an immediate health threat to users.”

But four days later, Josh Fox sent an open letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson calling for her agency to intervene in Dimock because state regulators had allegedly “failed.” No evidence, no facts, just a classic attempt to garner headlines. Within two days of receipt of that letter, EPA staff in Washington, D.C. organized a conference call between Jackson and officials from Region 3 to discuss the agency’s ongoing efforts in Dimock. From the emails (page 496):

From: Ann Campbell /DC/USEPA/US
Sent: 12/08/2011 06:17 AM
To: Cynthia Dougherty, Ann Codrington, Fred Hauchman, Jeanne Briskin, Linda Boornazian, KarenD Johnson, Victoria Binetti, Carrie Wehling, Jon Capacasa

Subject: An Open Letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to Intervene in Dimock, PA because the State of Pennsylvania has Failed

Folks – below is the letter from Josh Fox to the Administrator that was discussed during yesterday’s call. A briefing has been scheduled for Friday, Dec 16 to provide the Administrator with background on the situation in Dimock, any analysis or conclusions that have been drawn from the review of the state’s data, and options, if appropriate, for dealing with the situation. Bob will be setting up a prebrief to prep for the Administrator’s meeting early next week so I’d like to spend some time on this during the Tuesday workgroup call.

Thanks,

Ann

Seemingly in response to Fox’s baseless claims, EPA announced a few weeks later that they would “perform water sampling at approximately 60 homes in the area of Dimock, Pa.,” based on what the EPA termed potential “health concerns.”

In other words, the EPA – based on hard data that had also been reviewed by state regulators – agreed that Dimock’s water was safe. But shortly after receiving Josh Fox’s open letter, they abandoned their evidence-based conclusion. As Al Armendariz might say, stunning.

In each of these examples, EPA either ignored efforts by state regulators or placed a higher emphasis on the unsupported claims of known – and discredited – anti-natural gas activists. And remember, these are the same activists who tried to instill fear in the public by promoting breast cancer claims in Texas — which, predictably, were later rebuffed by actual health experts in an Associated Press review titled “Some Fracking Critics Use Bad Science,” where even the AP explained the lack of basis for anti-shale activism.

In the end, EPA’s actions against oil and gas operators in at least two high profile cases were directly related to pleadings from known and discredited anti-natural gas activists, and directly against the findings of actual regulators. Little wonder, then, why the EPA has been consistently forced to back track in each of these cases, as scientific investigations yielded different results than what activists’ talking points would suggest. It happened in Texas, it happened in Dimock, and — barring an internal EPA shift away from giving primacy to opponents’ claims over regulatory judgments — chances are it will happen again.

Putting to Rest the Silly Theories about Parker Co.
In recent weeks, several news outlets have attempted to rewrite the narrative about EPA’s December 2010 endangerment order against Range Resources in Parker County, Texas. The theories have run the gamut, from industry allegedly “pressuring” EPA to drop the order to the availability of “scientific analyses” that EPA supposedly discarded or ignored. What ties all of these theories together? They change literally nothing about the facts of the case, which show that Range’s operations were not responsible for water contamination in Parker County.

steve_everleySteve
Spokesman

 

In recent weeks, several news outlets have attempted to rewrite the narrative about EPA’s December 2010 endangerment order against Range Resources in Parker County, Texas. The theories have run the gamut, from industry allegedly “pressuring” EPA to drop the order to the availability of “scientific analyses” that EPA supposedly discarded or ignored.

What ties all of these theories together? They change literally nothing about the facts of the case, which show that Range’s operations were not responsible for water contamination in Parker County.

The stories are based solely on “new information” about the case, which is unfortunately being conflated with “relevant information.”  Nothing that has been uncovered changes the fact that there was a lack of scientific merit in EPA’s original order. Additionally, none of this “new information” provides a credible alternative to the scientific testing that exonerated Range’s activities. In some cases, the “new information” isn’t actually new at all, but rather a rehash of what regulators already examined and refuted based on the evidence.

Let’s explore these theories in depth, shall we?

—

THEORY: Range Resources pressured the EPA into dropping the endangerment order in exchange for granting the agency access to its wells.

FACT: It’s difficult to get past the sheer ridiculousness of the claim itself, but several outlets have seen fit to advance this theory as if it is a credible explanation – including the venerable Associated Press – so let’s examine the facts.

As we’ve explained before, the crux of this argument is that the EPA wanted access to Range Resources’ well sites for its ongoing study on potential water impacts from hydraulic fracturing. (With thousands of companies able and willing to participate, why the EPA would be insistent on gaining access to Range’s is never explained by adherents to this theory.) Since the EPA was involved in a legal dispute with Range Resources over the endangerment order in Parker County, Tex., the theory contends that Range didn’t want to work with EPA while that dispute was ongoing, so they offered to cut a deal behind closed doors: EPA drops the order, and Range allows access to its wells.

First of all, notice how this theory assumes – by a priori means – that the original endangerment order was scientifically justified? Let’s look at why that’s absurd:

These facts – convenient omissions by the EPA, scientific tests exonerating Range – would conceivably undermine the case that EPA had against Range, and yet they get little to no attention in the reports suggesting Range pressured EPA to drop the case. Why let facts get in the way of a great story?

Second, for this theory to be plausible, the EPA would have had to seek access relatively quickly after the order was withdrawn. After all, if this were a quid pro quo, wouldn’t you expect each party to at least try to get what the other promised? Instead, all we have is a letter from Range Resources, sent after the endangerment order was dropped, saying it can work with the EPA again. Is it really so alarming that a company, after recognizing that a government agency — with which it is involved in a legal dispute — has changed its policies to focus on sound science, would embrace the idea of working with that agency in the future?

And nearly a year later, guess what? The EPA has not taken up Range on its offer of access to its wells.

Legal disputes, regardless of the industry, typically involve a variety of negotiations along the way. Both parties have an interest in justifying their actions, but they often see little value in a costly and prolonged affair. But the bottom line, regardless of the circumstances or details of those discussions, is that if the EPA were so motivated by a give-and-take backroom negotiation, it wouldn’t wait a year or even several months before trying to get its end of the “deal.”

And remember, the EPA tried to justify its order on the basis that “there were at least two families whose homes were in immediate danger of explosion and who had no safe household water from the aquifer.”

Would the EPA really toss aside something it viewed as protective of public safety just to gain access to a few well sites – which, of course, it never tried to access anyway? There are literally thousands of companies with whom the EPA could work on its study, but we are to believe the agency absolutely had to gain access to Range’s sites?

The agency did not do that, because the theory is as baseless as the endangerment order itself.

–

THEORY: A previously unreleased study suggests Range Resources was responsible for methane in Parker County water wells.

FACT: This “scientific evidence” was actually little more than a draft report that did not even credibly examine the possibility that the gas could have come from other formations. It was also authored by someone unfamiliar with the scientific analyses delivered to the Texas Railroad Commission that exonerated Range.

The draft report, authored by Geoffrey Thyne, looked essentially only at the possibility that the gas could be originating from the Barnett Shale – one of many facts left out of the AP story that first highlighted it. As explained earlier, the composition of gas from the Barnett is similar to what’s in the Strawn, so if you’re looking only at gas in the Barnett and the methane found in the affected wells, you’ll notice a lot of similarities. This is why it’s crucial to look at multiple formations in the region, and closely examine distinguishing features like the presence of nitrogen. That’s what the scientists did in the reports that exonerated Range, but it’s not what Dr. Thyne (or the EPA) did.

Thyne’s report relied on hydrogen and carbon isotopic fingerprinting to suggest that Range’s activities in the Barnett Shale were impacting Lipsky’s water, because the isotopic readings in the water well were similar to what is encountered in the Barnett Shale. But as geochemist Mark McCaffrey (B.A., Harvard; Ph.D., MIT) of Weatherford Labs determined in his investigation:

“The geochemical parameter used by the EPA to determine a thermogenic origin of the Lipsky gas (e.g., the C isotopic composition of methane) does not differentiate gas in the Barnett Formation from gas in the Pennsylvanian reservoirs.” (emphasis added)

In other words, carbon isotopic fingerprinting (which Thyne used) will not correctly determine the source of the gas; instead, nitrogen content must be used to distinguish between Barnett gas and shallower (Pennsylvanian) formation gases.

As Dr. McCaffrey noted during the January 2011 Railroad Commission hearing:

“Specifically high nitrogen, low CO2 samples are characteristic of gasses produced from the shallower Pennsylvanian reservoirs. The natural gas component of the most recently collected Lipsky well headspace gas samples, which is the two that were shown in the previous table on the previous slide, contain higher nitrogen than is in Barnett gas.”

Interestingly, Thyne’s draft paper found that Barnett gas “has low nitrogen content of about 1%,” whereas the impacted water wells had nitrogen readings “between 4 and 31%.” Although Thyne was relying more on the carbon isotopic readings (which was a flawed model), even his tests showed that the nitrogen content in Lipsky’s water wells was at least four times higher than Barnett gas.

Given the centrality of nitrogen fingerprinting in determining the source, one could even suggest that Thyne’s findings validated the reports that exonerated Range – albeit unintentionally.

After examining all of the evidence in the case, in early 2011, the Texas Railroad Commission concluded:

“The EPA’s investigation compared gas produced from the tubing of the Butler well (Barnett Shale gas) to gas found in the Lipsky water well. The carbon isotopic finger print analysis of the gases were found to be very similar and both gases were determined to be thermogenic. Range demonstrated that use of the carbon isotope in the EPA analysis was inappropriate because the Barnett Shale is the source rock for all gas bearing zones above the Barnett Shale, including the much shallower Strawn formation. All gas produced from the same source rock would be expected to have a similar carbon isotope. The EPA did not attempt to identify any other potential source of the gas produced from the Lipsky well. Range further showed the appropriate geochemical parameters to use for fingerprinting in this case are nitrogen and carbon dioxide. Published literature confirms that Pennsylvanian age gases, including the Strawn, have higher nitrogen and lower carbon dioxide than Barnett Shale gas.

“…The fingerprinting analysis performed by Range demonstrates that gas found in all of the water wells had elevated nitrogen concentrations, indicating Pennsylvanian gas, not Barnett Shale gas. Additionally, gas produced from the Barnett Shale in the Butler and Teal wells contained no microbial gas, but the bradenhead samples from each well did contain microbial gas. These differentials confirm that the Barnett Shale is not in communication with any other zone, including the much shallower Strawn.” (emphasis added)

Finally, it’s worth noting that Thyne’s draft report – by the author’s own admission – was assembled without any knowledge of the scientific tests using nitrogen as the distinguishing characteristic (see Range Resources’ letter to EPA Region 6 administrator Ron Curry for more details). Given how science builds upon prior research, a lack of knowledge of what was essentially the most definitive scientific analysis of the affected wells to date is a significant and newsworthy fact.

It’s unfortunate that every recent report has failed even to consider this fundamental flaw, in addition to the other failings described above.

–

THEORY: A former employee of the Texas Railroad Commission found that Range’s activities forced Strawn gas into Steven Lipsky’s water well.

FACT: Richter’s theory is absurd – based not only on the facts about Range’s activities, but also what Richter previously said about the case. (This latest “news,” by the way, is also just a retread of the same theory that was reported on more than a year ago.)

On November 9, 2011, Richter testified that he was aware of other water wells in close proximity to Steven Lipsky’s, all of which contained naturally occurring methane – one that had so much that it was actually flaring gas in 2005. Yet, he also admitted that he had seen no baseline data regarding the presence of methane in the Lipsky’s well prior to Range’s activities:

Q: Have you made any study about whether there was actually methane in the Lipsky water well as far back as 2005, in some amount?

RICHTER: I haven’t made such a study.

Q: You don’t have any water tests or head space gas tests from the Lipsky water well going back prior to 2010 that you’ve seen, correct?

RICHTER: I have not seen any such data.

Q: As you sit here today, you don’t know for a fact whether or not the Lipsky water well had any amount of methane in it prior to 2010, do you?

RICHTER: I do not know that as a fact because I have seen no data.

So, despite the prevalence of naturally occurring methane in virtually every other well in the region (a fact confirmed by Railroad Commission findings), Richter wants us to believe that the methane in Lipsky’s water is there because of Range’s activities – even though he has “no data” on what Lipsky’s water contained in the past. Was there methane in Lipsky’s water before Range drilled its wells, just like the dozens of other water wells in the area? Richter doesn’t know.

Richter further speculates that by drilling through the Strawn formation (before reaching the Barnett), Range Resources “possibly” created a pathway by which gas in formations between the Strawn and the Barnett, which could then travel up the annulus of the well and through thick drilling mud. After accomplishing that feat, according to Richter’s analysis, the gas would have had to exit the annulus and enter the Strawn formation, then create such significant new pressure in an underground rock layer that the gas already located in the Strawn formation was pushed toward the Lipsky’s property a half mile away. En route, somehow the gas also bypassed every other water well located between Range’s wells and Lipsky’s water well, and only impacted Lipsky’s well.

And what ultimately created this chain of highly unlikely events? According to Richter, Range Resources did not case and cement the well below the water aquifer, and thus Range did not comply with the state law (known as “Rule 13”) for setting surface casing.

The only problem with that? State regulators said Range was in compliance with Rule 13 for both of its wells – which Richter himself admitted in his deposition.

According to his testimony, Richter acknowledged that official state documents showed Range’s wells were in compliance (see p. 59-60). But he contends that Range was actually not in compliance because the wells were not cemented below the base of the formation containing groundwater (Cretaceous), which supplies water to Lipsky’s well. Richter alleges regulators were wrong to declare Range’s wells in compliance because the base of the water aquifer was actually deeper than official records stated.

Yet in his deposition, Richter admitted that, in Parker County, the distance between the surface and the base of the Cretaceous can vary, and he wasn’t even sure what the depth was. “I don’t know what the various elevations are,” Richter testified (p. 63).

In other words, Richter admits that regulators found the company in compliance with Rule 13, and the only basis for his disagreement is pure speculation about what the depth of the groundwater formation may or may not be.

But wait, there’s more.

According to E&E News, Richter says the Texas Railroad Commission determined Range was not at fault without even considering other arguments:

“Richter also noted the Railroad Commission made its decision based on information presented by Range, which went unchallenged at the hearing. That essentially made it a default judgment. Since it was an ‘unprotested’ case, Richter said, the agency assigns the decision less value than it would to a ‘protested’ case.”

From later in that same story: “But Range drilled through other gas-producing formations on its way to the mile-deep Barnett, and [Richter] said the commission didn’t account for that.”

First of all, remember: The EPA was invited to that hearing and refused to attend. Interestingly, the EPA even tried to prevent Range from gathering testimony on why the EPA issued its order, but a court thankfully denied the EPA’s request. If EPA had a credible scientific argument, it certainly could have presented it at the Railroad Commission hearing to which it was invited – and it wouldn’t have tried to squelch the company from investigating the events that led to the order. In any event, the lack of EPA’s presence at the Commission hearing is not the Commission’s fault; if anything, it speaks volumes about the case the EPA actually had against Range, and reflects unwillingness on the part of EPA to defend its own position.

Second, and more importantly, the claim that Range’s evidence went unchallenged by the Railroad Commission is simply untrue. In fact, one of the arguments considered at the hearing was the exact same theory Richter now espouses, and it was raised by the none other than a representative from the Texas Railroad Commission.

At the hearing in January 2011, Range’s witnesses were cross-examined by an attorney, David Cooney, who represented the Railroad Commission’s Oil and Gas Division. Cooney asked John McBeath, a petroleum engineer and well integrity expert, whether “the actual surface casing [for Range’s wells] was through the base of usable quality water as the conditions occurred in the field.” McBeath’s response?

“That is right. The Cretaceous is protected by the surface casing and the cement.” (Hearing transcript, Vol. II; p. 25)

McBeath also testified that the base of the Cretaceous was 324 feet deep at the location of the two Range wells in question. According to official records, surface casing for each well was set at approximately 400 feet, which Richter also confirmed in his deposition (p. 258).

This directly contradicts Richter’s theory that the wells (cased at around 400 feet by his own admission) were not cased deep enough to run past the base of the Cretaceous (depth: 324 feet). It also debunks his claim that the Railroad Commission failed to consider that possibility.

Indeed, according to the Railroad Commission’s determination after that hearing:

“Surface casing on both wells exceed the requirements of the TCEQ. Range’s experience in the area is that the Cretaceous generally extends to approximately 320 feet.”

The Commission added:

“The surface casing in each well is set below the base of the Cretaceous and is cemented to surface. The surface casings and production casings of both wells were tested when set during the drilling process. Further, Range performed a mechanical integrity test on the Butler well at the request of the RRC to demonstrate that the low bradenhead pressure on the well was not related to any type of casing problem. The cement behind the production casing is verified by a cement bond log in both wells.”

And yet despite all of this, we’re supposed to believe a guy when he says that Range’s wells weren’t cased and cemented deep enough to isolate themselves from the base of an aquifer, the depth of which he even admitted he did not know?

Finally, it’s worth noting that Richter’s theory is not that Barnett gas was reaching Lipsky’s water – as the EPA contended and Mr. Thyne’s draft report alleges – but rather gas from some other formation. This contradicts EPA’s John Blevins, who said the agency’s order was based on gas found in Lipsky’s water being “sufficiently similar to the gas that we found in the Butler [well] production stream.” The Butler well was producing natural gas from the Barnett Shale, which means EPA’s order was based on a supposed link between Barnett Shale gas and the gas found in Lipsky’s water.

And yet E&E News says Richter’s theories “make the most coherent case for EPA’s accusations,” a claim that by definition cannot be true.

EPA, Thyne, and Richter can’t all be right. In fact, the evidence shows that they’re all wrong. If Richter’s theories make “the most coherent case” for EPA’s actions, then the endangerment order was quite clearly baseless from the beginning.

—

In withdrawing the order against Range Resources, EPA never said that it was doing so based on a lack of scientific basis, even though anyone who has being paying attention knows that to be the case. Nor did the agency ever truly admit that the actions leading up to issuance of the order (including working closely with local activists) compromised the integrity of its actions.

But it’s also that refusal to admit the obvious that has created a vacuum, which has been filled with “alternate explanations” based on literally anything – regardless of its merits – that has since become public. As stories have come out, a consistent pattern of manufactured timelines also emerges, where intervening periods are selectively cast aside or punctuated in order to retroactively fit a particular narrative.

Range offered EPA access to its wells after the agency withdrew the order? Proof of industry pressure – even though nearly a year elapsed and the EPA never took them up on the offer.

A draft report that suggests a link between Range’s activities and methane contamination in water wells? Proof that Range was at fault – even though the report did little more than repeat EPA’s original argument, which was debunked by nitrogen fingerprinting at a hearing more than two years ago.

A former state employee who said his former agency didn’t consider an alternate theory? EPA’s case is validated – even though the agency did consider that theory back in 2011, and tossed it aside due to a preponderance of evidence proving otherwise.

What is interesting, however, is that in all of the recent reporting on this case — much of it derived from emails obtained in various FOIA requests to EPA — the most striking details were either buried or left unreported.

In an email sent more than a year after EPA issued its endangerment order against Range, then-administrator of EPA Region 6 Al Armendariz was still searching for data to validate EPA’s claims and even discussing the possibility that Range was not at fault. That’s notable in and of itself, but it’s even more significant when you consider what EPA scientist Dr. Doug Beak said about EPA’s data in November 2010, before the endangerment order was ever issued:

“[T]his is not conclusive evidence because of the limited data set…The only way now to compare the data would be to make assumptions to fill in data gaps and I don’t believe we have enough experience at this site or data to do this at this time.” (emphasis added)

So, prior to the issuance of the order, a geochemist within EPA had concluded there was a limited data set and not enough to make a connection to Range’s activities without filling in gaps based on “assumptions,” which he explicitly said the agency did not have the experience or data to do. More than a year later, the EPA was still looking for data to validate its case against Range Resources — which of course aligns with the concerns Dr. Beak raised in the weeks leading up to EPA’s order.

Shouldn’t EPA have had that data in hand before imposing a significant order of endangerment? If they didn’t have it, then on what was the order based? And why have a grand total of zero of the recent stories rehashing EPA’s endangerment order given this anything more than a passing mention?

Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions about the events that transpired in Parker County in 2010. But if we’re interested in the truth, the facts should be what guide us – not the latest shiny object that can make for a great headline and increased site traffic.

It’s time to put an end to the silly theories and conspiracies. The facts speak for themselves.

*UPDATE XX* EPA Official: “Crucify” Operators to “Make Examples” of Them
According to a recently released video, EPA Region 6 administrator Al Armendariz told an audience during a city council meeting in DISH, TX, that his philosophy of enforcement was, to put it nicely, less than objective.

Steve
Spokesman

 

UPDATE XX (2/22/2013, 9:33 am ET): As part of his last desperate defense of the baseless endangerment order against Range Resources, then-EPA Region 6 administrator Al Armendariz circulated a list of alleged casing problems due to Range’s operations — in Pennsylvania. Why a regional administrator would seek to highlight potential issues of a company operating in a different geological formation (and in a different EPA region) is unclear, although Armendariz’s comments about wantonly “crucifying” operators suggests a personal animosity could have been a factor. How else could one explain his decision to tarnish the company’s reputation in a manner that had absolutely nothing to do with operations in Parker County, Texas?

The list was uncovered in the latest EnergyWire report (subs. req’d) on the Parker County case, although it was buried several paragraphs deep in the story.

UPDATE XIX (2/8/2013, 10:51am ET): New emails obtained by EnergyWire show that then-administrator of Region 6, Al Armendariz, was discussing with others inside the EPA the possibility of Range not being at fault for methane concentrations in the Parker County water wells. Here’s how Mike Soraghan summarized the correspondence in his story earlier this week:

On Dec. 27, 2011, Armendariz outlined a position to take to Washington officials. His “least preferable” option included settling without requiring Range to provide water. But EPA would reserve the right to go after Range again with penalties if testing showed the company had contaminated the aquifer. (emphasis added)

So, a little over a year after Armendariz gleefully emailed local activists to “Tivo channel 8″ to see his agency impose a baseless endangerment order against Range Resources, and 11 months after clear scientific evidence was presented to state regulators confirming Range was not at fault, the EPA finally began quietly and confidentially discussing the possibility that their order was without merit.

This also raises important questions: Shouldn’t the EPA have had clear testing results showing contamination from Range’s activities before issuing its endangerment order against the company? And what does that say about the EPA’s own case against Range if the agency itself didn’t have enough evidence even a year after the fact? Of course, given Armendariz’s stated willingness to “crucify” gas companies solely so he could more easily control them, perhaps this strategy was bizarrely consistent with his method of enforcement.

UPDATE XVIII (1/15/2013, 9:02am ET): EnergyWire has obtained data from the EPA — made available through a FOIA request, full story here — showing naturally occurring methane in the water wells that now-former EPA Region 6 administrator Al Armendariz had claimed beyond all doubt were contaminated by natural gas development. The data came from tests conducted by Range Resources as part of an agreement with the EPA, and the specific findings suggest water quality is consistent with historical conditions in Parker County. Put differently, data obtained directly from the EPA even show that Armendariz’s endangerment order against Range Resources was baseless, a fact already strongly suggested by nearly all scientific evidence that was available to the EPA when the order itself was issued in 2010.

Perhaps Armendariz, who now works for the anti-natural gas Sierra Club, should have paid more attention to credible evidence instead of working behind the scenes with local activists to “crucify” oil and gas companies.

UPDATE XVII (10/31/2012, 10:45am ET): At a recent event sponsored by the Society of Environmental Journalists, Al Armendariz doubled down on his baseless finding of water contamination in Parker County. In response, Range Resources has sent a letter to the former EPA official, reminding him that his recent comments are “contradicted by facts, science, independent expert analysis, the final adjudicated decision of the Railroad Commission of Texas, the EPA’s internal documents, and sworn testimony from EPA’s sole witness to testify about [his] order.” The letter further requests that Armendariz stop making “false and disparaging comments” about the company that he wrongfully maligned.

UPDATE XVI (6/7/2012, 3:11pm ET): This week, Al Armendariz was scheduled to testify on Capitol Hill, but canceled his appearance at the last minute. No one really knew why — until today:

It’s not clear why Al Armendariz, recently removed from a top post at the Environmental Protection Agency for saying that the government should “crucify” bad actors in the energy industry, abruptly canceled plans to testify before a House panel on Wednesday.

But it is clear that he was in Washington that day and met with someone — at the Sierra Club, the nation’s largest environmental organization.

On Wednesday afternoon, when a reporter visited the Sierra Club’s Washington headquarters just a few blocks from Capitol Hill, Armendariz’s name was written on the sign-in sheet as having been the last person to visit the office. The visit apparently came only a few hours after Armendariz had infuriated Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee when he canceled his scheduled testimony on EPA enforcement issues without offering a reason.

So, just to recap: Prior to becoming Region 6 administrator for the EPA, Al Armendariz’s claim to fame was authoring a study about air emissions that, even at the time, air quality regulators for the state strongly disavowed, and since then have definitively debunked. As administrator, he maintained a close relationship with anti-shale activists, said his method of enforcing regulations was to “crucify” oil and gas companies, and even issued an endangerment order against Range Resources that was so lacking in scientific merit that the EPA itself had to withdraw the order. And now, instead of attending a hearing in front of a House committee at which he had agreed to appear, he chooses to meet with the Sierra Club, an activist organization that has made no apology for being for natural gas before it was against it.

Tough day for those who claim Mr. Armendariz has never been improperly swayed by professional opponents of oil and gas development.

UPDATE XV (5/4/2012, 8:21am ET): A must-read editorial from the Washington Post says the EPA is “earning a reputation for abuse,” citing the Sackett case and the events surrounding Al Armendariz. The final two sentences are particularly apt:

The agency’s officers must have a clear sense when to deploy its mighty power and when to exercise discretion. That’s true for the sake of the economy and to ensure that the EPA will be able to continue its necessary work for years to come.

Also be sure to check out Kim Strassel’s piece in the Wall Street Journal today, which has much more on the preceding events in Parker County than what most other outlets have included in their stories.

UPDATE XIV (4/30/2012, 3:42pm ET): Armendariz’s replacement will be Sam Coleman, who served as EPA’s point man in New Orleans during the response to Hurricane Katrina. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, meanwhile, issued the following statement: “I respect the difficult decision he made and his wish to avoid distracting from the important work of the agency. We are all grateful for Dr. Armendariz’s service to EPA and to our nation.”

UPDATE XIII (4/30/2012, 12:04pm ET): The Dallas Morning News reports that Al Armendariz has resigned, and has posted his letter of resignation (which is also below):

Dear Friends,
I have been honored to serve as your regional administrator for EPA’s region 6 office the last 2 and 1/2 years. I never once forgot that the reason I was appointed was to serve you, to act as your voice, and to work day and night to better protect the environment and your safety.

Today I am resigning my position as regional administrator. This was not something that was asked of me by Administrator Jackson or the White House. It is a decision I made myself. I had become too much of a distraction, and no one person is more important than the incredible work being done by the rest of the team at EPA.

I leave with an incredible sense of pride for the things the Agency accomplished and it was fantastic to be a part of the effort. Administrator Jackson has overseen a renaissance in the Agency and it is again the global leader in environmental protection. President Obama has been incredibly supportive of me and my work and the Agency. He’ll undoubtedly go down as the most environmental president we have ever had.

Thank you all for letting me into your homes and communities, and showing me the challenges you face every day from pollution and lack of infrastructure. Your stories are now part of my fabric and the fabric of the Agency.

Best always,
Al Armendariz

UPDATE XII (4/27/2012, 3:50pm ET): EPA Region 6 covers five states — Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico — and now more than half of the U.S. Representatives from those states are calling for Armendariz to “be relieved of his position” as administrator. In a letter signed by 29 of the 42 U.S. Representatives from Region 6, as well as by Iowa Rep. Steve King and Arizona Rep. Trent Franks, the members of Congress also state: “We are deeply disappointed in not only the statements of Mr. Armendariz, but also the abrasive, hostile posture that his office has struck during his tenure.”

UPDATE XI (4/27/2012, 12:12pm ET): EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has now weighed in, calling Armendariz’s comments “inflammatory,” “disappointing,” and “not representative” of the Agency. She also declined to say whether any disciplinary actions would be taken, noting only that she and the EPA “will continue to review” the situation.

This once again begs an important question, though: Armendariz described his comments as “my philosophy of enforcement,” so if those comments are “not representative” of the EPA, then how does the Agency continue to reconcile two diametrically opposed views by allowing Armendariz to remain as Region 6 administrator?

UPDATE X (4/27/2012, 9:39am ET): The case of the missing video just got a little more interesting. Apparently the video was originally uploaded by a gentleman named David McFatridge, who posted the video to a YouTube page called “Citizen Media for We The People.” But McFatridge cited a copyright infringement, so the website yanked the video. It’s little wonder why McFatridge wanted the video pulled down, though: he’s apparently a member of the Sierra Club Activist Network. And when it comes to opposing oil and gas development, the Sierra Club is one of the largest and most active organizations, so it wouldn’t want to have its fingerprints on this at all. Too late? (h/t Lachlan Markay)

UPDATE IX (4/27/2012, 8:33am ET): Some pretty big developments overnight, starting with former Obama White House economic adviser Jared Bernstein calling Armendariz’s comments “absolutely reprehensible” on CNBC (his comments begin around the eight minute mark). Later in the segment Bernstein even brags, “I used to work for President Obama.”

Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) has also joined the growing chorus (subs. req’d) calling for Armendariz to resign.

And in another interesting twist, YouTube has taken down the video of Armendariz making his inflammatory comments, citing a copyright issue. More to come on that development, for sure.

UPDATE VIII (4/26/2012; 9:18pm ET): Four more U.S. Representatives are now calling for Armendariz’s resignation: GOP Congressmen Steve Scalise, Rodney Alexander, and Charles Boustany (all from Louisiana), as well as Rep. Pete Olson from Texas. That brings the running total to seven total members of the U.S. Congress calling publicly for Armendariz to step down or even be fired.

UPDATE VII (4/26/2012; 9:04pm ET): Add U.S. Rep. Ted Poe to the list of members of Congress calling for the resignation of Al Armendariz. The Texas Republican took to the House floor to condemn the Region VI administrator this evening by saying, in part: “He needs to be replaced with someone that cares more about the environment than personal crusades against industry.” Both the Wall Street Journal and Investor’s Business Daily have also called for Armendariz to step down.

UPDATE VI (4/26/2012; 4:42pm ET): “Unacceptable and embarrassing.” That’s the way the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is characterizing Mr. Armendariz’s remarks in a joint statement issued just now by TCEQ chairman Bryan Shaw, Ph.D, and commissioners Carlos Rubinstein and Toby Baker.

Their statement in full:  “The EPA’s ‘crucifixion’ philosophy and agenda is unacceptable and embarrassing. The EPA Region 6 director’s outlandish comments significantly cheapen the role of the state and federal regulators who strive to ensure that sound environmental rules and policies are promulgated and enforced. Furthermore, such a philosophy flies in the face of the sound science, the law, and common sense that TCEQ regularly utilizes in pursuing legitimate enforcement actions where violations do in fact exist.

“We believe the way to protect human health and the environment is through vigorous enforcement, utilizing the state’s administrative procedures that are afforded to the public and the regulated community.”

UPDATE V (4/26/2012; 4:14pm ET): Simon Rosenberg, former staffer to President Clinton and Michael Dukakis and now the president of the New Democratic Network, a leading progressive think tank in D.C., told FOX News this afternoon that Al Armendariz needs to go. According to Rosenberg: “First of all, I think this EPA official should be fired, immediately. He’s clearly not fit to be serving the country, talking the way that he is.” Clip is available here – Rosenberg’s comments come in at minute 3.

UPDATE IV (4/26/2012, 3:33pm ET): At least two members of Congress, Reps. John Fleming and Jeff Landry (both from Louisiana), are publicly calling for Armendariz to resign or be fired. This follows in the wake of comments last month from Texas Railroad Commissioner David Porter, who cited Armendariz’s use of “fear mongering, gross negligence and severe mishandling” of the Parker County case as a reason for him to be removed from his position as Region VI Administrator. We’ll be monitoring the news to see if any additional members of Congress or other officials make similar requests, so stay tuned.

UPDATE III (4/26/2012, 2:20pm ET): Ed Henry, previously with CNN but now the White House correspondent for FOX News, just asked Jay Carney, the President’s press secretary, if the administration had a response to Armendariz’s inflammatory remarks.

Henry, citing President Obama’s promise to foster and promote a “new tone” among members of his administration, posed the following question to Carney: “If somebody’s saying we should crucify the industry, why is that person still working at the EPA as a political appointee?” Carney responded: “He apologized, and what he said is clearly not representative of either this president’s belief in the way that we should approach these matters, or in the way that he has approached these matters, either from this office here in the White House or at the EPA.”

Carney’s response still begs the question, though: If what Armendariz described as “my philosophy of enforcement” is, in fact, “not representative” of what the president (who appointed him, and whom he represents) believes, then how does the White House reconcile the fact that Armendariz is still representing the administration as its EPA Region VI administrator?

UPDATE II (4/26/2012, 9:51am ET): U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who is demanding an investigation into Armendariz’s comments, is not buying the Region VI Administrator’s apology. “His apology was meaningless,” Inhofe said. “You’re going to treat people like the Romans crucified the church? Get real.” The Senator also noted, as EID did below, that Armendariz has never apologized for grabbing headlines by (wrongly) accusing oil and gas companies like Range Resources of harming the environment, only to withdraw those complaints once the EPA realizes its accusations are, in fact, completely unfounded. Such actions certainly appear to reinforce the strategy Armendariz articulated in the video.

UPDATE (4/26/2012, 8:48am ET): Armendariz has issued a statement apologizing for the comments he made in the video. However, Cynthia Giles, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, didn’t exactly deny the philosophy Armendariz articulated, noting in a statement: “Strong, fair and effective enforcement of the environmental laws passed by Congress is critical to protecting public health and ensuring that all companies, regardless of industry, are playing by the same rules” (full statement can be found here). Armendariz still has not apologized for his emails to activists urging them to “Tivo channel 8″ prior to his office issuing what turned out to be a scientifically baseless charge against Range Resources in 2010.

—Original post from April 25, 2012—

EID has followed closely the actions of EPA’s Region 6 office in Dallas, and specifically its decision to issue an endangerment order against Range Resources back in 2010 despite clear scientific evidence in contradiction of its charges (embarrassingly for the agency, EPA had to withdraw that order earlier this year). This includes pointing out how the Administrator for that office, Al Armendariz, gleefully emailed activists in the area (prior to the official announcement) that EPA was “about to make a lot of news” and that it was “time to Tivo channel 8.”

That news, of course, was that EPA “determined” Range Resources had contaminated drinking water in Parker County, Texas. Local anti-shale activist Sharon Wilson cheerfully responded, “Hats off to the new Sheriff and his deputies!”

But as it turns out, the story behind Mr. Armendariz’s actions is much deeper, and indeed much more troubling.

According to a recently released video, Armendariz – who also appeared in Josh Fox’s infamous film Gasland – told an audience during a city council meeting in DISH, TX, that his philosophy of enforcement as an official public servant was, to put it nicely, less than objective.

Here’s a breakdown of what Armendariz said in May 2010, a few months before Region VI issued its endangerment order against Range Resources:

“But as I said, oil and gas is an enforcement priority, it’s one of seven, so we are going to spend a fair amount of time looking at oil and gas production.”

Nothing too inflammatory there, really…other than the fact that an EPA administrator — tasked as a public servant to operate objectively in his capacity as a regulator — was essentially putting a bulls-eye on a particular industry. But the next part of what Armendariz said is where things got really interesting. And shocking:

“I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said. It was kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. 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.”

Armendariz went on to explain more about how this works with the oil and gas industry specifically, stating “you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out of them” and that one should “go aggressively after them.” Of course, Armendariz knew that taking such an aggressive course would also sock it to the industry financially, adding: “Compliance can get very high, very, very quickly.”

Strangely enough, Armendariz had initially described this as his own philosophy, but after he finished explaining how to “make examples” out of hardworking oil and gas workers, he said “that’s our general philosophy.”

One U.S. Senator has already sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson asking (among other things) if Armendariz’s statements about sacking Turkish villages are, in fact, reflective of EPA’s “general philosophy” when it comes to regulation and enforcement.

So, not only was Armendariz working closely with ideological opponents of oil and gas development before issuing a scientifically-baseless endangerment order against a particular oil and gas company, he was also operating under a broader philosophy that sees the industry as villagers who can and indeed ought to be crucified, for the sole purpose of making an example out of them.

But the story, tragically, doesn’t end there.

One of Armendariz’s original claims to fame — or infamy, perhaps — was his paper in 2009, which found that “the oil and gas sector likely has greater emissions than motor vehicles” in the five counties comprising the Dallas-Fort Worth region (“emissions,” in this case, referred to nitrogen oxides [NOx] and volatile organic compounds [VOCs]). That paper, written while Armendariz was a professor at Southern Methodist University, was widely celebrated by activists, who — possibly as a “thank you” to the professor — actively pushed for Armendariz to be appointed Administrator of EPA’s Region VI office. Upon assuming office, groups like the Sierra Club celebrated, calling it “great news” because the industry was “having an ‘oh sh–’ moment” about the appointment. Other shale opponents, including area resident Sharon Wilson, appeared happily in pictures with Armendariz.

To this day, opposition groups still cite the talking point that oil and gas production generates more emissions than all the cars and trucks in the DFW region, a claim that ultimately gets traced back to Armendariz’s paper.

But as it turns out, Armendariz’s original claim to fame — that snazzy talking point about cars and trucks — is just as dubious as the headline-grabbing endangerment order his office issued against Range Resources.

According to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Armendariz’s conclusion that oil and gas operations emit more smog-forming emissions than mobile sources is simply not true. In 2009, TCEQ wrote that Armendariz’s paper provided “an incomplete picture” of emissions in the area, adding that several critical flaws contributed to “misleading conclusions” in the paper. In addition, the Barnett Shale Energy Education Council (BSEEC) took a hard look at the Armendariz paper and dismantled its underlying premises, noting along the way that Armendariz’s conclusions were based on “an inaccurate and flawed interpretation of the facts.”

Furthermore, TCEQ recently responded to an inquiry about regional emissions levels (the full response was obtained by EID and can be found here), which included an updated assessment of sources of emissions in the DFW area. TCEQ pointed out that VOC emissions from oil and gas production are less than half those from mobile sources (63 tons per day [tpd] vs 129 tpd). For NOx, TCEQ states that mobile source emissions “are approximately 15 times higher” than those generated from oil and gas production.

Sure, TCEQ’s latest findings are much more current than what Armendariz published back in 2009. One would expect (and, frankly, hope) that technological developments over time would facilitate more accurate readings.

But it’s also difficult to lend much credence to the argument that Armendariz’s findings were simply due to a methodological or technological difference, especially in light of the fact that his two most significant actions in attempting to “crucify” and “make examples” of the oil and gas industry have been rendered completely and unequivocally bogus by actual scientific inquiry.

The question is, with Al Armendariz’s troubling and offensive “philosophy of enforcement” no longer a secret kept by activists, but rather a part of the public record, does the Region VI office — and indeed the entire EPA — have any credibility as long as he remains in his current position?

*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.

Another Reality Check for Food & Water Watch
According to a new Food & Water Watch report, hydraulic fracturing is a “false solution” that will not have a material impact on U.S. energy security. The entire report, from the title to the footnotes and everything in between, is essentially a compilation of statements that are contradicted by the facts, credible experts, publicly available data, and even good old common sense. And although F&WW was able to secure some headlines upon releasing this booklet of debunked talking points, the public, as always, is much more interested in the truth – and deserves it, too.

Steve
Spokesman

 

According to a new Food & Water Watch report, hydraulic fracturing is a “false solution” that will not have a material impact on U.S. energy security. The entire report, from the title to the footnotes and everything in between, is essentially a compilation of statements that are contradicted by the facts, credible experts, publicly available data, and even good old common sense. And although F&WW was able to secure some headlines upon releasing this booklet of debunked talking points, the public, as always, is much more interested in the truth – and deserves it, too.

Of course, it’s worth noting that none of this is surprising. Food & Water Watch is one of the most active and vocal groups opposing not just hydraulic fracturing, and there is no amount of hyperbole or duplicity that exceeds their standards of activism. For example, the group accuses the industry of living in a “fantasy world” where hydraulic fracturing does not contaminate groundwater – even though the U.S. EPA, state regulators from across the country, and experts at MIT and Stanford (among many others) have all affirmed that, in fact, hydraulic fracturing does not contaminate groundwater. But why let such details get in the way of a perfectly good fundraising appeal?

Food & Water Watch also changes its message on hydraulic fracturing depending on the audience involved. A petition from the organization calls for a moratorium “until it is proven safe for our environment and the public’s health.” That’s quite a bit different from the group’s website, which says hydraulic fracturing is “inherently unsafe” and cannot be made safe by any amount of regulation. Once again, the organization is simply looking for more members (and their donations, naturally), so the broader net they can cast – even at the expense of their own credibility – the better.

As to the report that F&WW just released, the organization reveals its true intent on the first page of the executive summary with the following passage:

“Hinging U.S. energy policy on fracking, and thus betting America’s future on the supposed abundance of oil and natural gas, would simply perpetuate America’s destructive dependence on the oil and gas industry. The only security that would be enjoyed is the security of the industry’s profits.” (p. 2)

In other words, the authors set the tone of the entire document by beginning with blatant demagoguery, even though they clearly hoped it would be received as a serious report.

Without further ado, let’s examine some of the specific inaccuracies, falsehoods, and misrepresentations that one would expect to populate a report issued by Food & Water Watch, and predictably appeared in its latest attempt to feign credibility.

–

F&WW: “The United States can and will achieve a transition off of fossil fuels through conservation and through the deployment of proven energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies. The question is whether this transition will take place before or after the fossil fuel industry lays waste to the water we drink, the air we breathe, the communities we love and the climate on which we all depend.” (p. 3)

REALITY: Since the report has a stated mission of undermining the benefits of hydraulic fracturing, it’s reasonable to assume that the claims made here are also references to impacts supposedly due to hydraulic fracturing. Let’s examine each one individually.

“…lays waste to the water we drink…”

  • Lisa Jackson, current EPA administrator: “In no case have we made a definitive determination that [hydraulic fracturing] has caused chemicals to enter groundwater.” (April 2012)
    • Jackson: “I’m not aware of any proven case where [hydraulic fracturing] itself has affected water.” (May 2011)
  • U.S. EPA: “EPA did not find confirmed evidence that drinking water wells have been contaminated by hydraulic fracturing fluid injection…” (2004)
  • Carol Browner, former EPA administrator: “There is no evidence that the hydraulic fracturing at issue has resulted in any contamination or endangerment of underground sources of drinking water.” (May 1995)
  • 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)
  • Center for Rural Pennsylvania: “[S]tatistical analyses of post-drilling versus pre-drilling water chemistry did not suggest major influences from gas well drilling or hydrofracturing (fracking) on nearby water wells…” (Oct. 2011)
  • 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.” (Oct. 2011)

“…the air we breathe, the communities we love…”

  • Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection: “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.” (Jan. 2011)
    • Pa. DEP: “Results of the limited ambient air sampling initiative conducted in the southwest region did not identify concentrations of any compound that would likely trigger air-related health issues associated with Marcellus Shale drilling activities.” (Nov. 2010)
  • Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: “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.” (Aug. 2010)
  • Sue Mickley, M.P.H., and Uni Blake, M.S., Toxicology: “Health records indicate that while production increased, fewer residents were diagnosed with serious illnesses such as cancer, respiratory disease, strokes, and heart disease.” (Oct. 2011)
  • Associated Press: Critics of fracking often raise alarms about groundwater pollution, air pollution, and cancer risks, and there are still many uncertainties. But some of the claims have little — or nothing— to back them. For example, reports that breast cancer rates rose in a region with heavy gas drilling are false, researchers told The Associated Press. Fears that natural radioactivity in drilling waste could contaminate drinking water aren’t being confirmed by monitoring, either. And concerns about air pollution from the industry often don’t acknowledge that natural gas is a far cleaner burning fuel than coal. (July 2012)

**Be sure also to check out what the Bureau of Labor Statistics says about relatively low health risks from oil and natural gas development.

“…and the climate on which we all depend.”

  • Fatih Birol, International Energy Agency: “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.” (June 2012)
  • Fred Krupp, President of Environmental Defense Fund: “Natural gas burns cleaner than coal, emits less in the way of greenhouse gases, and avoids mercury and other pollutants from coal… We need to find a way to take advantage of this historic opportunity to cut back on burning coal, which is the worst energy option.” (Nov. 2011)
  • President Barack Obama: “The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy.” (Jan. 2012)
    • President Obama: “By 2035, 80 percent of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources. Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all– and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.” (Jan. 2011)
  • Heather Zichal, White House energy and climate adviser: “The president has made clear that he believes this important, abundant domestic resource [natural gas] holds unique promise to fuel our energy sector, fuel our vehicles, as well as fuel job growth — all while reducing harmful emissions.” (May 2012)
  • Associated Press: “In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.” (Aug. 2012)
  • Reuters (referencing U.N. energy expert): “Natural gas, including non-traditional shale gas, should play a major role in cutting greenhouse gases, protecting forests and improving the health and living standards of the world’s poor, the co-head of a U.N. sustainable energy program said on Monday. Without it, the U.N.’s Sustainable Energy for All Initiative will have difficulty meeting goals of ensuring universal energy access, doubling the world’s share of renewable energy and doubling the rate of improvement in energy efficiency by 2030, Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of the initiative, told Reuters.” (June 2012)

F&WW: “As for global climate change, the growing scientific consensus is that natural gas is a false solution.” (p. 3)

REALITY: Fittingly, F&WW’s definition of a “growing scientific consensus” – according to the footnote associated with this claim – is two reports from the widely discredited Prof. Robert Howarth of Cornell University. A known commodity at “anti-fracking” rallies, Howarth’s arguments about natural gas from shale being worse than coal have been debunked by the U.S. Department of Energy, his own colleagues at Cornell, and even by a study that was paid for in part by the Sierra Club. Consider:

  • John Hanger, former Secretary of Pennsylvania DEP: “Professor Horwath’s conclusion that gas emits more heat trapping gas than carbon flies in the face of numerous life cycle studies done around the world.” (April 2011)
  • U.S. Department of Energy: “Average natural gas baseload power generation has life cycle GHG emissions 53% lower than average coal baseload power generation.” (Jan. 2012)
  • University of Maryland: “GHG impacts of shale gas are…only 56% that of coal. … [A]rguments that shale gas is more polluting than coal are largely unjustified.” (Dec. 2011)
  • Carnegie Mellon University: “For comparison purposes, Marcellus shale gas adds only 3% more emissions to the average conventional gas, which is likely within the uncertainty bounds of the study. Marcellus shale gas has lower GHG emissions relative to coal when used to generate electricity.” (Aug. 2011)
  • Cornell Prof. Lawrence Cathles: “[I]n their recent publication in Climatic Change Letters, Howarth et al. (2011) report that their life-cycle evaluation of shale gas drilling suggests that shale gas has a larger GHG footprint than coal and that this larger footprint ‘undercuts the logic of its use as a bridging fuel over the coming decades’. We argue here that their analysis is seriously flawed in that they significantly overestimate the fugitive emissions associated with unconventional gas extraction, undervalue the contribution of “green technologies” to reducing those emissions to a level approaching that of conventional gas, base their comparison between gas and coal on heat rather than electricity generation (almost the sole use of coal), and assume a time interval over which to compute the relative climate impact of gas compared to coal that does not capture the contrast between the long residence time of CO2 and the short residence time of methane in the atmosphere.” (Oct. 2011)

F&WW also cites the Pétron study from earlier this year, which focused on an operating environment in Colorado that doesn’t even exist anymore, but was nonetheless extrapolated to be somehow relevant to a discussion about the technologies and regulations in place today. Michael Levi, a climate change expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, even has a peer-reviewed paper that explains why that study’s findings are “unsupportable,” mostly because they hinge upon a methane leakage rate that doesn’t mesh with reality (inflated leakage rates are also at the core of Prof. Howarth’s conclusions, so it should not be surprising that experts have debunked both studies).

It is little wonder, then, why Food & Water Watch buried these details in a footnote instead of mentioning them by name in the body of the report: No one with any scientific credentials, outside of a handful of folks who are ideologically committed to shutting down oil and natural gas development, takes them seriously.

F&WW: “The uncertainty surrounding EUR calculations lies at the root of a June 2011 investigation by the New York Times, which was full of revelations, including, ‘An internal Energy Information Administration document says companies have exaggerated “the appearance of shale gas well profitability,” are highlighting the performance of only their best wells and may be using overly optimistic models for projecting the wells’ productivity over the next several decades.’” (p. 11)

REALITY: Those who follow the news would be surprised to see that Food & Water Watch, attempting to undermine the facts about America’s abundant natural gas supplies, is relying on a New York Times story that was criticized by none other than the New York Times’ own public editor. Why? Because the EIA information cited in that report – and used as evidence here by Food & Water Watch – was sourced to an intern at that agency. The Times inflated the importance of the “report” by keeping that information hidden from its readers. In response, here’s what that newspaper’s then-public editor, Arthur Brisbane, said about the story and its deceptive use of an intern as a source:

The “intern” was C. Hobson Bryan, a 2009 college physics-engineering graduate who E.I.A. said was hired as an intern in summer 2009 and upgraded to general engineer in March 2011. One of his e-mails was attributed to “one official” who said the shale industry may be “set up for failure.” Later, he was an “energy analyst” wondering, “Am I just totally crazy, or does it seem like everyone and their mothers are endorsing shale gas without getting a really good understanding of the economics at the business level?” Next he was “one federal analyst” who said, “It seems that science is pointing in one direction and industry PR is pointing in another.”

At the time of the first two e-mails, Mr. Bryan was a general engineer; at the time of the third, he was an intern. The document viewer included three other e-mails dating to his internship period in which Mr. Bryan was referred to as an “official.”

Can an intern be an “official”? It doesn’t sound right to me.

If F&WW had a leg to stand on in its claim that we only possess half the natural gas supplies that experts from across the board have determined we have, it wouldn’t need to deceive the public with a debunked New York Times story to support its thesis.

F&WW: “Such exports [of liquefied natural gas, or LNG] clearly belie the industry’s patriotic rhetoric on U.S. energy security and energy independence, revealing profit as the true motive.” (p. 12)

REALITY: If Food & Water Watch had approached this issue with a sober attention to detail – and if they weren’t so blindly committed to a narrative about “profits” and ulterior motives – they would have realized that shifting from being a net energy importer to a net energy exporter means a country has more control over its economy and its energy future. One might even say that it would make that country (gasp!) more secure.

And here’s some evidence to support that:

  • Brookings Institution: “As U.S. foreign policy undergoes a ‘pivot to Asia,’ the ability of the U.S. to provide a degree of increased energy security and pricing relief to LNG importers in the region will be an important economic and strategic asset. … The potential benefits of U.S. LNG exports relate to trade, macroeconomics, and geopolitics.” (May 2012)
  • International Energy Agency: The [2012 World Energy Outlook] finds that the extraordinary growth in oil and natural gas output in the United States will mean a sea-change in global energy flows. In the New Policies Scenario, the WEO’s central scenario, the United States becomes a net exporter of natural gas by 2020 and is almost self-sufficient in energy, in net terms, by 2035. North America emerges as a net oil exporter, accelerating the switch in direction of international oil trade, with almost 90% of Middle Eastern oil exports being drawn to Asia by 2035. (Nov. 2012)
  • Steven Chu, Nobel Laureate and Secretary of Energy: “Exporting natural gas means wealth comes into the United States.” (Feb. 2012)
  • Michael Levi, CFR: “Gas exports could help narrow the U.S. current account deficit, shake up geopolitics, and give the United States new leverage in trade negotiations.” (June 2012)
  • Baker Institute, Rice University: “The United States should focus squarely on setting the policies needed to ensure that shale gas can play a significant role in the U.S. and global energy mix, thereby contributing to greater diversification of global energy supplies and to the long-term national interests of the United States.” (July 2011)

F&WW: “If allowed to write its own policies, the oil and gas industry will simply extract as much as possible, as fast as possible, for maximum profit, while fighting to prolong America’s destructive dependence on fossil fuels. Then, once U.S. natural gas is gone, the global oil and gas industry will likely be well positioned to import foreign sources of fracked natural gas to feed this dependence; Royal Dutch Shell and ExxonMobil, in particular, are invested in building a global natural gas supply chain. Their strategic plans for such a global supply chain serve as an illustration of how Big Oil sees an opportunity, not a threat, in using natural gas in addition to oil to fuel transportation.” (p. 14)

REALITY: The term “tin foil hat” comes to mind here, because the situation Food & Water Watch envisions here is nothing short of conspiratorial. According to F&WW, oil and gas companies are going to deplete domestic resources deliberately, all so they can force America to buy more imported energy to feed a “dependence” that the industry created. And all of this, according to F&WW, is being clandestinely planned as a way to boost profits.

Interestingly, the situation they envision would actually be less profitable. If a company has a market for its product, where does it stand to reason that the company would prefer to have the product made: close to the market, or farther away? The answer to anyone with even a basic understanding of economics is clearly the former, as that would reduce operational costs.

And what is F&WW’s only evidence to support its thesis? Energy companies with operations around the globe are thinking of energy … on a global scale. Food & Water Watch wants us to think of this as equivalent to Freemasonry or the Illuminati, even though all they have done is repackage a well understood economic situation in the most nefarious light possible, hoping the general public is ignorant of even basic facts.

F&WW: “The popular claim of a 100-year supply of natural gas is based on the oil and gas industry’s dream of unrestricted access to drill and frack, and it presumes that highly uncertain resource estimates prove accurate.” (p. 17)

REALITY: Food & Water Watch actually lays out a longer (not to be confused with “more credible”) version of this argument earlier in the report. The goal is to undermine the use of “technically recoverable resources” as a meaningful measure of available oil and natural gas. As repeated here, F&WW believes these are “highly uncertain” numbers, and, as such, should be treated with a high degree of skepticism.

What does Food & Water Watch leave out, though? History.

–In 1980, the United States was said to have approximately 30 billion barrels of oil in “proved reserves.” But over the next three decades, the United States produced nearly 80 billion barrels – more than two and a half times what experts had predicted we even had available.

–In the three most recent years for which data is available, EIA’s estimates of U.S. proved reserves of oil rose by more than 21 percent, thanks in large part to expanded development of “tight” formations such as the Bakken (North Dakota, Montana) and Eagle Ford (Texas).

–In 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that the Bakken formation in North Dakota contained 151 million barrels of oil. In 2008, thanks to improvements in technology, the USGS had to upwardly revise its estimate to between three and 4.3 billion barrels of oil – an amazing 25 times more than they had estimated just 13 years earlier.

–In 2002, USGS estimated the Marcellus shale contained two trillion cubic feet (tcf) of natural gas. But in 2011, USGS upwardly revised that estimate by 4,100 percent to 84 trillion cubic feet, as the industry had since proved it could affordably and efficiently develop natural gas from shale.

–In 2000, the EIA estimated the United States had 177 tcf of natural gas in proved reserves. Yet by 2010, that number had increased to more than 304 tcf – an increase of more than 70 percent. Also worth noting: over that same period, the United States produced more than 270 tcf of natural gas, or 100 tcf more than the EIA predicted we even had available in proved reserves in 2000.

How was all of this possible? Because “technically recoverable resources” were recovered in large numbers, thanks primarily to technological innovation, which in turn helped reduce costs (and environmental impacts). And in some cases, production over time exceeded even what was considered recoverable. But to hear it from Food & Water Watch, these facts mean nothing, because “technically recoverable” has uncertainties tied to it.

All estimates have uncertainties tied to them; that’s why they’re called estimates. But it’s also important – if not more important – to remember that history has shown time and again that “proved reserves” dramatically underestimate how much energy we can develop. So when Food & Water Watch conflates “uncertainty” with “unreliable,” it’s either an attempt to sweep the facts under the rug, or a reflection of a fundamental misunderstanding of the industry they’re trying to malign.

–

They say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. After the release of this latest report, which rehashes the same tired arguments that opponents have been making for years, it seems the researchers at Food & Water Watch should conduct an introspective review of that statement.

*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.

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.

Texas Monthly Could Sure Use an Ombudsman
Nate Blakeslee at Texas Monthly has decided to take the Ian Urbina route to reporting about hydraulic fracturing: just keep throwing stuff up on the wall and see what sticks. That’s too bad. Ian Urbina, of course, is the New York Times reporter who, throughout 2010 and 2011, filed a series of inflammatory, Gasland-style pieces that took about 30 minutes to fully debunk. His reports were so poorly sourced and inaccurate that the public editor for the Times felt it necessary to file not one but two separate pieces of his own apologizing to the Times’ readership for Mr. Urbina’s serial misreporting...

David
Field Director, Texas

 

Nate Blakeslee at Texas Monthly has decided to take the Ian Urbina route to reporting about hydraulic fracturing: just keep throwing stuff on the wall and see what sticks. That’s too bad.

Ian Urbina, of course, is the New York Times reporter who, throughout 2010 and 2011, filed a series of inflammatory, Gasland-style pieces that took about 30 seconds to fully debunk. His reports were so poorly sourced and inaccurate that the public editor for the Times felt it necessary to file not one but two separate pieces of his own apologizing to the Times’ readership for Mr. Urbina’s serial misreporting.

Such embarrassment must have had an effect on the Times’ editorial staff, since it’s been quite awhile since we have heard from Mr. Urbina on the subject of shale gas or hydraulic fracturing.

Filling the void appears to be Mr. Blakeslee, who filed an “Urbina-style report” in the October issue of Texas Monthly, making many of the same half-true claims upon which The Times was fond of expounding. For instance: the claim that hydraulic fracturing benefits from some sort of loophole in the  Safe Drinking Water Act (not true). And like the claim that hydraulic fracturing has been proven to contaminate drinking water (not true), in which he relies on a single disputed case in West Virginia that occurred in 1982. On this,  Mr. Blakeslee hangs his hat on an inconclusive event that took place three full decades ago, in another state, under a completely different regulatory regime than we have here in Texas.

When my colleague Steve Everley responded to the Texas Monthly piece with a letter pointing out the facts about hydraulic fracturing, the publication did print it – albeit an edited version. But for some reason, the publication also gave Mr. Blakeslee a second opportunity to repeat his debunked claims.

To be sure, no one is afraid of or opposed to healthy debate, and we’re pleased that Texas Monthly posted the response. But it’s interesting that a magazine would publish the functional equivalent of a letter to the editor, then give the author of the offending article more space than was allowed for the letter itself to respond to it.

Fact is, hydraulic fracturing has never been regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act since its passage in 1974 — for the simple fact that scientists and policymakers in seven different administrations spanning both parties and 38 years have determined the process does not present a threat to ground water. Mr. Blakeslee, however, chose to insinuate that the 2005 Congress did something nefarious, picking up on a tack that’s popular among anti-shale bloggers, but isn’t considered credible by most responsible journalists.

As for the West Virginia case, EID has actually done a little work on that one. Here are the facts:

Now, there is a reason why EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has repeatedly and unambiguously gone on the record dismissing the accusations of the other side: she understands that a 30 year-old incident in which no real determination of any kind was made is not the sort of thing a credible person would hang his or her hat on.

Texas Monthly wants Texans to believe otherwise, advancing the same discredited talking points that we were forced to endure from The New York Times last year. But hey, at least The Times had an ombudsman on hand over there to set the record straight when it was needed. If there’s one of those on staff over at the Texas Monthly, now might be a good time to dust him off and hear what he has to say.

*UPDATE* Enormous Differences between USGS and EPA on Pavillion
To rational observers, it’s been clear for months that the EPA blundered in Pavillion, Wyoming, and blundered badly. But if you needed more evidence of the EPA’s missteps, and the agency’s desperation to save face, it came last week from an unexpected source: the federal government itself.

Simon
Research Director

 

UPDATE (10/16/2013; 12:38 p.m. ET) – The EPA was back in damage-control mode last week after a public hearing on the Pavillion case brought to light some truly embarrassing mistakes by the agency. Going into the Oct. 10 meeting in Riverton, Wyoming, it was already known that the EPA had ignored expert advice and technical standards from other federal agencies – the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Land Management – and the State of Wyoming. But during last week’s meeting of the Pavillion Working Group, it was revealed EPA officials had also breached the agency’s own rules for drilling groundwater monitoring wells.

How do we know this? In part, because officials with the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality actually took a video camera and lowered it into one of the EPA’s monitoring wells to see what’s been going on.

According to the findings of DEQ’s “down-hole camera” investigation, the EPA falsely claimed to have used stainless steel casing for one of the two monitoring wells, MW02, when it released its December 2011 draft Pavillion report. In fact, the casing was made of carbon steel. Why is this a problem for a monitoring well that was built to detect the presence of chemicals in groundwater? Let’s consult the EPA’s “Handbook of Suggested Practices for the Design and Installation of Ground-Water Monitoring Wells”:

“The presence of corrosion products represents a high potential for the alteration of ground-water sample chemical quality. The surfaces on which corrosion occurs also present potential sites for a variety of chemical reactions and adsorption. These surface interactions can cause significant changes in dissolved metal or organic compounds in ground water samples …

On the basis of these observations, the use of carbon steel, low-carbon steel and galvanized steel in monitoring well construction is not considered prudent in most natural geochemical environments. Conversely, stainless steel performs well in most corrosive environments, particularly under oxidizing conditions.” p. 79

So, were any “corrosion products” found inside MW02? Yes, according to the Wyoming DEQ’s findings:

“Mineral accumulation within the well indicates the well casing was not constructed of stainless steel as originally reported by EPA. This has been confirmed by EPA.” p. 20

From there, the EPA’s mistakes just keep piling up. The EPA said in December that MW02 was drilled to a depth of 980 feet, and below the bottom of the well were 17 feet of cuttings and leftover drilling mud. But DEQ’s investigation found the well is actually 989 feet deep. Why is that a problem? Because there’s a special screened section at the bottom of the well, where water samples are taken, and it now appears to be covered with drilling mud and cuttings. For water to seep into the bottom of the well, it must first move through the drilling mud and cuttings, and the water picks up some contaminants along the way. Once again, according to the EPA’s monitoring-well handbook:

“Monitoring well installation procedures can also have a significant impact on the integrity of ground-water samples. For example, Brobst and Buszka (1986) found that organic drilling fluids and bentonite drilling muds used in mud rotary drilling can have an effect on the chemical oxygen demand of ground water adjacent to the wellbore in a rotary-drilled well. This, in turn, can affect the quality of a water sample taken from such a well, resulting in the acquisition of non-representative ground-water samples.” p. 7

 “…drilling fluid tends to infiltrate permeable zones and tends to interact chemically with the formation fluids. This is why the mud must be removed during the development process. This chemical interaction can interfere with the specific function of a monitoring well and prevent collection of a sample that is representative of the in-situ ground-water quality.” p. 41

All the drilling mud and cuttings at the bottom of the well can lead to blockages in the screened section of the well, reducing the flow of water. In fact, when USGS officials went to Pavillion to check EPA’s work, they refused to take groundwater-quality samples from MW02 because of the low flow rate. This photo from DEQ’s down-hole camera investigation actually shows clogging of MW02’s screened section:

DEQ geologist Nicole Twing, who presented the findings of the down-hole camera investigation at last week’s hearing, explained the importance of MW02’s flow rate in an interview with EID:

“You have low flow rates that increase the time water is in contact with those drilling materials, and materials used in drilling mud can affect groundwater quality. You don’t know if it’s biasing the results up or down.”

So, in everyday terms, the water at the bottom of MW02 appears to be both stagnant and contaminated by the very materials that EPA used to build the monitoring well. That means any water samples taken from the well would not be representative of the water outside the well, which isn’t stagnant and hasn’t been contaminated by EPA’s drilling materials.

In case you’re curious what those materials might look like, DEQ also had cameras at the surface when some of that stuff was collected from the well:

But don’t think the problems discussed at last week’s hearing were limited to MW02. We’re told USGS officials caused their EPA counterparts some heartburn by pointing out the potential for contamination from drilling materials in MW01. It’s evident from this USGS graph, which shows pH levels falling as water was pumped out of MW01, allowing fresh groundwater to seep into the well and collect at the bottom:

The trend in this graph shows something that the EPA will have a tough time explaining when its draft Pavillion report finally goes into peer-review. It shows that the chemical properties of the fresh water outside MW01 are different than the chemical properties of the water collected inside MW01. Or, put another way, something about the monitoring well itself may be contaminating the fresh water as it seeps into the well.

So, when confronted with all this criticism about MW01 and MW02 – the agency’s only two monitoring wells in Pavillion – how did EPA respond? By releasing more test results from both wells, pushing back the peer review process by another three months, and repeating its claim that the EPA’s data is “generally consistent” with data from USGS.

Based on a preliminary examination of the latest EPA data, the EID team would like to close with a couple of observations about the “generally consistent” statement. First, when the EPA has a two-well monitoring program, and experts from the USGS refuse to take samples from one of those wells because it can’t produce a reliable sample, you are left with a one-well monitoring program.That’s not generally consistent. Second, when the EPA releases a new batch of test results, and finds chemicals that the USGS did not even detect – such as acetone, isopropanol, and formate – that’s not generally consistent, either.

But, when you think about it, attention to detail probably isn’t all that important to EPA officials who disregard their own guidelines for drilling monitoring wells when they go out and drill monitoring wells.

—Original post, October 3, 2012—

To rational observers, it’s been clear for months that the EPA blundered in Pavillion, Wyoming, and blundered badly. But if you needed more evidence of the EPA’s missteps, and the agency’s desperation to save face, it came last week from an unexpected source: the federal government itself.

To recap, the EPA issued a preliminary report in December which, according to the Associated Press, “theorized a link between a petroleum industry practice called hydraulic fracturing and groundwater pollution in a Wyoming gas field.”  That theory came under fire almost immediately, after the State of Wyoming, EID, and many others identified serious flaws in the data EPA used to support it. For example, EPA’s two groundwater monitoring wells were drilled too deep and into a natural hydrocarbon reservoir. There are also special procedures for drilling monitoring wells, but EPA didn’t follow them, which means the agency may have introduced foreign substances into the very groundwater it was trying to sample.

When confronted with these flaws, and others, the EPA agreed in March to suspend its investigation, retest the wells, and bring in the U.S. Geological Survey to conduct its own sampling. Under one condition:  that USGS could not provide any analysis of the data it collected. Instead, the role of USGS was limited to feeding raw data into the peer-review of EPA’s findings, which has not yet begun.

The USGS published that raw data Sept. 26. Almost immediately, an EPA spokeswoman e-mailed reporters to say the USGS report “is generally consistent with groundwater monitoring data previously released by the Environmental Protection Agency.” USGS couldn’t say much in reply, other than “USGS did not interpret the data.”

But for those willing to look closely enough at the USGS report, it’s hard to see how the EPA can claim the two reports are “generally consistent.” Actually, that statement is highly misleading, because there are glaring inconsistences between what the EPA and USGS found. So far, Energy In Depth has identified more than 50 individual measurements from the EPA’s draft Pavillion report that have been discredited by the USGS. Below, we pull just one of the tables from the draft report and highlight several of those inconsistencies, with the help of an Encana analysis and our own review of the USGS report:

Forty of the measurements, shaded red, were discredited by USGS because EPA’s second monitoring well, MW02, was built so poorly that USGS refused to take groundwater quality samples from it. You read that right: USGS flat refused. In eight cases, shaded orange, substances measured by the EPA were not detected by the USGS. And in six cases, shaded blue, the USGS found significantly lower levels than EPA detected. Generally consistent? Hardly.

But it turns out USGS isn’t the only federal agency to take EPA to task over Pavillion. According to E&E News (sub req’d):

The drilling of the well has also been criticized by another federal agency, the Bureau of Land Management. In a newly surfaced document, BLM State Director Don Simpson criticized EPA’s testing procedures in Pavillion as insufficient and called its findings “premature.”

The letter was sent in March in response to EPA’s draft Pavillion report, but wasn’t posted on the official docket until July, and only came to the attention of reporters in recent days.  Based on the following excerpts, the EID team is actually amazed this letter ever saw the light of day:

Bias in the samples obtained from these wells may exist. Possible causes include transfer of shallow contamination into deeper zones through the drilling process, or contamination of samples through the introduction of contamination during the drilling and well installation process…

In addition, the development of these monitor wells appears to be deficient for sampling purposes and groundwater samples from the wells should not be fully trusted until development activities indicate that the wells are yielding formation water untainted by any effects introduced by the drilling, well completion, and sampling process. …

Only through careful drilling, installation and development can reliable samples of groundwater be obtained…

…observations have shown that large amounts of gas have been found in the shallow subsurface at certain locations.

These observations are anticipated and should not be prematurely used as a line of evidence that supports EPA’s suggestion that gas has migrated into the shallow subsurface due to hydraulic fracturing or improper well completion until more data is collected and analyzed…

So, to recap: we now have two federal agencies – USGS and BLM – that have joined the State of Wyoming, Encana and others in challenging the validity of EPA’s testing in Pavillion. Put another way, there are more federal agencies criticizing the EPA’s draft report than defending it. But don’t worry: all that criticism is still “generally consistent” with the EPA’s theories about hydraulic fracturing in Pavillion, right?

*UPDATE* Fact-Checking Gov. Shumlin’s Signing Statement on HF
Last week, the state of Vermont made news by signing a ban on hydraulic fracturing into law -- on the basis that such a law was necessary to protect the state's clean water resources. Aside from the irony of the Governor's support for increased natural gas use, the facts clearly show that hydraulic fracturing poses no threat to ground water.

Steve
Spokesman

 

UPDATE (10/15/2012, 1:15pm): File this in the “irony” category. Last week NG Advantage broke ground for a new natural gas compressor station in Milton, Vermont, an event that attracted local news coverage due to the economic benefits it could soon deliver to the state. And guess who was present to celebrate the positive impact natural gas could have on the local economy? Yep, Gov. Peter Shumlin, the same official who earlier this year said he hopes other states will follow Vermont’s lead in banning hydraulic fracturing.

The obvious exit question: how does Governor Shumlin think the natural gas he was praising last week actually gets out of the ground?

—Original post, May 22, 2012—

Last week, the state of Vermont made news by becoming the first state to ban hydraulic fracturing, the proven well completion technology that’s been safely applied more than 1.2 million times since the 1940s. Of course, with no oil and gas regulatory system in place up there – and no state oil and gas act on the books — Vermont really wasn’t in much of a position to issue any exploration permits to any prospective producers anyway. But why let details like those get in the way of a great press release?

Vermont, of course, has little to no proven natural gas reserves, which of course makes the ban more of a political or symbolic statement than a prescription of sound policy. As The Oklahoman noted, banning hydraulic fracturing in Vermont is “like banning offshore drilling in Oklahoma.” Even the largest newspaper in Vermont acknowledged that the effort “will have little to no immediate effect here, as there is no drilling taking place, none proposed and no solid information that Vermont has the underground gas to draw interest in fracturing.”

Since there is little to no natural gas in Vermont, the state chooses to rely heavily on imported natural gas from western Canada — where, ironically, hydraulic fracturing has been used safely since the 1950s. How convenient, eh?

In signing the bill into law, Governor Shumlin issued this statement (emphasis added):

“As we pursue fracking with irrational exuberance injection chemicals into the groundwater of America, it seems we may have taken leave of our senses at times. There is going to be, very soon, in my kids’ and in the Twin Field students’ lives, a shortage of clean water on this planet. Drinking water will be more valuable than oil and natural gas. One can survive – human beings have survived for thousands and thousands of years without oil and without natural gas. We have never known humanity or life on this planet to survive without clean water. In the Green Mountain State we have a long tradition of protecting our natural resources and leaving this planet and this state hopefully better than the way we found it. You can look at the planet two ways. That we inherit it, and can do what we wish with it; or, that it is our responsibility to borrow it from our kids and our grandkids. In Vermont, we take the latter approach. We recognize that we’re borrowing Vermont from our kids and our grandkids. This bill will ensure that we do not inject chemicals into groundwater in a desperate pursuit for energy. It’s a big moment. I hope other states will follow us. The science on fracking is uncertain at best. Let the other states be the guinea pigs. Let the Green Mountain State preserve its clean water, its lakes, its rivers, and its quality of life. This is a job creator. This is a job creator. If we have the clean water, the clean lakes, the clean rivers, the Green Mountains that are preserved, we will win both economically and environmentally. And that’s what this bill is about.”

Clearly, Gov. Shumlin is interested in protecting the state’s clean water resources, an interest you’d expect any public servant would have. But Shumlin failed to articulate why that means his state needs to ban hydraulic fracturing. Consider the following facts:

It may be easy for Shumlin to claim that the science is “uncertain at best,” but that doesn’t make it true.

There is also a deeper irony in the Governor’s hardline stance against responsible natural gas development: His own administration is encouraging more natural gas use as part of his energy and environmental strategy.

In Vermont’s 2011 Comprehensive Energy Plan, the Governor laid out a series of steps that would move the state “toward a more sustainable and secure energy future for Vermont.” Here are a few key excerpts from that plan (emphasis added):

As for the ban on hydraulic fracturing being a “job creator” — something the Governor felt the need to state twice — the facts once again tell a completely different story. Oil and gas development was responsible for nearly one in every ten new jobs created in 2011 and is boosting local economies from coast to coast. President Obama has touted how natural gas development “will support more than 600,000 jobs” by the end of this decade, and shale in particular is helping to revive America’s vital manufacturing sector.

It’s anyone’s guess how banning the technology that facilitates all of that economic activity amounts to a “job creator” as the Governor claims.

Vermont’s new ban on hydraulic fracturing is nothing more than a symbolic rejection of the technology that helps deliver the affordable energy needed to keep Vermonters warm in the winter, the same energy that the Governor himself has extolled for its low cost and low carbon intensity.

Governor Shumlin says he hopes “other states will follow” Vermont’s decision to ban hydraulic fracturing. If his own energy plan is truly a reflection of what his administration believes, he better hope those other states aren’t listening.

The ‘Top Ten’ Mistakes Letterman Made on HF
This summer, David Letterman used his perch as a late night TV host to rant against hydraulic fracturing as some sort of environmental nightmare, reciting the same debunked talking points (water contamination, flaming faucets, etc.) that we hear from professional opponents of oil and gas development on a daily basis. So EID produced a "Top Ten" of its own.

Steve
Spokesman

 

This summer, David Letterman used his perch as a late night TV host to rant against hydraulic fracturing as some sort of environmental nightmare, reciting the same debunked talking points (water contamination, flaming faucets, etc.) that we hear from professional opponents of oil and gas development on a daily basis.

Most folks are smart enough to know that Mr. Letterman is neither a scientist nor a go-to expert on well completion technologies, something the “Late Night” host volunteered at the beginning of his soliloquy: According to Mr. Letterman himself, when it comes to hydraulic fracturing, “I’m not smart enough to understand it.” (you don’t say!)

Nonetheless, to quote The Dude, this aggression will not stand.

So in the spirit of David Letterman’s trademark “Top Ten” segments, EID has produced a top ten of its own: The Top Ten Mistakes David Letterman Made on Hydraulic Fracturing.

The video is embedded below, and it can also be viewed on YouTube.

*UPDATE* EID to Fox: How about Including Some Facts in Gasland 2?
Today, EID sent a letter to New York filmmaker Josh Fox with a humble request: include facts and context in the forthcoming Gasland 2. We believe that Mr. Fox, as a self-described "journalist," should welcome these recommendations, considering that journalism is a relentless pursuit of the truth and should not be a conduit for advancing an ideological agenda.

UPDATE (8/24/2012, 12:01pm ET): EID has sent a separate letter directly to HBO highlighting the problems with the original Gasland, as well as reinforcing the facts sent directly to Josh Fox. The letter highlights, among other things, the important distinction between the true spirit of a fact-based documentary and what Mr. Fox is actually trying to do.

The full text of the letter to HBO is below, and you can find the enclosures here and here.

–

August 24, 2012

 

Sheila Nevins
President, Documentary and Family Programming
Home Box Office, Inc.
1100 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY  10036

Dear Ms. Nevins,

Later this year, Mr. Josh Fox – director of the movie Gasland, which was broadcast on HBO – will be releasing a sequel, Gasland 2. Based on media reports and statements from Mr. Fox himself, the film will be shown on HBO and broadcast to millions of viewers.

As you are probably aware, Gasland created a great deal of controversy, due in large part to questionable assertions and claims contained in the movie. Shortly after the release of Gasland, Energy In Depth highlighted many of the inaccuracies and factual distortions in the film (see enclosure: “Debunking GasLand”).

We are concerned, given Mr. Fox’s repeating in public forums of the claims he made in Gasland (despite clear evidence showing them to be false), that the content of Gasland 2 will suffer from similar flaws. For that reason, Energy In Depth recently sent a letter to Mr. Fox recommending the inclusion in Gasland 2 of several important facts about hydraulic fracturing and the development of natural gas, many of which directly contradict the information he presented in the original film. A copy of that letter is attached (see enclosure: “Recommendations for Gasland 2”).

While HBO’s programming decisions are the exclusive right of HBO itself, we encourage you to examine the breadth of evidence – compiled by scientists, state and federal regulators, and independent experts – affirming that hydraulic fracturing is a safe and proven technology, and that the development of oil and natural gas from shale is a tightly-regulated and well-understood process.

For example: Mr. Fox’s central claim in Gasland was that hydraulic fracturing contaminates groundwater. But earlier this year, U.S. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson stated publicly: “In no case have we made a definitive determination that [hydraulic fracturing] has caused chemicals to enter groundwater.” In fact, the emblematic scene in Gasland – when a Colorado resident ignites his tap water – has been refuted directly by state regulators who concluded the methane was “not attributable” to oil and gas development (then-director of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Dave Neslin, offered to speak with Mr. Fox on camera during the filming of Gasland, but Mr. Fox declined). Colorado’s current governor, John Hickenlooper (D), said earlier this year: “We can’t find anywhere in Colorado a single example of [hydraulic fracturing] that has polluted groundwater.”

A documentary is by definition a factual report, which means it is neither politically- nor agenda-driven. Although we are hopeful that Mr. Fox will include our recommendations, his active participation in rallies and other events urging bans on hydraulic fracturing – all since the release of Gasland – leads us to believe that Gasland 2 will not be an objective presentation of the facts, but rather a narrative that works backwards from a preordained conclusion – the complete opposite of what your subscribers would expect when tuning in to watch an HBO documentary.

Sincerely,

Lee O. Fuller
Executive Director
Energy In Depth

Enclosures (2)

—Original post, August 22, 2012—

Today, EID sent a letter to New York filmmaker Josh Fox with a humble request: include facts and context in the forthcoming Gasland 2. We believe that Mr. Fox, as a self-described “journalist,” should welcome these recommendations, considering that journalism is a relentless pursuit of the truth and should not be a conduit for advancing an ideological agenda.

It’s worth highlighting one of the more important recommendations in the letter; namely, the need for accuracy on well casing and failure rates. As readers of the EID blog know quite well, Mr. Fox has cited failure rates for wells that are all over the map — from stating that one in every six wells will fail (as he noted in The Sky Is Pink) to even claiming a 50 percent failure rate. But data from actual onshore wells show the failure rates are nowhere near what Mr. Fox has claimed. According to a 2011 report from the Ground Water Protection Council, failure rates in Ohio and Texas over the past 20 to 25 years are 0.03 percent and 0.01 percent (respectively) — and most of the incidents are from the 1980s and 1990s, long before newer technologies and updated regulations took effect.

We believe inclusion of these data — along with several other important facts — would not only make for a more enjoyable film, but also improve Mr. Fox’s own credibility.

The text of the letter is below, and can also be accessed by clicking here:

–

August 21, 2012

 

Mr. Josh Fox
c/o International WOW Company
37 Grand Avenue
Third Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11205

Recommendations for Gasland 2

Dear Mr. Fox:

As someone who has consistently claimed to be a “filmmaker and journalist” – as well as someone who cites his own work as being protected by the Freedom of the Press clause – you are no doubt aware of the numerous responsibilities associated with being a legitimate, working journalist. Among these responsibilities is an unflagging commitment to accurate reporting.

You have also stated that your latest film project – Gasland 2 – will be released soon. “I think we’re going to see it this summer,” is what you said in an interview last December. For that reason, Energy In Depth would like to recommend a few segments (if they are not already scheduled to appear in the film) that would demonstrate to your audience that this effort is not guided by blind ideology, as was on display in Gasland – but rather by a commitment to fact-based journalism that seeks to tell the truth about a topic as important as natural gas development.

What follows is a short list of facts and recent announcements that we hope you will consider incorporating into your film:

1. An Update on Dimock: In the original Gasland, Dimock, Pa., was portrayed as a town irrevocably harmed by natural gas development. In particular, your film sought to convince viewers that hydraulic fracturing had contaminated water. Because any legitimate investigation focuses on the facts, we recommend including in Gasland 2 the conclusions released earlier this year by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which completed four rounds of extensive sampling of water wells in the area. From EPA’s release announcing the results of that sampling:

“The sampling and an evaluation of the particular circumstances at each home did not indicate levels of contaminants that would give EPA reason to take further action. Throughout EPA’s work in Dimock, the Agency has used the best available scientific data to provide clarity to Dimock residents and address their concerns about the safety of their drinking water.”

We urge you to include these facts, as viewers might otherwise be led to believe hydraulic fracturing had contaminated water in Dimock, a conclusion that is demonstrably false.

2. Experts Debunk Breast Cancer Claim. In your recent short film, The Sky Is Pink, you attempt to connect increased rates of breast cancer with development of oil and natural gas from shale. But as you know, experts with the Texas Cancer Registry, the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas, and even Susan G. Komen for the Cure have all dismissed that claim as lacking in evidence. The Associated Press called the supposed link between breast cancer and development “one of the clearest examples of a misleading claim” used by opponents.

Scientists, and those interested in the scientific process, often develop hypotheses that are later disproven by empirical facts. Admitting that one’s hypothesis is incorrect should not be seen as an embarrassment, but rather a reflection of one’s sincere commitment to a fact-based dialogue.

3. The Truth about Flaming Water in Colorado. The most notable scene in Gasland is when a Colorado resident lights his tap on fire, an event that the movie links to nearby oil and gas development. But the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) – which regulates oil and gas development in the state – investigated that particular well (and several others) and concluded the complete opposite. Here’s what COGCC said:

“Gasland incorrectly attributes several cases of water well contamination in Colorado to oil and gas development when our investigations determined that the wells in question contained biogenic methane that is not attributable to such development.”

4. EPA’s Recent Statements on Hydraulic Fracturing. In May 2011, Lisa Jackson, current U.S. EPA administrator, said: “I’m not aware of any proven case where [hydraulic fracturing] itself has affected water.” In April of this year, Ms. Jackson reaffirmed this conclusion, stating: “In no case have we made a definitive determination that [hydraulic fracturing] has caused chemicals to enter groundwater.” And in remarks at Richard Stockton College of New Jersey in February, Ms. Jackson said the following:

“[Hydraulic fracturing] requires smart regulation, smart rules of the road. What it doesn’t necessarily require…is that all that smart rule of the road setting be done at the federal level. There are states that have been regulating oil and gas development for a long time.”

Since Gasland focused so much attention on the supposed need for direct federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing, particularly by the EPA, we believe your viewers should be informed that even the EPA itself doesn’t necessarily agree with that position. 

5. The Truth about Well Casing/Cement Integrity. In The Sky Is Pink, you argue that the failure rate for cementing or casing on wells drilled into shale and other tight formations was 16.7 percent, or one in every six wells – an improvement, we suppose, from past declarations by you on television that the failure rate was much higher (the numbers you cited changed with each appearance).

But according to a comprehensive report from the Ground Water Protection Council in 2011, which utilized real-world data in states across the country, cementing or casing failures in Ohio over the past 25 years occurred at a rate of only 0.03 percent, or one incident for every 2,833 wells drilled. More than 80 percent of these occurred in the 1980s and 1990s, well before modern technology and updated regulations went into effect over the past ten years. In Texas, the incident rate was even lower: 0.01 percent.

We also believe it would be useful if you informed your audience, regardless of how small it is, that at least one of the documents you referenced on failure rates was actually an advertisement for a product that can help reduce casing pressure volumes in the Gulf of Mexico.

6. Updates from EPA on Parker County and Pavillion Claims. In 2010, the U.S. EPA issued an order against Range Resources in Parker County, Texas, for allegedly contaminating water wells, despite clear and available scientific evidence showing the methane was naturally occurring. State regulators and independent experts confirmed that it was biogenic methane after the EPA issued its order. With all of the evidence clearly pointing to natural causes, earlier this year EPA withdrew its order against Range. Weeks later, a video surfaced of EPA Region 6 administrator Al Armendariz (who issued the original order and also appeared in Gasland) saying his strategy of enforcing the law was to “crucify” oil and gas companies. Mr. Armendariz later resigned and joined the Sierra Club.

In Pavillion, Wyo., the EPA issued a draft report in December 2011 claiming fracturing was “likely” the culprit behind its discovery of chemicals in groundwater. But evidence that surfaced soon after the report was issued, including but not limited to the EPA’s flawed methodology and improper sampling techniques, forced EPA to suspend peer review of its draft report, and order a completely new battery of water tests for the region. As you know, that report was the focus of a Capitol Hill hearing which you attended – and at which you were arrested, as planned, for filming without the proper media credentials. After your arrest, you issued a statement stating that you featured Pavillion in Gasland as an example of hydraulic fracturing contaminating groundwater, adding that “I have continued to document the catastrophic water contamination in Pavillion for the upcoming sequel GASLAND 2.” But EPA’s Region 8 administrator, Jim Martin, has said the following about EPA’s findings:

“We make clear that the causal link [of water contamination] to hydraulic fracturing has not been demonstrated conclusively, and that our analysis is limited to the particular geologic conditions in the Pavillion gas field and should not be assumed to apply to fracturing in other geologic settings.”

Given the above evidence, your audience should know the full story so it can make its own judgment. Since you already plan to discuss Pavillion in Gasland 2, it would be quite easy to add these important facts.

7. Natural Gas Helps United States Reduce CO2 Emissions. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) released a report this month that found total CO2 emissions in the United States have fallen to a level last seen in 1992. This decline is attributable in no small part to the increased use of natural gas, and is made possible by large deposits of natural gas in shale formations across the country. As the Associated Press noted:

“In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch form dirtier-burning coal.”

As someone who has called for an energy future with lower emissions, this is clearly something that should interest you. And, in as much as your film will include commentary and opinions, this is an example of an intriguing story that is actually grounded in empirical data.

While there are certainly other important stories that should be described in Gasland 2, we feel that including these in particular will help fill the credibility gap that was created after the release of the original. With the public hungry for a reality-based dialogue about this issue, we hope that you will avoid the kind of sensationalism and hyperbole that needlessly instills fear by obscuring, misstating, or even ignoring the truth.

Residents who have concerns about future oil and gas development deserve to have their questions answered with facts and an honest commitment to responsible discourse. Leveraging fear and uncertainty to advance an agenda is not only irresponsible, but actually does a disservice to the public.

It is our hope that your stated commitment to journalism is more than simple rhetoric, and that you will serve the public’s interest by incorporating these facts into your latest film – however inconvenient they may be.

Sincerely,

Lee O. Fuller
Executive Director
Energy In Depth

The “Science” Behind Generating Headlines
From the draft report on water quality in Pavillion, Wyo., to a Cornell graduate student's paper on public health, opponents of oil and gas development are displaying a troubling habit of leaping to conclusions before even basic scientific review can be completed. But if your job is to generate headlines, why let science get in the way?

Last December, EPA released a draft report on water quality in tiny Pavillion, Wyo., which was immediately seized upon by opponents of natural gas development in the United States (and even around the world) as smoking-gun proof that hydraulic fracturing pollutes drinking water. Never mind that the paper hadn’t been peer reviewed, or that within a few months the EPA to backtrack and admit that its testing procedures were inadequate, suspending peer review altogether until new sampling could be completed. Just two months after the release of the draft report, EPA Region 8 administrator Jim Martin told a House panel in no uncertain terms that the agency had not established a “causal link” between hydraulic fracturing and water contamination.

Fast-forward to today. Shale opponents have now seized upon yet another “report” (from Cornell, where else?) that supposedly links poor infant health (specifically low birth weight) to natural gas production. And, once again, the paper has not yet undergone peer review — the very process that helps sort out, at least in theory, legitimate scientific conclusions from simple suppositions or even outright activism. In fact, left unmentioned by the activists cheering the release of the paper is the fact that the author, Elaine Hill, is a graduate student in applied economics and management — hardly a field that one would expect to include complex epidemiological assessments.

Andy Revkin at the New York Times – certainly no shill for the oil and gas industry! — has done a deep dive into the problem of jumping the gun on this kind of research, including the fact that opponents are now using Ms. Hill as some sort of “champion” of their cause. What Revkin uncovered, among many things, is that the activist group New Yorkers Against Fracking hired a PR firm (BerlinRosen Public Affairs) to promote the piece, and the firm sent out a pitch to the media about the paper, stating only that it was written by a “researcher at Cornell” — nothing about peer review, and nothing about the fact that the author is still a graduate student. Revkin asked BerlinRosen about why they were promoting a paper before peer review, to which the firm replied that Ms. Hill’s results raise “critical questions” that “should be discussed.”

Why is this worth noting? Because Ms. Hill herself told Mr. Revkin that her results are “preliminary” (that aspect was ignored by activists, either deliberately or inconveniently) and that she “does not want to rush it” in terms of publication. She also said it’s a “valid” point to suggest that her conclusions not be cited until peer review is complete — completely undermining the PR firm (on behalf of New Yorkers Against Fracking) that tried to do exactly the opposite.

EID did its own review of the paper earlier this week, and what follows is a list of some of the most significant concerns and items of interest:

Item I: Skewed results indicate more complexity

Based on Ms. Hill’s results, low birth weight increased by 25 percent for babies born to mothers living within 2.5 km of a well. But at 2.0 km, according to her research, the increase was 26 percent — and at 1.5 km the increase was 21 percent (p. 18). In other words, the closest sample actually had a lower rate of increase than the sample set farther away, with the middle actually recording the highest increase. If there were a “causal relationship” between natural gas development and low birth weight, as she herself claims (see Item II below), why didn’t her results show higher intensity closer to the well? After all, a “causal” relationship means “If A then B,” not “If A then maybe B.”

Item II: Working backwards from a conclusion

The author says up front that her research investigates the “causal relationship between unconventional NGD [natural gas development] and infant health in Pennsylvania” (p. 2). This is not just a strongly worded statement affirming the validity of your hypothesis before peer review (a dangerous game in and of itself), it’s also completely unscientific. When you compile the “first” assessment of anything (as she claims, see p. 4),  you are essentially by any legitimate scientific definition not establishing a “causal” link. But Ms. Hill essentially establishes that link by decree. This could be poor phrasing, but given the conclusions later in the paper that stem from that statement and indeed hinge upon it (more on that below), this seems like more than simply a semantic oversight. (Interestingly, Ms. Hill told Revkin that her language was intentionally strong, but that it wasn’t meant to mislead readers about the “caveats surrounding these findings.”)

Item III: Building toward a convenient narrative

The author couldn’t help but leap from an empirical research project into the policy and advocacy realm, stating at the end of her paper (p. 21-22): “These results suggest that policies that intend to prevent pollution exposure stemming from unconventional natural gas development should increase the regulated/allowable distance between drilling activity and nearby residences.” She then reaches even further, saying that shale development is occurring in 31 states nationwide, which, to her, means that “there is likely to be many exposed babies resulting in a nationwide increase in LBW.” (Interestingly, Ms. Hill has already backtracked from this statement, stating earlier this week that her results actually have “limited external validity” — a complete contradiction of the assertion in her paper.)

Ms. Hill also states that since her paper only looked at the impacts on infant health at birth, “the total increased health costs due to unconventional natural gas development are likely to be much greater.” Again, no credible scientific study would start to make these kinds of extrapolations or recommendations based upon a single assessment that the author herself admits is essentially a first of its kind – unless (a) the purpose was to make those kinds of recommendations and then work backwards from there, or (b) she truly believes that a single initial assessment — limited in scope — scientifically justifies conclusions that require evidence that she has not even collected, much less analyzed.

Item IV: Flawed air pollution claims

Ms. Hill cites air pollution problems in the Dallas-Fort Worth area (p. 9-10), mentioning a single assessment conducted by a consulting group in 2011. What Ms. Hill doesn’t mention is the research that’s been done by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the regulatory body in charge of regulating air emissions in the state, which also has access to the most comprehensive emissions data in Texas. Here’s what TCEQ has said about the region Ms. Hill references:

“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.”

Ms. Hill also claims there are “no current studies [examining air emissions and toxicities] in the Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania” (p. 10) – a categorically false claim. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) conducted ambient air sampling reports for the Northeast Marcellus and the Southwest Marcellus, both under Gov. Ed Rendell (D). After extensive study, the DEP “did not identify concentrations of any compound that would likely trigger air-related health issues associated with Marcellus Shale drilling activities” in either assessment. Perhaps Ms. Hill was referring to peer-reviewed academic studies, but to pretend these comprehensive regulatory assessments simply don’t exist seems like a huge omission — and perhaps a little too convenient.

Item V: Irrelevant data proves health risks?

The paper cites a paper compiled by Cornell veterinarians (which itself was fundamentally flawed) as essentially scientific proof of her conclusions, even though she admits the lack of applicability: “Although their study is not an epidemiologic analysis, nor is it a study that identifies specific chemical exposures related to NGD, it provides evidence that there are clear health risks in natural gas development” (p. 11). This is an enormous logical fallacy: “A doesn’t provide evidence of B, but A nonetheless clearly proves B.” And remember, a member of the U.N. Environmental Programme called the veterinarians’ paper “an advocacy piece” that “does not qualify as a scientific paper.”

—

The upshot here is that a paper that has not yet undergone peer review should, as Lisa McKenzie of the Colorado School of Public Health has said, be “approached with extreme caution.” But for opponents of hydraulic fracturing and natural gas development, the need to spread information that maligns the oil and gas industry trumps even basic standards of fact checking, much less a lengthy scientific review process.

This is now the second time in less than a year that anti-shale activists have run with a conclusion that has not been scientifically vetted, and unfortunately for their credibility, it’s also the second time that even a cursory review of available data shows how flawed their conclusions truly were. And that’s in addition to the AP analysis that ran earlier this week, which showed how ideological opponents have seized upon convenient talking points, even when the facts completely contradict them.

Key Democrats to Sierra Club: You’re Wrong about Natural Gas
As a fuel source, natural gas represents a rare combination of benefits: Affordable, abundant, and clean. The Sierra Club is spending big bucks trying to deny these facts, but even some of their typical allies are distancing themselves from that effort.

As a fuel source, natural gas represents a rare combination of benefits: Affordable, abundant, and clean. The White House has acknowledged this on several occasions, touting also the enormous job creation potential that responsible natural gas development can deliver.

But for some, denying the facts about natural gas has become a profitable enterprise. The most notable example? The Sierra Club, which recently launched its “Beyond Natural Gas” campaign to stop development of this important source of energy. Ironically, it was also the Sierra Club that was touting the environmental benefits of natural gas just a few short years ago, back when natural gas was expensive and considered in short supply — we’ll let our readers extrapolate the meaning of that.

Nonetheless, the facts are still the facts, and it’s telling that the Sierra Club’s new efforts against natural gas not only butt heads with well-established scientific facts about the processes used to extract it, but also with folks that they used to consider their allies — including President Obama, whom the Sierra Club has cheerfully endorsed for reelection. The United Nations has even pointed out that expanded natural gas use can help the world’s poor and foster a cleaner global environment.

And just this week, the Sierra Club received even more pushback (subs. req’d) for its activism against natural gas, this time from Representative Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

Discussing specifically the Sierra Club’s anti-natural gas campaign, Rep. Markey delivered a fairly clear rebuke: “I think environmentalists should want natural gas on the table as an option,” Markey said, adding later that he thinks it would “be wise for us to not take natural gas off the table.”

When Sen. Wyden was asked about the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Natural Gas” campaign, he issued a similarly unequivocal rejection: “This is what I tell environmental folks: Natural gas is really important to a lot of renewables, solar and wind, ensuring that option is out there.” In describing the environmental benefits, Wyden added: “Natural gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuels, so you start with that as your basic proposition.”

So for those keeping score at home, those acknowledging the safety and benefits of natural gas development include President Obama, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy (note: large PDF), state regulators from across the country, independent experts from respected universities, and now even prominent members of Congress who are widely recognized for their work on environmental issues. Heck, even a study funded by the Sierra Club found natural gas to be a comparatively clean source of energy.

On the other side? Hollywood, Josh Fox, and the Sierra Club.

Gee, I wonder who we should believe?

UB Marcellus Study: The Numbers Don’t Lie
A large, multimillion dollar organization co-headquartered in New York and California is funneling money to a thumb-on-the-scale "research" campaign aimed at trying to shut down hydraulic fracturing. But the New York Times ignored all of that in a story purportedly about how money is influencing shale research.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that a deep-pocketed organization was financially underwriting the bulk of activities associated with a campaign to stop oil and gas development in America, including organizing and orchestrating research projects designed to attack 65 years of history, science and experience with respect to the safe use of hydraulic fracturing.

Now let’s stop pretending and recognize that everything we’ve described above is, in fact, happening, and the organization so-described is the Ithaca-based Park Foundation. Would that classify as news fit to print?

Not according to the New York Times, it isn’t.

What the Gray Lady does view as a story, however, is a fresh round of grumbling from opposition groups charging that a recently released paper on Marcellus regulation in Pennsylvania from the University at Buffalo is “biased” – and that, because of this paper, the entire university’s reputation is now at risk. You know, the same way Cornell’s reputation was reduced to a smoldering husk following the release of the now widely debunked Howarth and Ingraffea GHG papers.

Wait, what? Cornell’s doing just fine? Right, that’s what we thought.

Anyway, the report about which activists are screaming “bias!” (more on that later) was released last month by the University at Buffalo’s Shale Resources and Society Institute. It found that even as natural gas development from the Marcellus Shale has increased in Pennsylvania in recent years, the number of environmental incidents has actually fallen on a per-well basis, and that New York’s proposed regulations would have prevented many if not all of those incidents from occurring in the Empire State.

But opponents say the opposite is the case, citing the increase in total violations in Pennsylvania as evidence that things are getting worse, not better.

The reality, though, is that the term “violation,” especially as it relates to oil and gas operations, suggests (at least through implication) an environmental problem. But most violations are actually administrative in nature and relate to the mountain of paperwork that must be filled out before, during, and after a well is drilled. These are logged as “violations,” but there’s obviously no environmental damage resulting from an unfilled box on a piece of paper submitted to the Pa. Dept. of Environmental Protection.

According to the UB study, 62 percent of all violations were for “administrative or preventative reasons.” The study also points out that the number of violations constituting the remaining 38 percent is itself a bit misleading, as multiple violations often referred to the same incident. And as the folks at EID-Marcellus have previously observed, the number of violations per well has actually been decreasing in recent years.

But what activists claim — and for which the Times provided a lopsided forum — is that the types of violations don’t matter. To them, a misspelled word on a piece of paper is apparently an environmental catastrophe.

Of course, this isn’t the first time opponents have tried to skew violation data in their favor. But unfortunately for them, the whole truth continues to be a better barometer than the half truth they got the New York Times to promote.

What else did the Times leave out of its skewed attempt to connect the dots between funding and advocacy in shale development? Why, only the most obvious and blatant example: The Park Foundation.

Consider:

All of these efforts continue to draw media attention, despite each of them being thoroughly debunked by scientists, regulators, and independent experts. Yet all of this was also overlooked in a story purporting to examine how money can drive research. Of course, the Times likely doesn’t want to tell the ugly truth about an organization on which it relies for research, so it’s perhaps only fitting that the story had such a glaring omission.

There’s also something else worth pointing out here: Is it possible that opponents doth protest too much? Hearing “bias!” from anti-shale activists is not news, but rather the natural product of a desperate yet well-funded national campaign to deny science, deny evidence, and deny the truth as it tries to stay relevant. Participants cannot rely on scientific findings to support their claims (because there are none), so, when they’re not funneling money to friendly professors to score headlines, they speak in talking points (“bias,” “industry shill,” “hack,” etc.) and hope the public is too stupid to see what’s really going on.

A few notable examples:

So, to recap: A large, multimillion dollar organization co-headquartered in New York and California is funneling money to a thumb-on-the-scale “research” campaign aimed at trying to shut down hydraulic fracturing. But the intrepid reporters at the Times write an 1,100-word story about how opponents of responsible energy production are, for the umpteenth time, accusing those with whom they disagree of being biased.

Amazing that no one seems to read newspapers anymore, isn’t it?

Study: Actual Emissions from HF 50% Lower than EPA Estimate
A new study released today shows that methane emissions from wells completed via the hydraulic fracturing process are actually 50 percent less than estimates made by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

A new study released today shows that methane emissions from wells completed via the hydraulic fracturing process are actually 50 percent less than estimates made by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The study, released by URS Corp. and The LEVON Group, uses data from nearly 20 percent of all natural gas producing wells in the United States (more than 91,000 wells, to be more specific), a data set that is more than ten times larger than what EPA used. The study was commissioned by America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) and the American Petroleum Institute (API).

More specifically, the study found that methane emissions from a technique known as “liquids unloading” – used to remove water and other liquids to improve the flow of natural gas in the wellbore – are 86 percent lower than what EPA estimated, while methane emissions from refractured wells are 72 percent lower. EPA’s inflated data on liquids unloading is particularly significant, as that phase accounted for more than half of all the emissions from natural gas systems for which the EPA accounted in its estimates.

The researchers concluded that, had EPA relied on this larger and more complete data set, its emissions estimates would be 50 percent lower.

Of course, this isn’t the first study to raise doubts about EPA’s methane numbers.

A report from IHS-CERA, for example, found that EPA’s estimates for methane emissions are “dramatically overstated” and “not credible,” adding that it would be “unwise to use them as a basis for policymaking.”

Furthermore, a study earlier this year from the Environmental Defense Fund highlighted the fact that EPA’s current estimate of methane emissions is “double the prior estimate, which was itself twice as high as the previously accepted amount.”

Those findings are particularly significant considering that the EPA has admitted its estimates are based “mostly” on two studies “conducted in the early and late 1990s.” In other words, EPA increased its estimates not by gathering new data, but rather largely through changes in inputs to computer models.

The takeaway from all of this is not just that EPA’s data is flawed or that the agency needs a better system for creating its emissions inventory – although both of those are salient points. The bigger story is really that these substantially lower emissions estimates demonstrate just how committed the industry is to reducing environmental impacts, even without burdensome and duplicative new regulations. As the new study notes:

“It is clear that companies are not waiting for regulatory mandates or incentives to upgrade equipment, or to alter practices like venting and flaring in favor of capturing methane where practical. Instead, operators are seizing opportunities to reduce the potential environmental impacts of their operations. Industry is therefore confident that additional, systematic collection of production sector activity data will not only help target areas for future reductions but also demonstrate significant voluntary progress toward continually ‘greener’ operations.” (ANGA/API study, p. v)

Be sure also to check out ANGA’s release, which further summarizes and contextualizes the study’s findings.

*UPDATE* Something Strange in Erie, Colo.
Last month, the Board of Trustees of Erie, Colo. backed by unanimous vote an ill-conceived moratorium on new permits for oil and gas development – a move that came less than a month and a half after rejecting essentially the same resolution by a 4 to 2 margin. Why the sudden reversal? Glad you asked.

UPDATE (5/9/2012, 1:17pm ET): The alarmist air-quality claims of the activist group Erie Rising and NOAA scientist Steven Brown continue to unravel, according to the Daily Camera newspaper of Boulder, Colo.:

“A second scientific report in as many weeks will be presented to Erie’s elected officials challenging the notion that natural gas drilling operations in town are spewing unhealthy levels of emissions into the air.” http://goo.gl/OClPQ

This is the second time that Erie town officials have sought independent scientific advice to check the claims made by Brown and Erie Rising in February. It’s also the second time that outside experts have concluded Erie’s citizens are safe, and exposed just how flimsy and irresponsible those claims really are.

According to the Daily Camera, Erie Mayor Joe Wilson believes the town’s Board of Trustees were given distorted information before they voted for a 180-day moratorium on new oil and gas development:

“Wilson said the studies that have been commissioned by the town staff in the last few weeks to interpret and give meaning to the NOAA data indicate the agency’s findings were used by some drilling and fracking opponents ‘politically and inaccurately’ to cast Erie in a bad light. …

‘What we want to do is put this stuff in context, which it wasn’t before,’ he said. ‘As people get more educated, we’re seeing them becoming more accepting of oil and gas operations.’”

Let’s hope the facts will continue to drive the debate in Erie – and elsewhere – over the best ways to develop America’s abundant energy resources.

 —Original post from April 30, 2012—

“One of the basic foundations of modern science … is ‘peer review.’ Peer review means new scientific discoveries, ideas, and implications are not accepted or considered valid until they have been scrutinized, critiqued, and favorably reviewed…”

 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

“…I don’t really have time to take you through the details of an analysis like this. I’m just going to ask you to believe what I tell you…”

Steven Brown, NOAA Employee

The development of homegrown American energy is giving communities across the country a fighting chance to overcome our current economic malaise. By one estimate, oil and natural gas development supports 9 million U.S. jobs and contributes more than $1 trillion to the economy every year. That said, the communities blessed with oil and gas resources often have reasonable questions about how energy production will proceed.

Here’s the good news: the independent companies that develop the vast majority of oil and gas wells are good neighbors with a strong record of responsible development, and interlocking state and federal environmental laws ensure the industry’s operations are tightly regulated. That’s not just the industry’s view – it’s also shared by the energy and environmental experts who enforce those laws.

Still, some communities want to hear from other folks, including scientists. That’s perfectly reasonable, too, as long as anything presented as “science” meets some basic scientific standards. The first and most important of those standards is rigorous and effective peer review. Without it, anything a scientist says is just an opinion, not the kind of hard evidence that’s needed to craft effective environmental laws and regulations.

Unfortunately, that lesson was completely ignored recently in Erie, Colo., a small town nestled in the northern suburbs of Denver. A single government scientist – Steven Brown of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – appeared before the town’s Board of Trustees at the behest of activist groups that oppose oil and gas development. Armed only with a slide presentation, Brown swayed the board into approving a six-month ban on new oil and gas development in Erie.

Energy in Depth wants to set a few things straight about Brown’s presentation, the way it’s being spun by activists and how it’s been covered by the news media. EID’s concerns are serious, and we hope they’ll be taken seriously by the Town of Erie, NOAA and anyone else with an interest in sound science and the responsible development of America’s abundant oil and gas resources made possible by the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing.

The Town of Erie acted on opinion, not science

Brown’s central claim goes something like this: During a one-month research project in the winter of 2011, a NOAA observation tower in Erie recorded higher levels of propane in the air than are usually seen in Pasadena, Calif., and Houston. Brown surmised that the propane emissions came from oil and gas development in the Denver-Julesburg Basin.

Brown’s Feb. 21 presentation, which can be accessed here, was highly technical in nature, especially the section that tied those propane emissions to oil and gas development. But rather than explain it fully, Brown told a group of elected officials who were poised to act on his findings:

“What you can do with a set of data like this is to break it down into what the likely sources are. I don’t really have time to take you through the details of an analysis like this. I’m just going to ask you to believe what I tell you about the ranking of these compounds…”

Brown’s presentation played perfectly into the communications plan of environmental groups, including the local activist organization Erie Rising. Together, they have been trying to frighten Erie’s citizens and elected officials into banning new development with unsubstantiated health and environmental allegations. Here’s a sample of the press coverage generated by Brown’s presentation to the Board of Trustees:

“A study showing that Erie exceeds Houston and Los Angeles in the levels of certain air pollutants commonly connected to oil and gas activity became a point of concern for several trustees Tuesday night during a meeting held to formulate local rules for resource extraction.” http://goo.gl/50TgA

“A National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration study said the propane levels in the air in Erie are worse than in Los Angeles and Houston.” http://goo.gl/eyhkz

Air pollution worse than Los Angeles and Houston? That would strike fear into the heart of any elected official in a town where the median age is 33, the median household income is a touch under $100,000 a year, and officials brag about “educated, affluent, diverse and dynamic” residents and their “close proximity to world-class research and academic institutions.” Scarier still, it’s politically perilous for local officials to challenge Brown’s opinion because he works at one of those revered institutions – NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory, which is just a few miles west in Boulder, Colo.

So, on March 7, a little more than two weeks after Brown’s presentation, the Erie Board of Trustees voted unanimously for an “emergency ordinance” that imposed a six-month moratorium on new oil and gas development. But nine days later, NOAA revealed that the town had passed a local law based on the opinion of a lone scientist and the alarmist claims of environmental activists. In a March 16 notice on its website, the federal agency said:

“Please note that analysis of the data from this study is in progress. When a peer-reviewed paper is published, we will make it available to the public.” http://goo.gl/zWL6b

Brown didn’t get his conclusions peer-reviewed before presenting them to a local government. No peer review. No hard scientific evidence. Just an opinion. But that opinion, when it’s part of a concerted campaign of fear-mongering from activists, was powerful enough to get a local ordinance passed that was designed to shut down an entire industry within the town’s limits for at least six months. This wasn’t democracy in action. It was a mugging. Not just a mugging of an industry and its workers, but of the town’s elected leaders and the citizens they represent.

Of course, the Town of Erie’s authority to enforce such a ban is questionable, since state governments usually have jurisdiction over oil and natural gas development, not local governments. But that’s a discussion for another day.

The Denver area has better air quality, not worse, than Los Angeles and Houston

Brown’s presentation focused on propane and other volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, which can contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, which causes smog. Other sources of smog-forming pollution include factories, power plants, car and truck exhaust fumes, gasoline vapors from vehicle refueling and chemical solvents, according to the EPA.

Both state and federal environmental regulators monitor ozone levels very closely, so it’s possible to make comparisons between different metropolitan areas.

According to EPA data, ozone levels in the Denver metropolitan area – which includes Erie – are 34 percent lower than those in Los Angeles and 15 percent lower than the levels in Houston. The same EPA ozone statistics show Denver and Erie have better air quality than 37 other major metropolitan areas.

Erie’s air quality has improved as natural gas development has expanded

When natural gas starts flowing from a newly developed well, VOCs can develop. And if they aren’t captured or flared, they can combine with other ozone-forming emissions from cars, trucks, power plants and factories and make an existing smog problem worse.

But that’s not happening in Erie. Colorado’s Air Pollution Control Division has a statewide network of monitoring stations that continuously measure air quality. These long-term monitors provide a much clearer picture of air quality than the month-long snapshot in Brown’s research.

One of those APCD stations is located just west of Erie, in Boulder, and another is placed in Greeley, about 40 miles to the northeast. Both the Boulder and Greeley stations are well placed to measure emissions from natural gas development, as well as all the other forms of pollution that exist in a major metropolitan area.

Ground-level ozone levels have fallen at the Boulder and Greeley monitoring stations in the past five years, according to Colorado APCD reports and data. Boulder’s maximum concentration under the federal 8-hour ozone standard has dropped by 6 percent, and Greeley’s has fallen by 10 percent. During those five years, natural gas production in Weld County – which takes in parts of Erie – climbed 25 percent, according to data from the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission.

That’s some feat. It should be a source of pride for the companies that develop oil and natural gas in Colorado, and the state’s regulators, who have worked together for nearly a decade to reduce the industry’s VOC emissions even as production grows.

Nobody is arguing that Erie’s air quality is perfect – it’s not. In 2007, Denver and its suburbs were deemed an ozone “non-attainment” area by the EPA. Since then, ozone levels have fallen, according to the EPA, but the Denver area remains in non-attainment. That’s because in 2008, the EPA ratcheted down the national ozone standard from 80 parts per million to 75 ppm. Even so, Weld County’s air quality compares pretty favorably to other areas of Colorado. The American Lung Association keeps tabs on 17 Colorado counties, and only five score better than Weld County.

But one thing is crystal clear from all this data on VOCs, ozone, smog and natural gas production: Erie Rising and other activist groups don’t have a leg to stand on when they argue air quality in the Denver area is getting worse and new natural gas development is the culprit.

Denver is a major metropolitan area with many sources of pollution

By his own admission, Brown failed to explain why he blames oil and gas development for the VOC readings at the NOAA observation tower. Remember what he told the Board of Trustees – “I’m just going to ask you to believe what I tell you.”

As mentioned earlier, oil and gas development is but one source of VOC emissions. According to the EPA:

“VOCs are emitted from a variety of sources, including motor vehicles, chemical manufacturing facilities, refineries, factories, consumer and commercial products products, and natural (biogenic) sources (mainly trees)…” http://goo.gl/woJlX

 As it turns out, nature is responsible for 72 percent of the VOC emissions in the air. Here are some of the sources that make up the remaining 28 percent: 

“…coal-, gas-, and oil-fired power plants and industrial, commercial, and institutional sources, as well as residential heaters and boilers … cars, trucks, buses, and motorcycles … construction equipment, lawnmowers, chainsaws, boats, ships, snowmobiles [and] aircraft.” http://goo.gl/woJlX

Nationwide, the largest source of VOC emissions are cars, trucks and other mobile sources. That’s also true in Colorado, where mobile sources generate 13 times more VOCs than oil and natural gas development, according EPA data. 

That should have mattered a great deal to Brown, because Interstate-25 is located about one mile east of the NOAA observation tower. According to Erie town officials, 91,000 vehicles a day use the stretch of I-25 nearest to the tower site. Even NOAA has warned of the impact of I-25 on the readings from the observation tower:

“I-25 lies to the east of the tower so winds form [sic] the NNE to SSE are likely to influence the tower measurements, depending on boundary layer conditions.” http://goo.gl/XR13Y

That’s hugely important, because besides propane, Brown also says the VOC benzene was detected at the observation tower. He calls benzene a “natural gas tracer,” and concludes it must have come from oil and gas development.

Care to guess what the biggest source of benzene is, according to the EPA? 

“…most of the nation’s benzene emissions come from mobile sources. People who live or work near major roads, or spend a large amount of time in vehicles, are likely to have higher exposures…” http://goo.gl/SOuqd

That’s right – the biggest sources of benzene are cars, trucks and the major roads they use. A major interstate highway with a traffic count of close to 100,000 vehicles a day more than meets that definition. Hopefully, the experts who peer review Brown’s presentation – if it ever gets that far – will ask some tough questions about this. 

There are other sources of propane and the levels detected aren’t dangerous

 A bigger question for Brown’s reviewers, though, is how he managed to blame oil and gas development so quickly for the high propane readings recorded at the tower. As with benzene, Brown simply concluded that because propane can be released from oil and gas wells, it must have come from oil and gas wells. But, of course, propane is a widely used fuel and Brown failed to explain how he excluded other possible sources. We are all just supposed to “believe” he knows where it came from. 

Brown may have overlooked the fact that the tower readings were taken during a month-long period during the heating season (Feb. 16 to March 13, 2011). Did he bother to check how many homes, businesses, industrial facilities, municipal buildings, universities and federal offices in the area are heated with propane, or use it in other ways? We don’t know because he didn’t bother to explain.

Among other sources he may have overlooked: propane-fueled vehicles. Erie is located right in the middle of two alternative-fuels programs spanning more than 40,000 square miles around Denver and Northern Colorado. Those programs promote the use of propane and other fuels. In fact, across the two programs, propane fueling locations are only outnumbered by electric charging stations and ethanol pumps. Within 50 miles of Erie, there are 34 propane fueling stations alone, according to the Department of Energy.

Of course, the failure to investigate the actual source of this propane wasn’t even most alarming part of Brown’s presentation. It was the levels he reported. They alarmed the Board of Trustees and no doubt many citizens of Erie, but in the notice it sent to the board, NOAA refused to put those levels into their proper context:               

“Some VOCs have known health risks. NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory does not have health risk expertise. Health information is available through other agencies…” http://goo.gl/zWL6b

Thankfully, though, rather than let activists continue to scare people with tales of toxic propane pollution, Erie officials sought to end the speculation. Perhaps stung by their experience with Brown, they “engaged in an independent, peer-reviewed” analysis to “determine what (if any) health effects would result from exposures to the levels of propane as presented.” The result? 

“The scientific analysis of the data concludes that: ‘The levels of Propane in the NOAA study are 1,000 – fold or more below those considered to be of a health concern.’ The average level of Propane as presented by NOAA was 20 ppb (parts per billion) and the maximum level was 115 ppb. According to the analysis: ‘Propane at 115 ppb (the peak level found) does not present a health concern to the citizens of the Town of Erie.’” http://goo.gl/nl7PZ 

To review: A peer-reviewed, scientific analysis of the central finding in Brown’s presentation – high propane emissions – concludes they are 1,000 times lower than the level that would cause health concerns.

Was Brown’s collaboration with activist groups appropriate?

After Erie’s elected officials approved the six-month moratorium last month, Erie Rising sent out a press release taking credit for both “remarkably discovering an unknown NOAA study” and for the vote itself. The release had all the hallmarks of a fundraising pitch, and made it clear the group’s ambitions extend well beyond Erie’s town limits:

“Founded by accomplished women, mothers and business owners, Erie Rising is positioned to become an exceptionally effective national grassroots mom-powered organization bringing awareness to the issues at hand.” http://goo.gl/GVx1C

Separately, a spokeswoman also bragged to a reporter that the group was directly involved in the preparation of Brown’s presentation and in arranging his appearance before the Board of Trustees:

“The study was never made public and it’s only through [Erie Rising’s member April] Beach’s curiosity that it came to light at all.

 ‘I had no clue what I was looking for’ when she called NOAA asking if anyone had studied air pollution in Erie, she said. She called Brown, whose name she found on the NOAA website, on something of a whim. He sent back pages of technical data indecipherable to most laymen and it took some back and forth with him to have it interpreted. When she showed the study to Erie Town Administrator A.J. Krieger, she said he urged her to have Brown present the trustees with the results.” http://goo.gl/uYIwW

Are we supposed to believe that Brown was innocently and unwittingly recruited to serve the interests of Erie Rising? Are government scientists supposed to engage in a “back and forth” with activist groups as they create propaganda that scares the public and helps them bully local officials into making hasty decisions? Does presenting data that has not been peer reviewed to a government body, when that information will be used to make policy, breach NOAA’s standards or federal data quality guidelines? Should a federal employee use taxpayer-funded research to help an activist group lobby elected officials, and collaborate with members of the group on how the research is presented?

We don’t know the answers to these questions. Hopefully now, though, we won’t be the only ones asking.

Institute of Medicine Roundtable: Skewed View of Shale Development
Make no mistake, health impacts from natural gas production are not a foregone conclusion. Accepting them as one, in our judgment, is irresponsible and is a critical flaw that served as the foundation of this gathering.

Sue Mickley
Environmental Protection Committee Chair – Northern Wayne Property Owners Alliance; MPH/HA – Yale University

 


Uni Blake
Environmental Consultant – Toxicologist
Master’s Degree in Environmental Toxicology – American University

 

Last week the Institute of Medicine held a roundtable discussion to examine the “public health impacts” of natural gas development from U.S. shale resources.  Unfortunately, as is the case with most events concerning natural gas, it seems the outcome was determined before the first word was spoken.  This is clear by a quick review of the agenda which lists the meeting’s second objective as the “application of health impact assessments to identify ways to mitigate adverse health effects.”

As public health researchers we were surprised to see “adverse health effects” readily accepted as a key assumption. Especially considering the evidence supporting this is a collection of anecdotes refuted by international experts and past experience.

Given this background, some context is needed on the events leading to the roundtable, as well as to why the assumption of “health impacts” is problematic.

As natural gas development has moved into new areas, a small group of voices, most with ties to anti-natural gas advocacy groups, has stated the process negatively impacts public health.

Born in the northeast U.S., and finding other supporters across the nation, these actors have claimed natural gas operations have led to health impacts including symptoms such as nosebleeds, sores, nausea, and disorientation among others. These claims, many of which have been disproven, have largely surfaced in just the past few years, despite the 100 plus year history of oil and natural gas development in the United States, over 60 of which have involved the use of hydraulic fracturing.

Make no mistake, health impacts from natural gas production are not a foregone conclusion. Accepting them as one, in our judgment, is irresponsible and is a critical flaw that served as the foundation of this gathering.

The most well known “study” supporting the narrative of negative health impacts, in animals, has received heavy criticism by some of the world’s most respected scientists.  For example, in commenting on the study Dr. Ian Rae, a professor at the University of Melbourne in Australia and a co-chair of the Chemicals Technical Options Committee for the United Nations Environment Programme, stated “It certainly does not qualify as a scientific paper but is, rather, an advocacy piece that does not involve deep…analysis of the data gathered to support its case.” (emphasis added)

However, even more concerning than the acceptance of these “health impacts” was the anti-natural gas advocacy affiliation of many conference participants. Attendees were required to identify themselves before offering inquiries to panelists.  As part of this disclosure, it became clear that a majority of attendees not representing media or federal agencies were from anti-natural gas advocacy groups.  In fact, the amount of veterinarians from New York and researchers from Ithaca was astounding. Taken together, their presence was large enough to form a significant percentage of attendees, especially those most active in the proceedings.

In fact, one of the more active participants was Jeff Zimmerman.  Mr. Zimmerman identified himself as a representative of Damascus Citizens for Sustainability.  What we didn’t know at the time was Jeff Zimmerman is a Washington, D.C. based attorney actively litigating against natural gas producers.

It was disconcerting that critical assumptions were made without supporting data, and local activist groups and their litigating counsel, were shaping discussions at what was promoted as an unbiased dialogue on emerging energy sources.

But this important background aside, a closer examination, using experience and comprehensive data as opposed to assumptions, continues to suggest the assertions regarding negative public health impacts from natural gas development are unsupported and unsettled science.

Areas Experiencing Largest Development See Increases in Health Across all Parameters

We took a look at public health assertions last October in response to a letter submitted to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo. Curious about the validity of these claims, we turned our attention to the Forth Worth, Texas area (the nation’s 4th largest metropolitan statistical area) where more than 16,000 natural gas wells have been developed over the past decade.

What we found was pretty interesting.  Community Health Status Indicators (CHSI) from 2000 – 2008 show every major health indicator improved at the same time natural gas production rapidly expanded.

For example, in 2009 natural gas production in the Barnett Shale had increased by 2,144 percent from 2000 levels.  In just nine years, technological advancements enabled 22 times as much natural gas to be produced as was produced in 2000. As production occurred and expanded, the health of the population of those counties simultaneously increased.

Below find a chart that compiles health data obtained from the CHSI.

Denton County Texas Key Health Indicators 2000-2008

2000 2008
Population 65+ 21,703 34,762
Deaths for all causes: 857.7 814.1
Stroke 64.1 44.3
All Cancer 184.1 182.8
Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease: 77.5 67.0
Heart Disease 263.8 178.9

We brought these findings to the attention of Christopher Portier, Director of the National Center for Environmental Health and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.  He was quite surprised.  It was as though the idea that natural gas development brought public health benefits never occurred to him.

His response was not unique. In fact, the entire conference seemed dominated by a frantic rush to identify negative outcomes. This left the attendees missing some very real, and shared, benefits occurring in communities where natural gas development is taking place.

Most Informing Presentations Seemingly Lost Among Clutter of “Health Effects” Speculation

A large part of the conference involved questions that seemingly had no answers, unless you know where to look.  From this perspective, the most informative presentation was provided by Michael Honeycutt, Ph. D, Director of the Toxicology Department of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. Dr. Honeycutt was the only panelist with direct regulatory experience and he presented data his department has collected on natural gas development over the past two decades.

His presentation reviewed data from the most extensive natural gas emissions monitoring program in the nation, including data from over 1,126 fixed and mobile monitoring stations and over 2,100 site surveys using emissions finding infrared technology.

These findings showed that as natural gas extraction increased exponentially, harmful air emissions like benzene and other volatile organic compounds decreased. Further, the data showed the area hadn’t seen an increase of pollutants, or public exposure to pollutants at levels that would cause public health concerns, due to natural gas development in nearly twenty years of production from shale resources.

Another informative presentation was provided by Dr. Charles Groat from the University of Texas-Austin. As background, Dr. Groat served as the 13th Director of the U.S. Geological Survey and currently serves as the Director of the Energy and Earth Resources Program at the University of Texas-Austin.

Dr. Groat presented findings from his study which reviewed historical data to determine if hydraulic fracturing has impacted groundwater resources.  The study found, “no direct evidence that hydraulic fracturing itself — the practice of fracturing the rocks — had contaminated shallow groundwater.”

In making this determination, the study examined, among other items, the degree to which any documented environmental violations actually impacted human health. In the review, 58% of violations were procedural in nature and had little or no impact on the environment. The most prevalent violations were generally preventable and the study found no evidence of a contamination pathway for the transport of chemicals that would cause public health concerns.

The Difference Between Relying on Experience and Assumptions 

One of the more glaring discrepancies of the conference was the pairing of Dr. Honeycutt’s presentation with that of Dr. John Adgate, Chair of the Department of Environmental and Occupational Health at the Colorado School of Public Health (CSPH).  Dr. Adgate presented findings from a controversial public health impact assessment based on assumptions, and limited observational data, rather than comprehensive data and experience.

The pairing of Dr. Adgate and Dr. Honeycutt seemed to serve, likely inadvertently, as a summary of the “public health impacts” discussion to date.  Studies based on experience show no areas of concern while those focusing on assumptions, and limited data sets, elicit speculation of significant public health impacts.

In this case, the CSPH study found that residents living near natural gas operations were at a greater risk of exposure to harmful air pollutants including benzene, and thus had greater exposure to cancer causing contaminants.

One of the problems with this finding, and the overall assessment, is that it’s based on a study using a limited number of air monitors, all of which were located within a mile of a major interstate.  From the study:

 CSPH: “The GCPH collected 16 ambient air samples at each cardinal direction along 4well pad perimeters (130 to 500 feet from the well pad center) in rural Garfield County during well completion activities… All five well pads are located in areas with active gas production, approximately one mile from Interstate-70.” (p. 9-10, emphasis added)

The location of the study’s limited sampling data sacrifices the study’s findings. Especially, considering EPA, in its Final Rule to Reduce Mobile Source Air Toxics, notes that “most of the nation’s benzene emissions come from mobile sources. People who live or work near major roads, or spend a large amount of time in vehicles, are likely to have higher exposures and higher risks (emphasis added). Meanwhile, the study’s control samples were three miles removed from that same interstate.

At the same time, the study made unrealistic assumptions on exposure times to the flawed data sets that only exacerbated errors in the study’s conclusions.

Oil and Gas Workers Viewed as “Sentinels” and Key Focus of Discussion

Much attention was rightly paid to the plight of workers in the nation’s oil and natural gas fields.  Here too, it seemed alarmism drove the conversation rather than data born from experience and fact.  One federal official asserted “that oil and gas drilling in general is one of the most hazardous occupations in the United States. The fatality rate in that industry is multiples of the private sector, upwards of seven times higher.”

That official failed to cite the data they were referencing.  This is especially relevant considering data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) shows the oil and natural gas industry is quite safe. According to the BLS data the oil and natural gas industry is:

The key focus of worker safety however was a presentation by Eric Esswein, senior industrial hygienist at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Esswein highlighted his study which examined exposure of workers on hydraulic fracturing sites to silica pollution.  The study, which was widely acclaimed as the largest breakthrough of the proceedings, found workers in multiple states exposed to significant levels of silica above federal standards.

In fact, the findings led one participant to proclaim “I saw a picture from NIOSH that made me think of the Gauley Bridge and the tragedy that happened in our country when we were fiddling around with silica.” The participant was referring to a 1935 incident where hundreds of workers died within months of silica exposure.

Hydraulic fracturing has been widely used since the 1990’s without one known death occurring due to silica exposure.  This, however, didn’t keep the media from raising alarms (sub’s reqd.) centering on the finding. The good news, which was not reported, is that technology currently exists to immediately halt this exposure. Specifically through the use of bagger systems which collect errant silica dust before it is able to enter the environment and impact humans.

But more troubling is the idea that, as the CSPH study declared, those living in close proximity to natural gas operations are at a higher risk of developing cancer than the general public.

The CSPH study provides these individuals with a higher rate of developing cancer than workers who are at a natural gas well sites often in excess of over 60 hours a week.  This is noticeable in a previous report from the Australian Institute of Petroleum which reviewed 18 years worth of health data and found the cancer rates of oil and gas workers to be no different from the general population.

From the report:

“The age-adjusted death rate in men [in the oil and gas industry] is significantly less than in the general Australian male population. Death rates in all major disease categories – heart disease, cancer, respiratory disease, diseases of the digestive system, and external causes (accidents, violence etc) – are also significantly less than the corresponding rates for the male population.”

“The chance of getting most types of cancer is the same for men in this industry as for all Australians.”

While the report did find elevated cases of mesothelioma, melanoma and prostate cancer among the sample of workers these were attributable to other causes. In regards to mesothelioma, the study found significant numbers of participants had prior exposure to asbestos in previous employment.  For melanoma and prostatic cancer the study found, “the rate did not increase with increasing duration of employment or with increasing exposure to hydrocarbons. On this basis and from what is known of the causation of these two cancers, it is therefore unlikely that either is caused by a factor in the workplace in this industry.”

What We Learned- Unbiased Health Professionals Seemingly in Short Supply

Overall, the conference showed there is a good amount of speculation occurring at all levels in regards to the “public health impacts” of natural gas development.  What was clear is that decades of experience, data and studies are currently being ignored as a borderline hysterical conversation takes place. Those involved in the discussion are seemingly approaching it at a frantic pace with little forethought into what data already exists to provide clarity to the frightening claims made by a few.

We were alarmed by what we saw and think it’s critical to approach this conversation in a rational manner based on sound science and hard data.  This simply can’t be accomplished when groups accept key assumptions as fact when data and experience show a much different reality.

For this reason, and others, we are working to form a nation-wide network of health care professionals who will seek to contribute to this discussion based on the wealth of data and experience that exists.  We will highlight the positive benefits of this development, and take a hard look at any potential negative health consequences, but will do so using existing data and sound science while avoiding the politicization of poor study assumptions that lead to good sound bites and bad science.

 

 

dream of having a babyam i having a baby boy or girl How get pregnant conceiving a girlis 20 too young to have a baby

You Missed a Spot: A Timeline of Hydraulic Fracturing
Last week, ProPublica posted a big fancy chart about hydraulic fracturing on its website. So, we decided to make our own timeline to provide everyone with a little more context (and facts)...

Last week, ProPublica posted a big fancy chart about hydraulic fracturing on its website that purports to show that “government involvement with the drilling technique goes back decades.” (By “drilling technique” we assume they’re referring to hydraulic fracturing, even though, as a point of fact, hydraulic fracturing is not a drilling technique.) It’s a less-than-veiled attempt to provide cover for the claim that it was the federal government, not private industry, that facilitated the growth of shale development. But as we already know, that claim lacks merit. As Professor Michael Giberson of Texas Tech University has observed, the federal government’s role was “merely convenient to technological advancement and not necessary.” (emphasis added)

And, as it turns out, the chart is defined more by what it omits than what it includes. So, we decided to make our own timeline to provide everyone with a little more context (and facts) about the history of hydraulic fracturing, not to mention its incredible safety record.

–

1947: First well receives hydraulic fracturing treatment to stimulate natural gas development (Grant County, Kan.).

1950s: Hydraulic fracturing is used for the first time in Canada (Cardium oil field in central Alberta).

November 1974: Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is signed into law. Establishes new standards and regulations to protect underground sources of drinking water (USDW). Despite having been utilized commercially for a quarter century, hydraulic fracturing was never considered for regulation under SDWA.

June 1986: SDWA is amended to regulate more than 100 specific contaminants. Hydraulic fracturing, now commercially utilized for nearly four decades, is never considered for regulation.

1980s/early 1990s: George Mitchell successfully combines horizontal drilling with hydraulic fracturing to “crack the code” of the Barnett Shale in north Texas.

1994/1995: The Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation (LEAF) petitions the EPA to withdraw approval of Alabama’s underground injection control (UIC) program, arguing that the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) required that the federal EPA regulate hydraulic fracturing. Then-EPA Administrator (and later President Obama’s climate czar) Carol Browner responds with a clear message: “EPA does not regulate – and does not believe it is legally required to regulate – the hydraulic fracturing of methane gas production wells under its UIC program [under the Safe Drinking Water Act].” In that same letter, Browner says there was “no evidence” of hydraulic fracturing contaminating ground water.

August 1996: SDWA is amended once again to emphasize sound science and standards. Hydraulic fracturing is not considered for regulation.

1997: LEAF appeals EPA’s position (in LEAF v. U.S. EPA) on Alabama’s UIC program, arguing once again that the Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to regulate hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane.

1999: In response to the LEAF decision, the State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama promulgates new rules and regulations on hydraulic fracturing, which the EPA approves one year later. LEAF appeals the Board’s new regulations to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court ultimately sides with the EPA and the State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama, agreeing that the state’s regulatory system is an “effective program to prevent endangerment of underground sources of drinking water.”

2000: EPA initiates its own study of hydraulic fracturing. At less than 0.5 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of production, natural gas from shale accounts for roughly one percent of America’s total natural gas production.

August 2002: EPA releases a draft of its study of hydraulic fracturing, which affirms that the technology does not pose a risk to drinking water.

June 2004: EPA completes its four-year study on hydraulic fracturing (which began under the previous administration), concluding that the technology poses only a “minimal” threat to water supplies and that there are “no confirmed cases” linking hydraulic fracturing to drinking water contamination.

July 2005: The U.S. Congress passes the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (signed in August by the President), which includes a provision codifying that Congress never intended for hydraulic fracturing to be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (as also evidenced by decades of precedence.) Also in 2005, Range Resources drills the first wells in the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania (three of them, in fact).

September 2008: The Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) sends a letter to Mike W. Markham in Weld County, Colo., after Mr. Markham expressed concern that nearby natural gas production could have contaminated his drinking water. After extensive sampling and testing, COGCC finds “no indications of any oil & gas related impacts” to Mr. Markham’s well.

June 2009: U.S. Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.), and Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) introduce the FRAC Act in Congress, which would rewrite the intent of the Safe Drinking Water Act (and upend the effective, state-based regulatory regime currently in place) to put control of hydraulic fracturing squarely in the hands of the U.S. EPA. Senator Bob Casey (D-Pa.) introduces companion legislation in the Senate. Interestingly, Colorado’s Governor at the time, Bill Ritter (D), accused Rep. DeGette of trying to create a “new and potential intrusive regulatory program” with the FRAC Act. Ritter further noted that states, including Colorado, have already “responsibly addressed” hydraulic fracturing. State regulators from across the country, meanwhile, defend the safety record of hydraulic fracturing.

August 2009: Initial testing of local water supplies in Pavillion, Wyo., by the EPA reveals the presence of a “tentatively identified compound,” or TIC. Earthworks blasts out a press release saying EPA has linked hydraulic fracturing to water contamination, even though the EPA made no conclusion or statement about the origin of the TIC, nor did it make any declaration that public health was in danger. A staffer with EPA says the possible contamination could be traced to household items, mentioning cleaning solvents specifically.

February 2010: Steve Heare, director of EPA’s Drinking Water Protection Division, says: “I have no information that states aren’t doing a good job already” with respect to regulating hydraulic fracturing.

March 2010: Under direction from Congress, the EPA initiates yet another study of hydraulic fracturing. The focus of the study is specifically on potential water impacts (despite dozens of state regulators saying hydraulic fracturing does not contaminate water.)

June 2010: The state of Wyoming approves a rule to require disclosure of the additives used during hydraulic fracturing. Later that month is the HBO premiere of the film Gasland, which, among many other things, attempts to rewrite much of the history of hydraulic fracturing. The film includes footage of one Mike Markham from Weld County, Colo., lighting his tap water on fire, which the film links to nearby gas drilling, despite the 2008 letter from Colorado regulators clearly and scientifically denying such a link.

October 2010: The Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) releases a document debunking many of the inaccuracies in Gasland, including notably the “flaming faucet” scene.

December 2010: Arkansas adopts new rules to require disclosure of additives used during hydraulic fracturing.

February 2011: Pennsylvania updates its regulations to include disclosure requirements for hydraulic fracturing fluids.

April 2011: The Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) officially launch FracFocus.org, an online disclosure website for the additives used during hydraulic fracturing. To date, the industry has uploaded more than 11,000 wells to the searchable database. That same month, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) releases a report that finds natural gas from shale accounts for 23 percent of total natural gas production in the United States, increasing from 0.39 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2000 to 4.87 tcf in 2010. Democrats on the House Energy & Commerce Committee, despite using “no scientific data” to support their most frightening conclusions, release a report summarizing the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids. The report says nothing about actual water quality, nor does it provide appropriate context relating to concentration levels.

May 2011: During a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says, “I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water.” Michigan regulators announce new regulations that include, among others, a provision to require disclosure of the additives used during hydraulic fracturing.

July 2011: The city of Fort Worth, Tex., releases results from a study looking at health impacts near natural gas exploration and production sites in the Barnett shale. The study “did not reveal any significant health threats.”

September 2011: Montana begins implementing its new disclosure rules for additives used during hydraulic fracturing.

October 2011: Louisiana’s rules for hydraulic fracturing fluid disclosure go into effect (see page 3064 of this document).

December 2011: EPA issues a draft report on water quality in Pavillion that, despite no independent scientific review, alleges that hydraulic fracturing was “likely” the cause of water contamination in the area. Numerous state officials and regulators criticize the report as inherently flawed. Meanwhile, Colorado implements new rules requiring disclosure for hydraulic fracturing fluids, and Texas regulators approve their own disclosure law. Both Colorado and Texas utilize the FracFocus website for implementation of their laws.

January 2012: In his State of the Union address, President Obama issues strong support for developing natural gas from shale, noting that his administration will “take every possible action to safely develop this energy” in order to create “more than 600,000 jobs” by the end of the decade. “The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy,” the President added.

February 2012: Two months after releasing its draft report on Pavillion, the EPA backtracks its initial (and inflammatory) claim that hydraulic fracturing “likely” caused water contamination. At a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, EPA Region 8 administrator Jim Martin says: “We make clear that the causal link [of water contamination] to hydraulic fracturing has not been demonstrated conclusively,” adding that EPA’s draft report “should not be assumed to apply to fracturing in other geologic settings.” President Obama, in his FY 2013 budget, requests additional funds for the EPA to expand its own mandate for its hydraulic fracturing study, a mandate that goes beyond what was authorized by Congress. Two days later, during a hearing before the House Natural Resources Committee, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says of hydraulic fracturing (subs. req’d): “From my point of view, it can be done safely and it has been done safely.”

–

Of course, we’d be remiss if we didn’t include all of the economic benefits that hydraulic fracturing — by helping to unlock enormous amounts of natural gas — is delivering to Americans from coast to coast. We’re talking about hundreds of thousands of jobs, lower energy bills for consumers, and a rebirth of domestic manufacturing, not to mention less reliance on places like Russia and Saudi Arabia for our energy supplies.

Hydraulic fracturing certainly has a long history, and though it may be inconvenient for opponents to acknowledge, it’s a history that shows time and again how industry best practices and regulation by the states, not federal control, have facilitated robust economic growth as well as a clean and healthy environment.

Pavillion Hearing Raises More Questions for EPA
After a theatrical start to a hearing inside the stuffy walls of the Rayburn House Office Building, witnesses testified today about EPA’s recent draft report on water quality in Pavillion, Wyo. The report, which attempts to link hydraulic fracturing technology to groundwater contamination, has been widely criticized...

After a theatrical start to a hearing inside the stuffy walls of the Rayburn House Office Building, witnesses testified today about EPA’s recent draft report on water quality in Pavillion, Wyo. The report, which attempts to link hydraulic fracturing technology to groundwater contamination, has been widely criticized for the poor methodology upon which it is based, as well as obvious errors in sampling and testing procedures that EPA itself now concedes are real. And perhaps worst of all, the EPA hasn’t exactly been receiving requests for transparency with open arms.

The first to testify today was Jim Martin, administrator for EPA’s Region 8 office, who defended the agency’s report but also included an important caveat in his remarks:

We make clear that the causal link [of water contamination] to hydraulic fracturing has not been demonstrated conclusively, and that our analysis is limited to the particular geologic conditions in the Pavillion gas field and should not be assumed to apply to fracturing in other geologic settings.

Immediately following the release of EPA’s draft report, a series of questions began to emerge not just about the report’s finding on hydraulic fracturing, but even the process itself that EPA used to test ground water. Martin’s public admission that no causal link exists between water contamination and hydraulic fracturing followed in the wake of those questions, but was unfortunately made nearly two months after the EPA claimed such a link was “likely.” Martin claimed today, however, that the EPA merely “hypothesized potential pathways.”

Tom Doll from the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission added to the mounting list of questions, accusing the EPA of using a “limited data set” to make “technically inadequate conclusions” in its report. “No data was provided by the EPA for the Pavillion Draft Report showing the producing depth, well construction or producing aquifer isolation,” Doll noted in his prepared remarks. During questioning by the Committee, Doll pointed out that the groundwater that the EPA tested for its report is different from the drinking water used by Pavillion residents, and the methane EPA analyzed was not the same as any potential biogenic methane that could be found in drinking water.

Doll also called into question the EPA’s focus for the report, which began as a means of helping local residents solve problems related to their water quality. “The EPA report does not address the need to solve the landowner’s water supply issues; rather the report only addresses hydraulic fracturing,” Doll added.

In December, Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead (R) wrote to the EPA about the report, saying he was “troubled by the EPA’s dismissal of the practical concerns raised by the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC), Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), and Encana related to the nature and the protocols employed in conducting the sampling procedures.” Doll noted at the hearing that the EPA did not reach out to WOGCC as it was preparing its report, a fact that Martin disputed on the basis that EPA had reached out to DEQ. WOGCC regulates oil and gas development in the state.

Kathleen Sgamma of the Western Energy Alliance criticized EPA’s draft report, noting that the industry is justifiably held to extremely high standards and regulators should be held to a similarly high standard in their research and conclusions. “The public trusts EPA to protect the environment, follow the law, and use sound science as the foundation of its regulatory work,” Sgamma said. But, in the case of Pavillion, “EPA’s own data and methods have raised serious questions” about their report and “led to concerns about unscientific methods, and lack of transparency and peer review.”

While the focus of the hearing was on the Pavillion report, the participants also engaged in a broader discussion of natural gas development. Professor Bernard Goldstein of the University of Pittsburgh, whose testimony was “based upon personal discussion” with environmental activist groups, called for a slowdown in development until public health impacts could be determined.

But public data compiled late last year found that key health indicators actually improved across the board in Denton County, Texas – the heart of shale development in the United States. That followed the release of a separate study that found “no significant health risks” associated with developing natural gas from shale.

Goldstein also likened hydraulic fracturing to a “two-ton bomb” and, echoing remarks from Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC), accused the industry of keeping fracturing fluids a secret (Miller’s opening statement included the term “secret sauce” when referencing the additives). Last year the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission established the website Frac Focus, which provides well-by-well information of the additives used during hydraulic fracturing. In the past year, both Texas and Colorado have passed laws that incorporate Frac Focus into their statutory requirements on disclosure (and, of course, EID has also maintained a publicly available list of those chemicals for years).

As today’s testimonies show, EPA’s report on Pavillion continues to spur more questions than answers; not about hydraulic fracturing, but rather about EPA’s own conclusions and methodology. EPA essentially confirmed (by way of omission) that it had not consulted WOGCC for its report, which suggests the EPA either didn’t think to seek adequate guidance, or deliberately ignored a state regulatory body in a report that focused on a process regulated by that body.

And, by making politically charged accusation that hydraulic fracturing “likely” caused water contamination, the EPA has undermined its own credibility with its broader national study on hydraulic fracturing. Will that study suffer from the same systemic and methodological flaws as the Pavillion report? Will the EPA seek proper guidance and provide transparent testing results? Will it contain statements about hydraulic fracturing that are more befitting of a political debate than scientific inquiry? Will the EPA once again have to backpedal from its initial “findings,” as it was forced to do in the hearings today? The fact that those questions even have to be asked, and indeed are being asked, is troubling in and of itself.

Regarding the Pavillion report and the EPA’s credibility on hydraulic fracturing, Doll from the WOGCC perhaps summed it up best. “Based on a limited sampling and an inconclusive data set from Pavillion Wyoming ground water, EPA’s conclusion is now national and international fodder for the hydraulic fracturing debate,” Doll said. “Now the quality of the hydraulic fracturing debate suffers and the EPA’s science itself is questioned.”

There They Go Again: Latest Cornell Paper Just More of the Same
It was touted by their PR consultants in a media advisory sent around this week as “a major new paper” in response to the mountain of criticism that has accumulated since the release of their initial study last April (that is, after the first one the year before was retracted).

It was touted by their PR consultants in a media advisory sent around this week as “a major new paper” in response to the mountain of criticism that has accumulated since the release of their initial study last April (that is, after the first one the year before was retracted). But read through the “new” document released by Cornell professors Robert Howarth and Anthony Ingraffea on Thursday, and you quickly come to the following realization: Not only don’t these guys offer a credible response to any of their critics, they don’t even acknowledge that they exist.

Last April, EID took the lead on pointing out some of the more obvious errors in the Cornell GHG report, eventually (and happily!) making way for the cavalcade of academics, government agencies and even environmental groups that followed – each one successively identifying a new and seemingly more obvious and/or egregious miscalculation that, taken on its own, would render the entire thesis unacceptable.

Of course, because none of those basic errors were either corrected or acknowledged in the latest iteration of the Howarth paper, there’s just not a whole lot of new material for us to rebut. Still, a couple of points are probably worth making for those genuinely interested in understanding what’s going on here.

Point #1: The “new” Howarth paper attempts to justify its previous conclusions based on what it says are “new” emissions data from EPA.

The problem?

Point #2: Just like last time, Howarth et al. assume that virtually all methane produced during the “flowback” phase of operations is simply vented into the atmosphere – not captured or burned.

The problem?

Point #3: Howarth and his team refuse to acknowledge that their previous assumptions on lost-and-unaccounted for gas were incorrect, even in the face of a direct response/refutation by the U.S. Department of Energy.

The problem?

Given the lack of substantive response to these and several other important points highlighted in the Cathles paper, it’s understandable that Howarth and his team didn’t receive quite the same volume and intensity of press coverage this time around relative to their first effort back in April.

Unfortunately, though, much of the coverage they did get seeks to advance the simple narrative that this whole thing is just a friendly dust-up among faculty at Cornell – with Howarth and Ingraffea on one side, and Cathles, Larry Brown and Andrew Hunter on the other. This Bloomberg lede is typical of the approach: “Two groups of Cornell University researchers have split over the contribution to global warming by rising extraction of natural gas from shale beds through a process known as fracking.” (Bloomberg, Jan. 20, 2012)

Of course, the reality of the situation is quite a bit different. Actually, it’s Howarth and Ingraffea on one side, and the rest of the intelligent world on the other. In the nine months since their initial paper was published, detailed responses have been compiled and released by no fewer than a dozen separate academic, government and non-governmental institutions (a quick list of those is available here and here). In a study commissioned by the Sierra Club, one researcher even went so far as to call the Howarth data biased: “We don’t think they’re using credible data and some of the assumptions they’re making are biased. And the comparison they make at the end, my biggest problem, is wrong.”

Of course, over on Planet Ithaca, not only don’t any of these criticisms hold merit – according to the Cornell research team, they don’t even exist. In an online chat hosted by the Syracuse Post-Standard in September, Prof. Ingraffea provided the following answer when asked how he’s dealing with the all the controversy that his paper has engendered: “We have not received any of what we would consider intense peer criticism.” Which we guess is true. Just so long as you continue to believe it.

States Continue Effective Regulation of Shale
It's a tired refrain (and demonstrable fiction) used incessantly by opponents of responsible shale development in their press releases and fundraising pleas: The industry, they claim, is unregulated. But for those of us interested in facts, we know better. And news this week from Colorado and Texas provides yet another example of how states are doing a more than adequate job in regulating the industry: both states' primary regulatory bodies overseeing oil and gas development moved forward with rules requiring disclosure of fluids used during hydraulic fracturing.

It’s a tired refrain (and demonstrable fiction) used incessantly by opponents of responsible shale development in their press releases and fundraising pleas: The industry, they claim, is unregulated. But for those of us interested in facts, we know better. And news this week from Colorado and Texas provides yet another example of how states are doing a more than adequate job in regulating the industry: both states’ primary regulatory bodies overseeing oil and gas development moved forward with rules requiring disclosure of fluids used during hydraulic fracturing.

In Texas, the Railroad Commission (RRC) adopted its rule on December 13th to comply with a law passed earlier this year by the state’s legislature. That rule will require companies to use the FracFocus.org website to disclose chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing. The requirement will apply to all wells permitted by RRC on or after February 1, 2012, the date the rule goes into effect.

Companies across the country have been voluntarily utilizing Frac Focus for chemical disclosure for months, and anyone who visits the site can look up well-specific data. Of course, FracFocus.org has been available since this past spring to anyone with Internet access, a fact lost on professional opponents of development who still choose to believe that hydraulic fracturing fluids are a mystery.

It’s also worth noting that the new RRC rule was praised by a range of interests, from America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) to the League of Conservation Voters.

A similar story unfolded in Colorado, where the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) approved its own disclosure requirement for operators in the Centennial State. As in Texas, companies must use FracFocus.org, and both states have provisions to protect proprietary information. The new rule in Colorado was similarly embraced by diverse group of stakeholders, ranging from the Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) to the Environmental Defense Fund.

Texas and Colorado are two of the largest oil and gas producing states in the country (Texas being the largest), and the new rules approved by their respective regulatory bodies demonstrate yet again that state governments — not bureaucrats inside the Environmental Protection Agency — are more than capable of tightly and effectively regulating shale development.

Ohio DNR Geologist: Draft EPA Pavillion study “Truly Flawed Science”

It’s probably a pretty safe bet that no one in Ohio has actually ever been to Pavillion – a town of less than 170 residents in the middle of the Wind River Indian Reservation in Fremont Co., Wyoming. But after the release last week of a draft EPA study suggesting that the fracturing of shallow natural gas wells in the area could have impacted groundwater, it’s probably safe now to assume that hundreds of thousands of Ohio residents have heard of it.

So important was the news that the Columbus Dispatch ran the Pavillion story on its front page. Ditto in Dayton. But now, as the dust starts to settle out a bit, we’re starting to get a much better and clearer sense of exactly what went wrong out in Pavillion. And every shred of data and information coming in right now indicates that most of “what went wrong” resides directly with EPA itself.

From drilling their monitoring wells squarely into a natural gas-producing zone (700 feet below where anyone could expect to find potable groundwater), to reporting that petroleum compounds were found even in the “blank” water samples that were tested (control samples, not even from Pavillion) – the methodological errors that EPA appears to have committed in Pavillion are legion. At least that’s the conclusion to which several prominent news outlets came over the weekend, with one editorial suggesting that EPA’s findings are based on “shoddy scientific analysis.”

Well, add one more important voice to that choir: ODNR geologist Tom Tomastik. In a position paper released publicly earlier today, Mr. Tomastik lays out what he considers to be myriad errors of both omission and commission with respect to the work product issued by EPA’s Denver office late last week. The full, four-page ODNR analysis is available here – but below, we excerpt out a few of the highlights:

Click here for the full response from Mr. Tomastik – and here for EID’s rebuttal to the EPA study.

The Amazing Energy Future that the Federal Government Wants to Prevent

Shale oil development in places like North Dakota means ‘OPEC’s days are numbered,’ but federal regulators pursue alternative future with potentially devastating results.

In 2004, North Dakota was the ninth largest oil producing state in the country, producing less than half as much oil per year as the state of New Mexico. In 2010, a mere six years later, North Dakota had climbed to the fourth largest, surpassing energy rich Oklahoma and Louisiana. What happened?

Two words: shale oil. The Bakken formation in the western part of the state, which the U.S. Geological Survey predicted in 1995 had only 151 million barrels of oil, turned out to be one of the largest onshore oil fields ever discovered in the United States — in 2008 the USGS famously revised its estimate upward by an amazing 25-fold, projecting that the Bakken could hold more than four billion barrels of oil.

This incredible story was told in detail this weekend in the Wall Street Journal‘s weekend interview, ” How North Dakota Became Saudi Arabia,” which focused on Harold Hamm, the oil man credited with discovering the massive energy potential in the Bakken:

[S]ince 2005 America truly has been in the midst of a revolution in oil and natural gas, which is the nation’s fastest-growing manufacturing sector. No one is more responsible for that resurgence than Mr. Hamm. He was the original discoverer of the gigantic and prolific Bakken oil fields of Montana and North Dakota that have already helped move the U.S. into third place among world oil producers.

How much oil does Bakken have? The official estimate of the U.S. Geological Survey a few years ago was between four and five billion barrels. Mr. Hamm disagrees: “No way. We estimate that the entire field, fully developed, in Bakken is 24 billion barrels.”

Of course, none of this would have been possible were it not for horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, both of which are needed to unlock the vast deposits of oil and natural gas in shale deposits across the country.

Yet even with this amazing success story, the America’s ability to reduce its reliance on OPEC is far from written in stone, and indeed seems to be under attack by federal regulators whose actions could undermine this renaissance just as its getting started. As the WSJ further explains:

[Hamm's] only beef these days is with Washington. Mr. Hamm was invited to the White House for a “giving summit” with wealthy Americans who have pledged to donate at least half their wealth to charity. (He’s given tens of millions of dollars already to schools like Oklahoma State and for diabetes research.) “Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, they were all there,” he recalls.

When it was Mr. Hamm’s turn to talk briefly with President Obama, “I told him of the revolution in the oil and gas industry and how we have the capacity to produce enough oil to enable America to replace OPEC. I wanted to make sure he knew about this.”

The president’s reaction? “He turned to me and said, ‘Oil and gas will be important for the next few years. But we need to go on to green and alternative energy. [Energy] Secretary [Steven] Chu has assured me that within five years, we can have a battery developed that will make a car with the equivalent of 130 miles per gallon.’” Mr. Hamm holds his head in his hands and says, “Even if you believed that, why would you want to stop oil and gas development? It was pretty disappointing.”

Washington keeps “sticking a regulatory boot at our necks and then turns around and asks: ‘Why aren’t you creating more jobs,’” he says. He roils at the Interior Department delays of months and sometimes years to get permits for drilling. “These delays kill projects,” he says. Even the Securities and Exchange Commission is now tightening the screws on the oil industry, requiring companies like Continental to report their production and federal royalties on thousands of individual leases under the Sarbanes-Oxley accounting rules. “I could go to jail because a local operator misreported the production in the field,” he says.

The impact of the “regulatory boot” and federal delays have a greater cost than hamstringing America’s capacity to produce energy. They also undermine the type of job creation and economic growth that a struggling economy so desperately needs:

Mr. Hamm believes that if Mr. Obama truly wants more job creation, he should study North Dakota, the state with the lowest unemployment rate in the nation at 3.5%. He swears that number is overstated: “We can’t find any unemployed people up there. The state has 18,000 unfilled jobs,” Mr. Hamm insists. “And these are jobs that pay $60,000 to $80,000 a year.” The economy is expanding so fast that North Dakota has a housing shortage. Thanks to the oil boom—Continental pays more than $50 million in state taxes a year—the state has a budget surplus and is considering ending income and property taxes.

Less reliance on OPEC. More high-paying jobs. Budget surpluses. Lower tax burdens for everyone. These are undeniable benefits of responsible oil and gas production — particularly in states with significant shale resources such as Pennsylvania (Marcellus shale), Texas (Eagle Ford shale), Louisiana (Haynesville shale), and now Ohio (Utica shale) — that the federal government should be encouraging. Instead, members of Congress are pushing for the Environmental Protection Agency to ban hydraulic fracturing, thereby cutting off at the knees America’s energy revolution. The President, meanwhile, is threatening to curb domestic oil and gas production through higher taxes.

Instead of trying to shut down North Dakota’s model of more American energy production, more jobs, and more public revenue, maybe the federal government should be taking lessons from it.

*UPDATE II* Is Hydraulic Fracturing the ‘Greatest Threat’ to New Jersey’s Water?

Last week the New Jersey legislature passed an ill-informed measure that would ban hydraulic fracturing on the dubious basis that it “represents the greatest threat to New Jersey’s water supply than anything else we face today.” Of course, as EID carefully explained in a letter to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, hydraulic fracturing has never in its 60-year history been tied to the contamination of drinking water. The EPA’s own Lisa Jackson recently admitted that she’s not aware of a single case where the hydraulic fracturing process itself has contaminated water. (You can read more about what state regulators have said about hydraulic fracturing not impacting water by clicking here.)

Speaking of New Jersey’s water, yesterday the EPA actually announced a plan to clean up groundwater at a Superfund site in Pedricktown, NJ, where, it should be noted, there is no hydraulic fracturing taking place. Apparently even without a singled fractured well in the Garden State, the state’s water supply is so contaminated with heavy metals such as lead and cadmium that the federal government is intervening. New Jersey actually has a long history of water pollution from Superfund sites, which, dare it be said once again, has nothing to do with hydraulic fracturing.

And what does EPA plan to do about this particular site?

EPA had originally planned to pump the contaminated ground water to the surface, treat it, and discharge the treated ground water into the Delaware River. This type of treatment is no longer needed because pollutant levels in the ground water have gone down significantly as the sources of the contamination have been removed. EPA conducted a review of newer treatment methods, and is now proposing to inject a non-hazardous additive into the ground water that will absorb metal compounds such as lead and cadmium and remove the dissolved contaminants from the ground water.

Got that? New Jersey’s water is already contaminated with toxic substances, yet the legislature has declared a process that doesn’t even exist in the state — hydraulic fracturing – to be the “greatest threat” to its drinking water supplies. And now the EPA is proposing to inject chemicals into New Jersey residents’ water in the hopes that doing so will make it cleaner.

Also of note: One of the techniques that the Environmental Protection Agency commonly uses to assist in cleaning up Superfund sites is…hydraulic fracturing. Oh, the irony.

(To be fair, the New Jersey legislature’s ban is only in the context of producing natural gas, but it’s still interesting given the wild assertion that hydraulic fracturing — an environmentally sound process that the EPA uses to help clean up water — is somehow the greatest threat to the New Jersey’s available water supplies.)

UPDATE (7/8/11, 12:41pm EDT): Not to pile on, but the unrelated-to-gas-production water contamination stories in New Jersey are…piling up. And apparently so is raw sewage, according to the EPA:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has prepared an important report, Keeping Raw Sewage and Contaminated Stormwater Out of the Public’s Water, to answer commonly asked questions about combined sewer overflows. To read or download a copy of the report, visit http://www.epa.gov/region2/water/. To see an illustration of how serious a problem this is in Brooklyn, go to: http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/sewage-overflow-in-new-york-believe-it/.

Many of the sewer systems in New York State and New Jersey and some in Puerto Rico are combined systems that carry sewage from homes and businesses as well as rainwater collected from street drains. When they overflow during heavy rains, the rainwater mixes with sewage and results in raw sewage being directly discharged into water bodies. These discharges are called combined sewer overflows and can pose serious environmental and public health risks.

“Clean water is vital to people’s health and our economy and is a priority for the EPA,” said EPA Regional Administrator Judith Enck. “We’ve seen improvements in water quality since the passage of the Clean Water Act forty years ago, but there is much more to be done to protect our rivers, harbors, lakes and streams. EPA’s new report provides important information on the laws that protect our waterways and the actions that can be taken to reduce water pollution.”

Keyword searches don’t always work, but it does not appear that the terms “natural gas” or “hydraulic fracturing” appear once in that release.

UPDATE II (7/11/11, 1:48pm EDT) Remember that time hydraulic fracturing created a Superfund site in New Jersey? Neither does the EPA, which announced today yet another cleanup plan for the squalid wonder that is New Jersey’s water supply:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced a proposed plan to cleanup the Crown Vantage Landfill Superfund site in Alexandria Township, Hunterdon County, New Jersey. The former landfill is contaminated with volatile organic compounds, polychlorinated biphenyls and other pollutants. Volatile organic compounds are a group of chemicals that evaporate easily into the air and have serious health effects. Polychlorinated biphenyls are potentially cancer-causing in people and build up in the fat of fish and animals. The landfill is 10 acres and a small portion sits on the eastern bank of the Delaware River. The EPA has already completed most of the cleanup work at the site, including removing over 2,450 drums and related waste from the landfill, and the site does not present an imminent risk to public health.

Inhofe Reminds Feds that States are in Charge of Hydraulic Fracturing

Last month Energy Department Secretary Steven Chu directed the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) — specifically its Natural Gas Subcommittee — to “make recommendations to improve the safety and environmental performance of natural gas hydraulic fracturing from shale formations.” Those recommendations, according to the official memo sent by Steven Chu on May 5th (PDF), will eventually be shared with the Department of Interior and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

But as U.S. Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) points out in a recent letter to Secretary Chu, the U.S. Department of Energy has stated that it is “not engaged in regulating [hydraulic fracturing],” and the task laid out for the SEAB “does not include making decisions about regulatory policy,” according to Chu’s official May 5th memo. “Based on these statements,” Senator Inhofe writes in his letter to Chu, “can you confirm that any report issued by DOE pursuant to this announcement will not include recommendations relating to the regulation of the hydraulic fracturing process, or any components thereof, whether by DOE or any other Federal agency?”

The question is an important one: Any attempt to sway the opinions of the EPA (or Interior) toward regulating hydraulic fracturing at the federal level would not only compromise the ongoing research inside the EPA regarding this crucial well stimulation procedure, but also upend the incredibly efficient state-based regulation that already exists. Inhofe references this last point directly, noting in his letter that many in Washington are attempting to “expand federal regulatory and permitting power to supplant State authority.”

State regulators, meanwhile, overwhelmingly believe that hydraulic fracturing is environmentally safe and effectively regulated at the state level.

You can read Inhofe’s entire letter by clicking here (PDF).

U.S EPA: Not aware of any proven case where HF has affected drinking water

Earlier today, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform at a hearing on gas prices and the “Pain At The Pump.” So why are we posting about this on EID? Great question. At the hearing, a Congressman posed the following question to the Administrator: “Is there any evidence that hydraulic fracturing however can affect aquifers and water supplies?” Click on the following video link for the Administrator’s response, which may (or may not) surprise you.

While we often disagree with Mrs. Jackson on a number of issues, today she deserves a hat tip for setting the record straight when it comes to the history and deployment of hydraulic fracturing technology.

Don’t Sweat the Technical – EPA’s SAB Isn’t.

Two weeks from today, EPA’s Science Advisory Board (SAB) Panel will meet “to discuss substantive comments from Panel members on the draft SAB report Review of EPA’s Draft Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan.” For those of you not familiar with EPA’s HF study, or those looking for a quick refresher, this study dates back to 2009 when Congress passed the FY2010 spending bill instructing EPA to study the relationship between the use of fracturing technology and the safety and quality of underground sources of drinking water. Here’s the report language:

“The conferees urge the EPA to carry out a study on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, using a credible approach that relies on the best available science, as well as independent sources of information. The conferees expect the study to be conducted through a transparent, peer-reviewed process that will ensure the validity and accuracy of the data. EPA shall consult with other federal agencies as well as appropriate state and interstate regulatory agencies in carrying out the study, and it should be prepared in accordance with EPA quality assurance principles.”

Pretty clear directive, right? Here’s the good news: The science is about as straightforward as it gets – which is why state regulators and the EPA itself have been forced to admit that not a single case of groundwater contamination has ever been tied to hydraulic fracturing in the more than 60 years it’s been in use. Here, here, here, here (pg. 34) and here are just a few examples of state and federal regulators attesting to the safety of this process.

Back to the SAB meeting scheduled for May 19. While we certainly want to give these folks the benefit of the doubt and wait to hear what they have to say in two weeks, we got our hands on a 70-page discussion draft  that will serve as the basis for the SAB’s upcoming public meeting. And so we decided to take a look – here’s a quick look at what we found.

Righgt out of the gate, to SAB’s credit, the panel references actual field data collected from the Barnett and Marcellus formations by Pinnacle Technologies that clearly demonstrates the thousands of feet of separation that exist between the deepest fresh water aquifers and individual fractures. EID highlighted this research back in August 2010. So it’s nice to see that in there.

Another solid recommendation found in the document is the SAB’s insistence that experts with experience in well construction and fracturing operations be included on the final panel. To wit:

“While EPA has extensive expertise and the timeline is short on this study, the SAB recommends EPA consider expanding the research team to include researchers with experience in this area of investigation (especially those with experience in well construction and fracturing operations).” (SAB Review of EPA’s Draft HF Study Plan, pg. 30)

While the SAB is comprised of individuals with varying backgrounds and interests, the purpose of this study, as dictated by Congress, is to execute a technical review of hydraulic fracturing and its potential impact on drinking water. But looking through the actual document, you don’t find a whole lot of technical analysis. Don’t find a whole lot on the technologies in place that ensure drinking water is protected at each and every stage of the process. What you do find, however, is a lot of talk about non-technical things – a lots of references to lots of terms that have nothing to do with the mandate of this panel. Here’s how many times the following words appear in the text:

Wellbore (0); Regulations (0); Annulus (0); Background (0); Migration (0); Biogenic Methane (0); Containment Technologies (1); Casing (3); Pressure (4); Completion (4); Natural gas (7); Cement (9); Environmental Justice (12); Toxic (74)

Again, this is a technical review of hydraulic fracturing – one that’s designed to review the well completion process and determine what, if any potential impacts the fracturing process has on fresh water aquifers and private water wells. Let’s stick to the science and technical aspects of the fracturing process. So long as that’s the approach, it’s one we will continue to support. But it doesn’t appear to be an approach that’s been followed right now.

FACT CHECK: Huff Post Duo Put Time Magazine in Their Crosshairs, Check Facts at Arianna’s Front Door

Keep Reading »

EID Statement on Re-Introduction of the FRAC Act

Guest Blog: ‘This study will take a while’ – and with questionable personnel

Andrew Browning is a vice president at Consumer Energy Alliance (CEA), and is writing on behalf of CEA’s Natural Gas Committee.

Last week, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson sat before the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to address issues concerning public drinking water. Included in this discussion was a brief exchange between Jackson and Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) on the topic of hydraulic fracturing.  When asked by Sen. Inhofe to update the committee on any investigations the EPA was pursuing on the topic, Jackson replied:

“On hydraulic fracturing, we are about to round up our work plan, which has gone through peer review and public comment. We expect in the next month or two to have the work plan for our study finished. … [Fracturing] is not an unregulated activity. Many localities, many states regulate aspects of the drilling process. … And states are different, geology is different, the number of people and population density are different. But there may be a need for a federal role, we simply don’t know. And this study will take a while.”

On a number of occasions, my organization Consumer Energy Alliance, along with many others in the energy community (including that which is providing us this blog space) have stated that while we find EPA’s study to be slightly redundant – considering study after study has been conducted with no sign of water contamination due to hydraulic fracturing – it is welcomed if it means that sound science will be used in the appropriate manner to ensure members of well-site communities that their water is safe.

While CEA is confident that EPA can and will conduct a fair evaluation of this drilling technology, we are hesitant to fully support EPA’s efforts following the announcement last month of those experts who will carry out the study. The board, officially known as the Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan Review Panel, is made up of 23 members, all but four of whom come from a research or academic organization, and none of which hail from an oil and gas company.  CEA has commented extensively on the proposed direction of  the Draft Science Advisory Report that was developed to guide the EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) in their Hydraulic Fracturing Study.  In our previous comments, we advised EPA to draw extensively from industry experts within the field and with “hands on” experience, and also from state officials who have successfully regulated hydraulic fracturing and natural gas production for decades.

Having a strong academic presence on such a panel is understandable and necessary – academics and researchers fill the role of a third-party appropriately. However, CEA believes that a panel made up of over 80 percent academics is unbalanced, especially when so much is at stake. Even if some of these panelists had hands-on experience in the industry prior to taking up their current roles, technology used in the oil and gas industry tends to change rapidly, and only those who are knees deep in the field now – as opposed to five or ten years ago – will be able to accurately counterbalance findings and techniques from the academic community.

In evaluating the regulatory environment post-Macondo, those of us working with the oil and gas industry understand the need to maintain a regulatory environment that has a clear division between regulator and industry personnel. But we also recognize that those in the business have a great deal of technical expertise , and it is in the best interest of a study such as this to have that experience available to share information about what has been found to be true over the past several decades: hydraulic fracturing practices are safe and well-regulated, and do not pose a threat to drinking water.

CEA and its 160 member companies representing all facets of the U.S. economy look forward to seeing the results of the EPA findings, but we urge EPA and the Obama Administration to seek comments and guidance straight from the industry and those who have had extensive past regulatory experience to ensure that the study is as accurate and fair as possible.

ProPublica’s Fuzzy Math

Absent any data, advocacy outlet attempts to conjure up its own lifecycle analysis of natural gas – EID takes a look at the method

In a debate that over time has seen its fair share of twists, turns and temporary detours from fact, the rejection on the part of shale gas opponents of the basic science supporting natural gas’s status as an efficient, clean-burning fuel source stands out as a particularly troubling case of ideology as a substitute for methodology. Indeed, that natural gas emits less carbon dioxide per unit of energy produced than all other fossil fuels isn’t an assertion of faith, policy or politics – it’s a reality of thermodynamics. And it’s a fact corroborated by EPA, EIA, MIT and even the Union of Concerned Scientists, just to name a few.

Of course, as one anti-shale activist cautioned in a recent email exchange, “we should not, and cannot solely depend upon science to guide us.” And on that point, it’s apparent the advocacy journalism outlet ProPublica heartily agrees. Earlier this week, ProPublica author Abrahm Lustgarten published a piece putting forth a series of back-of-the-envelope calculations on the “lifecycle” greenhouse gas (GHG) impact of natural gas. His contention? That natural gas might not be as “clean” as previously thought. And further: that “new research” from EPA actually confirms it.

Except that it doesn’t — precisely because no new EPA research on this question actually exists. So how exactly did ProPublica conjure an analysis without the service of a single new data point upon which to structure its case? Well, it’s complicated. But we’ll do our best to unravel it some.

Let’s start here: In April 2010, EPA published a paper that, among other things, tracks the steady decline of methane emissions from natural gas systems over the past 20 years – even as thousands of new wells (particularly shale wells) were drilled, and billions of additional cubic feet of natural gas (particularly shale gas) were delivered to consumers. The key table from the report is excerpted below, and to its credit, ProPublica at least includes mention of this study in the 35th paragraph of its 44-paragraph piece:

Candidly, this table is, and has remained, a constant thorn in the side of those who believe expanded shale gas development is deleterious to our climate. The reason? Previously, the only credible way to advance such an argument was to suggest the volume of natural gas leaked (or fugitively emitted) into the atmosphere during the development and transportation process is much greater than we thought. EPA, for its part, estimates that 1.4 percent of U.S. natural gas produced is lost somewhere between the wellsite and the customer. Most producers, which have a strong economic incentive to minimize such losses, believe that number’s too high. But whatever the actual figure, the table above indicates that from the well head, to the pipeline, to the processing unit, to the distribution network – the volume of methane that escapes into the air pursuant to natural gas operations in the United States continues to go down. By a lot.

Undeterred by the science, activists such as Robert Howarth, a professor at Cornell, have structured their entire case against shale gas atop the presumption that the published figures for methane leakage/fugitive emissions are too low. So how much methane (and therefore money) does Prof. Howarth believe producers of natural gas fritter away into the ether, to the detriment of both the environment and their bottom line? His lips had been sealed on this for the better part of the past year, but earlier this week, the professor quietly posted an updated two-pager on his website positing his theory that as much as 7.9 percent (!) of this cash-crop is wasted away each day. Of course, without the use of that staggeringly inflated figure, Howarth has no ability to argue that natural gas has a similar GHG profile as coal. And he knows it.

ProPublica knows it too – which is probably why it tacked in a different direction in advancing its cause this week. Working backward from the predetermined conclusion that natural gas isn’t as clean as scientists believe, ProPublica bases its lifecycle GHG analysis of natural gas upon a “technical support document” assembled by EPA as part of the agency’s new proposed reporting standards for oil and natural gas producers. Only one problem: Though the EPA document runs 144 pages long, the word “lifecycle” is found nowhere in the text. In other words, this EPA report, the source most critical to ProPublica’s case against natural gas on the basis of its lifecycle GHG performance, doesn’t include any lifecycle GHG data itself. Nor does it include any new data on the small percentage of methane lost or leaked along the bit-to-burner development and delivery process.

Here’s the thing about lifecycle analyses: Putting together a credible one is hard work. Just ask our friends in the corn business. More than five years into the process, with tens of thousands of man-hours committed and at least 40 separate technical tomes on the subject published, and EPA is still making tweaks to its lifecycle GHG read-out for ethanol.

Now let’s take a look at the ingredients involved in ProPublica’s lifecycle analysis of natural gas: Weeks of work instead of years, zero original data either acquired or introduced, an EPA technical document that at no point addresses the lifecycle question itself, and a six-page pamphlet by a researcher at Carnegie Mellon.

Now, in ProPublica’s defense, the EPA report at the center of its investigation isn’t entirely silent on the question of methane emissions from unconventional energy development – but the sources the agency uses to justify an increase in emission factors are, in fact, quite amazing. As per EPA’s explanation in Appendix B of this document (page 84), instead of gathering new data itself, the agency used a 2004 industry PowerPoint presentation to find a single data point (from 2002) from a single operator to set its baseline volume for the total amount of methane lost annually in the U.S. as part of the well completion and workover process. Once it had that, EPA simply multiplied that figure by the number of unconventional wells it assumes have been drilled (fracked, and re-fracked) over the past several years. Through that process, it eventually arrives at its new emission factors. But not without reminding the reader of this:

The estimated activity factors were multiplied by the associated emission factors to estimate the total emissions from well completions and workovers in the U.S. for 2007. This does not reflect reductions due to control technologies such as flares or bringing portable treatment units onsite to perform a practice called “reduced emission completions.”

In other words, the new nationwide emission factors put forth by EPA in November and then converted this week by ProPublica into a back-of-the-envelope lifecycle assessment don’t take into account the technologies currently being used by operators to reduce the amount of methane emitted into the atmosphere (and remember: they’ve got one hell of an incentive to do just that). And again, as EPA admits, the new figures don’t even attempt to characterize what’s happened in this arena since 2007 (or even 2002, since that’s where its data is derived from). For that information, we must again refer to the April 2010 EPA report – the one ProPublica doesn’t like – in which you’ll find the following statement:

The U.S. natural gas system encompasses hundreds of thousands of wells, hundreds of processing facilities, and over a million miles of transmission and distribution pipelines. Overall, natural gas systems emitted 96.4 Tg CO2 Eq. (4,591 Gg) of CH4 in 2008, a 26 percent decrease over 1990 emissions, and 30.0 Tg CO2 Eq. (29,973 Gg) of non-combustion CO2 in 2008, a 20 percent decrease over 1990 emissions.

Improvements in management practices and technology, along with the replacement of older equipment, have helped to stabilize emissions. Methane emissions decreased since 2007 despite an increase in production and production wells …

So, to recap: In the article published this week, ProPublica shares the results of its own lifecycle GHG analysis of natural gas based on 1) no new original data; 2) no new information on methane leakage and fugitive emissions; 3) an EPA report that does not, and was never intended to, speak to the question of lifecycle; 4) “updated” emissions factor research based on a single data point from 2002 which is then extrapolated out to characterize the entire U.S., and finally; 5) a six-page article from a Carnegie Mellon researcher. And you know what? Even with the aid of its Rube Goldberg analysis machine, ProPublica still can’t come up with a conclusion suggesting natural gas is anything less than between 25 percent and 40 percent cleaner than other fossil fuels – directly contradicting the work of Prof. Howarth at Cornell.

As we know, nothing truly transformational occurs in this world without picking up a few gainsayers along the way – and the more transformational the event, the more powerful the forces that are bound to ally against it. Thankfully, facts still mean something in this debate, and method still counts as a means of establishing credibility. You can’t structure a lifecycle analysis on the back of a napkin. But as we saw this week, that doesn’t mean you can’t try.

UPDATE (1/31/11; 4:31p EST): EPA releases statement on ProPublica piece

EPA has not conducted an analysis of coal versus natural gas, and there is no new report.  The information referred to in the article was developed based on information from a Technical Support Document, however, which was developed as support for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. The reporter used that data and did his own calculations to arrive at the figures used in the article.

The document above does not estimate emissions from the gas industry and the emissions estimates in the article were not developed by EPA. EPA has not reviewed the analysis described in the article in detail, but we have not seen any indication that the benefits of natural gas have been called into question.  Available data demonstrate that switching from another fossil fuel to natural gas reduces emissions of carbon pollution and other harmful pollutants that threaten Americans’ health.

Erin Birgfeld
Director of Communications
Climate Change Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

READ MORE

EPA MIA In Austin

Keep Reading »

ICYMI: EPA staff acknowledge HF, RRC not to blame for Parker Co. wells

Letter from Range Resources to EPA Region 6 administrator Al Armendariz (dated 12/27):

Range senior vice president Mark Whitley:

Key links/relevant quotes:

o    Powell’s newsletter “an authoritative source on gas drilling in North Texas” (FWST, 12/17)

o    More: “EPA representatives did not respond to a Star-Telegram request for further explanation of how the federal agency reached its conclusion.”

o    General manager of Upper Trinity Groundwater Conservation District: “[Patterson] said natural gas has contaminated shallow, water-bearing sands ‘for an estimated 40 years’ in the same area where the EPA says the Range gas wells fouled the water wells.” [link]

EPA struggles to get its story straight:

Full text of Range’s letter to EPA is available here and copied below.

December 27, 2010

Dr. Alfredo Armendariz

Regional Administrator

U.S. EPA, Region 6 (MC: 6EN)

1445 Ross Ave., Suite 1200

Dallas, Texas 75202-2733

Re:       Docket No. SDWA-06-2011-1208

Butler Unit, Lease No.: 253732, Well # 1-H

Teal Unit, Lease No.: 253779, Well # 1-H

Dear Dr. Armendariz:

I am writing on behalf of Range Resources Corporation and its subsidiary Range Production Company (“Range”) regarding the meeting held on December 15 with a number of your staff regarding the above-referenced matter. Whether we’re discussing the issues of the EPA’s order of December 7 or not, Range knows that responsible natural gas is an exciting opportunity for our clean energy future and, simply put, too important for our country to not get it right. Range’s commitment to natural gas development includes being responsible, transparent and accountable in what we do.

We would like to thank you for making those staff and counsel responsible for this matter available to meet with us. It is unfortunate you were unable to join us as it would have allowed us to share directly with you the sincerity with which we are approaching this matter and our desire to demonstrate to you and the public that we are a responsible company committed to doing what is right. We were very pleased to learn that we agree on the two most critical points. One, both EPA and Range are concerned about the health and safety of the persons who live in the areas where we work. That is why we have taken the actions we have to date, which are outlined below. Second, it was very clear in our meeting that your data and analysis of the gas samples and ours demonstrates that Range’s activities are not the cause of the natural gas and hydrocarbons found in the water wells in question. More specifically, Range concurs with your technical staff’s acknowledgement that hydraulic fracturing in the Barnett Shale cannot be the cause of natural gas occurring in the domestic water wells identified by the EPA. During the meeting we discussed with your staff that, in 2005, another domestic water well very near and drilled to approximately the same depth as the water wells in question produced significant volumes of natural gas that flared for days, which was four years before Range began its activity in the area. Since that time, as I am sure you are aware, other water well drilling companies have publicly stated that there have been similar cases of natural gas in the water aquifer over the course of the last several decades. It is therefore apparent that the EPA’s sampling and analysis, upon which the order was based, does not and cannot support the conclusions in the order with regard to Range. Your staff seemed nearly as frustrated as we were by that fact and no one was able to articulate even a basic theory of how Range may be causing or contributing to natural gas in the aquifer.

After our meeting with your staff we feel even stronger that we are not the cause of this problem. Despite not being the cause, we will continue, as we have been for several months, to assist the Texas Railroad Commission and the public in determining how this is happening and address this issue. As we’ve stated, public safety is a high priority for Range, which is why we’ve gone above and beyond the requests by the Railroad Commission, much of which the EPA’s December 7 order echoes. Some of these voluntary efforts include testing water wells for residents more than five miles from the location identified by the EPA, providing water for nearby residents who believe their water has been or is impacted while a cause is determined, providing natural gas monitors for in-home usage, and other communication steps to make sure interested residents have access to the facts. By continuing to focus on Range without any factual support, you are foregoing the opportunity to join us in determining the cause of this matter.

Given the apparent mutual understanding and the fact that our respective data clearly show that we are not the cause of the natural gas in the identified water wells, we were very surprised when we received word the next day that the EPA did not withdraw its Order and pursue the source of the gas in these wells whether it proves to be naturally occurring or man-made. It’s not our intent to place blame, but rather determine the cause of this issue that clearly existed years before Range’s or any Barnett Shale-related activities.

Public concern, like public safety, is important to Range. People not only deserve affordable and clean energy, but have a right to clean water, air and a safe environment. Moreover, people should be able to go to bed at night knowing that companies like Range are doing the right thing and addressing concerns. It is our hope that we can work together to better address the concerns of the public with objective facts and appropriate actions.

Among other matters of interest to the public is whether Range will comply with the EPA’s December 7 order. As indicated above and during out December 15 meeting with your staff, we have taken actions beyond what the EPA and the Railroad Commission has asked. Nonetheless we believe that acknowledging the validity of the EPA order is factually impossible for Range, since we know that we are not the source of the gas in the water wells and we have significant concerns about the way the order was issued without any prior notice or opportunity for Range to present important objective facts. However, we want to confirm to you that Range will continue to be accessible, transparent and accountable.

We would welcome the opportunity to meet in person with you and your staff to discuss these matters prior to the Texas Railroad Commission’s January 10 meeting.

Sincerely,

/s/

Mark D. Whitley

Senior Vice President

Range Resources Corporation

www.energyindepth.org

EPA stacks the frack deck

EPA has an idea: Let’s convene a panel of “experts” from which we can solicit advice as part of our upcoming study on the safety and performance of hydraulic fracturing. But let’s make sure to populate that panel with folks we know are outspoken critics of the technology in question. Fox, meet hen house.

The list released by EPA last month is 82 folks long – but two names in particular jump out upon first review. Theo Colborn and Robert Howarth, two fervent critics of HF—were placed on the list of potential panelists for EPA’s peer-review panel.

Colborn, a zoologist, earns her living fronting a group called the “Endocrine Disruption Exchange,” a non-profit receiving funds for research attempting to link HF to ADHD and obesity. Seriously. As for Howarth— when he’s not picking up a mic and attacking HF at anti-drilling rallies— is a professor at Cornell University.  He wrote a draft report in April claiming shale gas production could emit the same amount of emissions as production and usage of coal. In a letter sent to EPA this week, the Independent Petroleum Association of America said Howarth’s report was “riddled with errors.”

The letter also addressed EPA’s consideration of stolid HF critics for the panel— perhaps addressing Colborn and Howarth indirectly:

“Unfortunately, a number of nominees’ past comments betray a strong and unambiguous antipathy toward shale development in general, and hydraulic fracturing in particular.”

The fact of the matter is, EPA needs to stop playing politics with HF—a technology that made the United States the world’s largest natural gas producer and destroyed our dependency on foreign natural gas sources before it even began.  It’s in the interest of all Americans for EPA to have a fair and balanced selection of unbiased experts with real knowledge of the issues surrounding the HF debate.

If the EPA fracas continues, you might as well have Red Sox fans doing the Yankees’ annual scouting report.  Both outcomes would be equally absurd.

« Older Entries