Home » Posts tagged "Lisa Jackson"

Lisa Jackson

On Shale and NPR, All Things Considered
As issues like “local control” gain more media attention, it’s important we all recognize not just THAT states are the primary regulators of oil and gas development, but WHY that is and remains the case. It’s not because the federal government has skirted its responsibilities, and it’s not because of some grand conspiracy to keep local municipalities shut out of the process. It’s because, when it comes to oil and gas, experience matters.

steve_everleySteve
Team Lead

Earlier this week, I participated in a great conversation as a guest on NPR’s Diane Rehm Show, where I was joined by Coral Davenport of National Journal and Michael Brune, the executive director of the Sierra Club. The topic, as you might expect, was hydraulic fracturing, with heavy emphasis on so-called “local control” and zoning ordinances aimed at restricting shale development on private land.

The segment began with a point-counterpoint format between a lawyer from Earthjustice (arguing on behalf of using local control to stifle development) and a representative from the Joint Landowners Coalition of New York (JLCNY). The lady from Earthjustice recited the same talking points we hear so often from opponents, most notably the suggestion that local entities should be empowered to regulate land use, which apparently includes hydraulic fracturing. Her statement was a defense of a recent New York appeals court decision.

It’s worth noting right now, though, that the push for “local control” is essentially a ruse. Remember, the same groups who have been pushing relentlessly for the federal government, via U.S. EPA, to regulate hydraulic fracturing are now claiming that authority should instead rest with city councils and township commissioners.

How is such a clear contradiction possible?

Break down the “local control” issue, reduce it to its irreducible parts, and what you find is that it’s not really about local control at all. Opponents of shale development haven’t all of a sudden dropped their philosophy that the federal government knows best. They’ve simply recalibrated their approach: taking their message to every level and authority of government that exists (even school boards!) to find the one that’s most hostile to oil and gas. Once identified, they then worked backwards from there to argue why that level – in this case, the county or city government – is the ideal place for regulating oil and gas, irrespective of whatever experience (or lack thereof) that particular office may have.

Of course, the one level of government in the United States that actually has demonstrated leadership and expertise in the realm of oil and gas regulation is the states. They’re the ones that have more than a hundred years’ worth of experience, which is why even federal agencies typically grant states primacy to apply and enforce applicable federal laws. It’s also why the head of EPA’s drinking water division was quoted suggesting that states are doing a “good job” regulating hydraulic fracturing.

But the problem for opponents is that these same state regulatory agencies — no doubt because they are actually experienced in this field — have roundly and near-categorically rejected their claims and allegations. From hysterical accusations of hydraulic fracturing contaminating groundwater, to the suggestion that emissions from shale development are unregulated and uncontrolled, state regulators have investigated every aspect of development and found the reality to be completely different from what opponents have alleged.

Undaunted by the push-back from state regulatory agencies, activist groups have decided to take a page directly from the playbook used by some in the legal community: “venue shopping.” Activists can’t get the federal government to ban fracking; they can’t get the states to ban it; and they can’t get local communities that actually exist in proximity to oil and gas wells to ban it either.

Their recourse? Get places like Vermont to ban the practice, even though there’s zero oil and gas activity in the state. Send attorneys in from back east to Mora Co., N.M. to do the same. Sure, there’s not a single well operating in that county – and no shale either. But folks in the media don’t know that – hey, it’s New Mexico, after all! For activists, that’s mission accomplished, even though their efforts stopped not one single well from being drilled.

On her show this week, Ms. Rehm asked National Journal correspondent Coral Davenport if she believes we will see more attention on bans and “local control” in the coming months. Davenport’s response:

 “We will if the federal government doesn’t step forth on this.”

In other words, according to Davenport, the only thing that can prevent environmental groups from venue shopping anti-fracking resolutions to local governments is if the federal government itself decides to regulate hydraulic fracturing?

Of course, to suggest that only the feds can prevent local bans from advancing is to suggest those who are not equipped to regulate the process in any conceivable way are somehow destined to regulate it anyway. Federal regulation would also be contrary to literally decades of established law, premised on the fact that state regulatory agenices are, in fact, the best equipped.

This raises a series of questions.

First of all: who do we want as regulators: governments that actually have the history and expertise to do so, or governments that do not? Remember: it was none other than former EPA administrator Lisa Jackson – appointed by President Obama in 2009 – who said:

 “Let me speak really plainly…There is no EPA setup that allows us to oversee each and every well that’s drilled.”

Is that who we want in charge of regulating hydraulic fracturing? Will that solve anything?

Jackson has also said:

 “We have no data right now that lead us to believe one way or the other that there needs to be specific federal regulation of the fracking process.”

Second of all, let’s revisit what “local control” is really all about: halting development. The groups behind it — Food & Water Watch, NRDC, Sierra Club, Earthjustice, Earthworks, et al. – have been working for years to stop energy production. They know that a patchwork of regulations – and the prospect that a handful of commissioners or town council members can decide on a whim (aka “at the urging of air dropped activists in that region”) to ban or restrict drilling – would prevent the industry from having any investment certainty. Sold as a “local control” issue, the so-called “greens” are pushing for a ban under a different name.

Lest you think this is just about preserving simplicity for the industry, the reality is that all states have to provide some level of consistency for any commercial or industrial process. To give just one analogy, should each county – indeed each town – be empowered to create its own driver’s license? Its own driving tests, its own specific rules and requirements? Its own uniquely frustrating DMV? Heck, maybe even its own vehicle permitting requirements, including emissions tests and safety inspections? Just to drive across the state you’d need a wallet bigger than George Costanza’s, not to mention an investment of time and energy that I doubt anyone legitimately has.

The argument for federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing, at its core, rests on the assumption that the states are not doing their jobs, and that those failures are significant enough to warrant an additional layer of regulation on top of everything else. That argument is not a factual one, but rather an emotional one designed to secure talking points. It’s a position of convenience, not one of seeking to improve any existing system.

If anything, by placing authority in the hands of officials who do not have as much expertise, we would likely be making the situation worse.

As issues like “local control” gain more media attention, it’s important we all recognize not just THAT states are the primary regulators of oil and gas development, but WHY that is and remains the case. It’s not because the federal government has skirted its responsibilities, and it’s not because of some grand conspiracy to keep local municipalities shut out of the process. It’s because, when it comes to oil and gas, experience matters.

*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?

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

Dave
Field Director, California

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

*UPDATE* Culver City’s Fact-Free Fracturing Debate
An interesting development in Culver City last week: the City’s School Board (yes, its school board) opted to weigh in on hydraulic fracturing. The development offers a good lesson to returning students this year: namely, that it is important to conduct independent research and gain at least partial understanding of what’s being discussed before inserting yourself into a discussion.

UPDATE (08/09/2012, 12:07 p.m. PT) An interesting development in Culver City last week: the City’s School Board opted to weigh in on the use of hydraulic fracturing in California and Culver City in particular.  The development, originally reported by the Culver City Observer, will provide a good lesson to returning students this year – namely that it is important to conduct independent research and gain at least partial understanding of what’s being discussed before inserting yourself into a discussion. Especially when that discussion centers around a highly technical, and highly regulated, process whose safety has been confirmed by over 65 years of experience and government officials like EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar and regulators in over 16 U.S. states.

Of course, haste makes waste as most folks know – and the actions of Culver City’s school board demonstrate that in spades. The hastily organized resolution urged the state to take action on AB 972, a bill that seeks to place a moratorium on a process that has been employed in over 1.2 million oil and natural gas wells since 1947 without incident.

It’s telling that the Board’s resolution was brought against the advice of its president who urged the body to delay the vote.  It turns out there was good reason for that request as half of the board hadn’t even read the legislation the school board resolution sought to support.  With this as background, it’s easy to understand why the original vote failed.  This failure, as well as presentations by anti-natural gas activists to delay the vote, would have stopped most responsible governments from further action. However, that wasn’t the case in Culver City. Instead, the revisions were made and the board ultimately passed a resolution that urged the State Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources to place a temporary ban on hydraulic fracturing.  Given the school board’s tremendous lack of research, we’re pretty sure they’re not aware the resolution will have the unintended effect of banning geothermal energy development which also utilizes hydraulic fracturing.

So, boil it all down and what do we have?  On the surface it appears a reactionary group of elected officials passed a ban on a technology they know little about based on previous actions by the Culver City Council. Mind you, neither of these government agencies fact checked a single assertion fed to them by national activist groups- known for their exaggeration- before moving to action. So, perhaps the lesson here, if there is one, is that in today’s world sound bites are more important than science, environmental activists deserve more trust than senior level government officials, and our youth shouldn’t “trust but verify” claims, so long as they are made by special interest groups.

-Original post, July 11, 2012 -

During its July 2 meeting, the Culver City Council approved a resolution calling on the State of California to temporarily ban the use of hydraulic fracturing by the state’s oil and natural gas industry. While the resolution was symbolic, during the course of the meeting, several environmental groups made blatantly misleading statements and baseless allegations about hydraulic fracturing to scare the public and pressure city officials into supporting the resolution.

Energy In Depth-California, like the rest the oil and natural gas industry, welcomes a robust, open and honest debate about the state’s energy future. But California’s citizens and elected officials have been denied that debate so far, thanks to a misinformation campaign led by national groups, such as Food & Water Watch of Washington, D.C., that have staked out an extremist position. That campaign was in full effect last week at the Culver City Council, and this issue alert aims to correct the record.

Energy In Depth is a research, education and public outreach campaign of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, an organization that represents the companies that develop 95 percent of the nation’s oil and gas wells. EID was established in 2009 to support and promote a fact-based debate about the promise and potential of responsibly developing America’s onshore energy resources, especially oil and natural gas from shale and other “tight” reservoirs, such as might be found in California in the Monterey Shale.

The state, and the nation, may be denied the economic, environmental, employment and revenue benefits of increased domestic energy production if statements like these are left unchallenged.

Food & Water Watch: “We do not believe that fracking is a practice that can be done safely. It is inherently unsafe.”

That’s not true. The safety of hydraulic fracturing is not a matter of belief – it’s a matter of record. Just ask senior officials in the Obama administration.

According to President Obama’s Interior Secretary Ken Salazar:

According to President Obama’s top energy and climate adviser Heather Zichal:

Despite the claims to the contrary from the oil and gas industry’s professional critics, hydraulic fracturing is a safe, proven and well understood technology that’s been used more than 1.2 million times in the United States, including California, since the 1940s. The combination of this technology with horizontal drilling, which has been widely used since the 1980s, has spurred a renaissance in domestic energy production that supports more than 1 million jobs nationwide, and is expected to create another 500,000 high-wage jobs by 2015. The renaissance in natural gas shales in other parts of the country has opened new possibilities for the expansion of the use of CNG vehicles, such as the type that are essential to helping improve air quality throughout Southern California.

Hydraulic fracturing takes place after a well is drilled and the rig and derrick have been removed. According to the Ground Water Protection Council – a multistate body whose members include California’s State Water Resources Control Board – the process:

In the case of California’s Monterey Shale, the target formations reside between 8,000 and 14,000 feet deep, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That’s roughly 1.5 to 2.5 miles below the ground, and far below any potable sources of ground water.

Food & Water Watch: “Fracking throughout the country is linked to thousands of cases of water contamination.”

That’s not true. Hydraulic fracturing has been used more than a million times over more than six decades, and there’s never been a case of fracturing fluids migrating through thousands of feet of rock into shallow groundwater formations. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson has reaffirmed this fact a number of times:

Stanford University geophysics professor Mark Zoback, who advises Energy Secretary Steven Chu on hydraulic fracturing, explains why:

Environmental Priorities Network: “Fracking will also exacerbate the risk of earthquakes.”

That’s not true. According to a new study from the National Academy of Sciences:

That’s because the amount of energy needed to complete the hydraulic fracturing process is tiny compared to what’s recorded during actual seismic events that can be felt. For example, for large hydraulic fracturing treatments in the Barnett Shale of Texas, the total energy is equivalent to 1 gram of explosive charge – about the size of a single blasting cap. The amount of energy in an earthquake that can actually be felt is tens of millions of times larger, equivalent to about 30 tons of explosive.

The oil and gas industry’s opponents have also tried to frighten the public about wastewater disposal wells, which are completely different to wells that are fractured. Wastewater injection wells have operated in California and other states for many decades, and are strictly regulated under state and federal law.

California’s existing regulations protect against the type of events that have captured media attention in Ohio. For example, to obtain a permit for an injection well in California, the applicant must first submit an analysis of all known fault lines and show how the wastewater will be kept away from them. The applications are reviewed by state engineers to make sure the environment will be protected and the injection of fluids won’t cause adverse seismic events. The state program is overseen by the federal EPA, and it’s working, with injection wells having operated routinely throughout California, including the Los Angeles Basin, for decades.

According to the NAS study, the vast majority of seismic events are “too small to be noticed by people” and possess nowhere near enough energy to create property damage. For some additional perspective, the NAS study compared the number of possible cases of induced seismicity from wastewater disposal wells, and found 8 in Arkansas, Colorado and Ohio – but none in California. By comparison, tapping geothermal energy in The Geysers in Northern California’s Sonoma and Lake counties may cause 300 to 400 incidents of induced seismicity every year. Correctly, in the case of geothermal, environmental groups are not calling for the closure of one of California’s most important energy facilities over small seismic disturbances that don’t pose any danger to the public. That’s also been the standard for oil and gas in California for as long as the industry has been operating in the state. There is no rational basis for changing it now.

Food and Water Watch: “[Government agencies are] allowing industry to move forward without tough regulations.”

That’s not true. Producing oil and natural gas from deep shale formations is a tightly regulated activity, and operators must comply with overlapping state and federal laws and regulations. Simply because Food & Water Watch does not understand how the existing regulations work, and the significance of the requirements contained in the regulations, does not mean the industry is not subject to thorough and adequate regulations. According to the State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations, oil and gas development in California is overseen by:

The use of hydraulic fracturing, along with other means of increasing the efficiency of oil and natural gas wells, is authorized under California’s Public Resources Code:

And, according to California’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, whether hydraulic fracturing is used or not:

California’s regulations add to the federal laws that govern oil and gas development across the nation, which include the:

Despite these interlocking state and federal requirements, opponents of shale-oil and shale-gas development continue to falsely claim that the industry is unregulated. They have focused on a so-called “exemption” for hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and claim it was created by the Energy Policy Act of 2005. This is a myth.

The Safe Drinking Water Act was passed in 1974, and while it covers other aspects of oil and gas development, it has never covered hydraulic fracturing, as President Clinton’s EPA Administrator Carol Browner said in 1995:

Instead, state environmental agencies and oil and gas regulatory bodies have overseen the use of hydraulic fracturing since it was pioneered in the 1940s, and the 2005 energy law reaffirmed their authority. The Ground Water Protection Council says state agencies:

Lisa Jackson, the current EPA administrator, has also recognized the effectiveness of the current regime that governs the use of hydraulic fracturing:

Occupy Los Angeles: “They won’t release the sites or the chemicals that they use.”

This is false. Before a well can be drilled in California, oil and gas producers must submit an extensive permit application and have their plans reviewed by state engineers. Oil and gas companies in California have also started publishing the well locations where hydraulic fracturing is used, and the California Independent Petroleum Association supports legislation that would codify this disclosure:

FracFocus is a disclosure registry administered by the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, a regulatory agency established by state and the federal government in the 1930s. It’s already the platform for mandatory public disclosures on hydraulic fracturing in other states and federal government is actively considering whether to include FracFocus in future disclosure regulations for hydraulic fracturing on federal lands.

Sierra Club: “You have a combination of dangerous chemicals, injected under high pressure, contaminating our ground water.”

This is a misleading statement calculated to frighten, not inform, the public. According to Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection secretary Michael Krancer:

After water and sand, the most prominent additive by weight and volume in fracturing fluid is “guar,” a thickener that’s also used in ice cream, gluten-free baked goods, and makeup. It keeps the sand suspended in the fluid so it can be carried into fractures in the shale rock, instead of sinking to the bottom of the well. Other additives perform important safety functions, such as preventing corrosion in the well, so that oil, gas and the fracturing fluid itself remain completely isolated from any shallow groundwater sources.

But regardless of the ingredients, it’s important to remember that any fracturing fluid that remains deep underground will stay there, trapped by the same geological forces that kept the oil and gas in place for millions of years. Also directly relevant in California, as noted above, are the well construction regulations of the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources:

For all these reasons, when the New York Department of Environmental Conservation conducted its own exhaustive review of hydraulic fracturing, the agency concluded:

Food & Water Watch:  “There’s towns like Dimock, Pennsylvania, where water’s been contaminated, after fracking began in the region three years ago. The EPA is only now coming in testing household water.”

That’s not true. The EPA recently completed testing the private water wells of more than 60 homes in Dimock. The agency concluded the water is safe to drink:

The EPA’s findings are especially significant because environmental groups demanded the federal testing after Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection also found the well water in Dimock was safe to drink. Unfortunately, because the tests did not come out the way they hoped, pressure groups like Food & Water Watch have refused to accept the EPA’s finding.

Food & Water Watch: “It’s also caused serious local and regional air pollution across this country.”

This statement, part of a coordinated effort by oil and gas industry opponents to change the subject to air quality after the outcome in Dimock, is directly contradicted by state and federal emissions data.

For example, in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, where the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing was pioneered in the Barnett Shale, more than a decade of air quality data shows smog levels have fallen as natural gas production rates increased dramatically. Besides smog, which is mostly due to the large numbers of cars and trucks in major metropolitan areas, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality conducted extensive air monitoring for the Barnett Shale region looking for other possible contaminants that might be coming from oil and gas wells. TCEQ concluded:

This experience was repeated in Denver, another major metropolitan area with large amount of car- and truck-related emissions. Air quality monitoring in Colorado’s Denver-Julesburg Basin also showed smog levels have fallen amid major increases in natural gas production. Since 2006, gas production has climbed 32 percent, according to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. But during the same period, Denver-area smog levels fell, according EPA data.

Food and Water Watch’s claims have even less validity in California where oil and gas operations are subjected to some of the strictest regulations for VOC and emissions control anywhere in the country.  In the L.A. Basin, oil production operations are subject to regulation by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, which has been requiring “green completions” for new wells before the term was even created.  In the San Joaquin Valley, oil production operations are tightly regulated by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District.

The oil and gas industry’s professional critics also don’t want the public to know about the major cuts in carbon dioxide emissions which hydraulic fracturing in deep shale formations has made possible. According to the International Energy Agency:

This year, emissions continue to fall as more power companies switch from coal to natural gas. According to John Hanger, who led Pennsylvania’s DEP during the term of former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell:

To put this in a California context, the 1990 emissions level is the goal of the state’s Global Warming Solutions Act, AB 32.

Food & Water Watch: “Today, the governor of North Carolina vetoed a bill that would allow fracking in North Carolina with regulations. California should strive to reach the same standards as North Carolina.”

That’s only part of the story. Some facts that Food & Water Watch conveniently left out of its testimony provide the complete picture.

North Carolina’s Clean Energy and Economic Security Act actually became law on July 2, the same day as the Culver City Council meeting. That’s because a bipartisan super-majority of state lawmakers overrode Gov. Bev Perdue’s veto.

Food & Water Watch also failed to mention that before the legislation was passed, North Carolina’s Department of Environment and Natural Resources issued a report which said:

Culver City Democratic Club: “There have been 180 resolutions and ordinances passed around the country, and only three lawsuits, and of those three, banning fracking won two of them, and we only lost one.”

This statement leaves out some critical facts. Many, if not most, of the local measures against hydraulic fracturing have been passed in areas with little or no potential for shale-oil and shale-gas development, such as Vermont, New Jersey and areas of New York that are outside of the area where shale development is expected to occur. Those measures have not been challenged because they don’t prevent the responsible development of energy from deep shale formations and the things that go with it – jobs, oil and gas royalties to landowners, and higher tax revenues for state and local governments.

It’s a different story in places where recoverable oil and gas resources actually exist. In Morgantown, West Virginia, the city council’s ban on hydraulic fracturing was overturned after a judge ruled the state government has jurisdiction over oil and natural gas activities. Meanwhile, it’s premature for environmental groups to say they “won” the lawsuits concerning the New York towns of Dryden and Middlefield. Both matters have been appealed – in one case by an oil and gas company, in the other by a dairy farmer.

Watch the Culver City hearing HERE.

*Update* The Facts Behind EPA’s Dimock Two Step
Set aside all the stage props, backdrops and inflatable scenery deployed as part of the continuing saga known as Dimock, and you’re left with a pretty basic question – albeit one to which very few outside media have gone out of their way to find a legitimate, science-based answer. Quite simply: Is the water up there safe?

Update (6:10p.m. EDT; Mar. 15) The Associated Press reports that EPA today declared that well water testing at 11 homes in Dimock, PA show no signs of contamination from natural gas development. Regulators say water samples from six of the 11 homes showed sodium, methane, chromium or bacteria, but at safe levels.

–

In Dec., EPA says water’s safe; in Jan, with no new data, it says it’s not – EID lays out what’s known and what’s not

Set aside all the stage props, backdrops and inflatable scenery deployed as part of the continuing saga known as Dimock, and you’re left with a pretty basic question – albeit one to which very few outside media have gone out of their way to find a legitimate, science-based answer. Quite simply: Is the water up there safe?

On Dec. 2, 2011, EPA declared that it was, sending an email to several Dimock residents indicating that the data it had reviewed from state-certified laboratories and the Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection (DEP) “does not indicate that the well water presents an immediate health threat.” On Jan. 19, despite having no new data, EPA reversed its position, sending a letter to the agency’s hazardous site cleanup division demanding “immediate action” to protect public health and safety.

Predictably, those opposed to the development of affordable, clean-burning natural gas were quick to applaud the news — with ProPublica even declaring in a 38-point headline that EPA’s change of heart constituted “evidence of fracking contamination,” even though EPA never actually said that (and couldn’t have, since it gathered no data) and state experts consistently having shown it to be false. So once again, amidst all the pomp, circumstance and fanfare, we’re left with a couple questions: For starters, what do the data actually indicate is in the water? And second: Is there actually any evidence suggesting that any of it got there as a result of natural gas development?

In an effort to answer the first question, EPA released a series of memos and letters last week – the list is available here — laying out in specific terms what was found in wells tested by DEP on and near Carter Rd. But sift through the dozen or so documents posted on the website, and eventually you stumble across two memos of significantly greater value than the rest. The first is a memo written by technician Donna Ioven to Richard Fetzer, EPA’s “on-scene coordinator” in Dimock. The second is a 10-page letter from Mr. Fetzer to his bosses at EPA.

As you can see by clicking here, the Ioven memo is short, sweet and to the point: not even two pages in length, and almost all of it focused on identifying which specific components were found in which specific residential water wells. Of the eight wells for which DEP collected data, Ms. Ioven writes that four of them contained compounds of potential concern: Resident 4 had high levels of sodium and manganese; same for Resident 6; Resident 7 had manganese; and Resident 8, arsenic. These were the four households selected by EPA for water deliveries.

The Ioven memo is supposed to serve as the factual, technical basis for Mr. Fetzer’s letter to EPA’s Dennis Carney – capturing and reporting what is known and what isn’t, and passing that information up the food-chain for further consideration. But here’s the problem: Fetzer’s letter doesn’t look anything like Ioven’s memo. The latter, as mentioned, is a simple recitation of facts and figures. The former, unfortunately, reads more like a brief filed by a plaintiff’s attorney – attempting to defend EPA’s decision to intervene by going out of its way to link each of the components found in wells to drilling activity (and on several occasions, looking quite silly doing it).

Take, for instance, Mr. Fetzer’s explanation for how arsenic may have found its way into one private well: suggesting in his letter it could have gotten there from “the use and effects of drilling fluids.” But spend about 10 seconds researching the issue online, and you find that arsenic isn’t even used as a component of drilling and/or completing a well. So where did it come from? According to the U.S Geological Survey (4:00 of this video): “Overwhelmingly, the evidence that we have suggests that the arsenic we see in groundwater originates from natural sources.” Unfortunately, this overwhelming evidence appears to be news to Mr. Fetzer.

The Fetzer letter also makes sure to mention that “glycols” were found in one well, once again attempting to blame that on “drilling fluids.”

Glycols are a major ingredient of antifreeze, and much like other industrial processes, are sometimes used in very small percentages in an oil and gas context to prevent scale build-up in the pipe. Thing is, Cabot has already confirmed that it didn’t use any glycols when it drilled and completed its wells in the area more than two years ago. And actually, the one well in which glycols were detected came in at such low levels that EPA didn’t include that household among the four it chose to receive water deliveries. As reported by the Philadelphia Inquirer: “Tests also found glycol, which is used in antifreeze, at safe levels, and 2-methoxyethanol, a solvent, which does not have an established toxicity level. Those houses are not receiving shipments of water.”

So, after all that, apparently what we have is an issue with sodium and manganese. According to Mr. Fetzer, manganese is “known to be a constituent of some specialized drilling fluids.” Which fluids are those? And did Cabot actually use any of them in Dimock? Fetzer doesn’t say, probably because Fetzer doesn’t know. So we posed the question to the operator itself; the answer we got back was a resounding “no.” But, as we were reminded, neither sodium or manganese is considered a health hazard by EPA. In fact, EPA doesn’t even have what’s called a “maximum contaminant level” (or MCL) for either of those two. According to one federal report:

High levels of … manganese do not pose any known adverse health risks. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not set maximum contaminant levels (MCL) for … manganese in the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCL) recommended in the National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations are set for esthetic reasons and are not enforceable by EPA.”

So there you have it. Boil it all down, condense it, strain it, and reduce it to its irreducible parts, and what you’re left with is a decision by EPA to spend hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars supplying water to people who don’t need it — a decision made less than two months after the agency deemed the water to be safe, using the same exact data that it cited last week in arguing the opposite. Of the four households set to receive water, three of them have elevated levels of two things that EPA itself doesn’t consider hazardous to health. And the fourth? According to federal scientists, that well has something in it of which “overwhelming evidence” indicates a natural origin. Not drilling a well.

But you know what really gets our goat? According to an updated study released by the Center for Rural Pennsylvania last year, more than 40 percent of private water wells tested in the state don’t meet basic health and safety standards for drinking water – for reasons that have nothing to do with oil or natural gas. Considering that more than three million folks across the state rely on wells for their water, that means more than one million Pennsylvanians could be drinking water today that’s unsafe.

All of which begs the question: If this thing weren’t about politics, why isn’t EPA supplying clean water to any of them?

READ MORE

The Griswolds Go to Pittsburgh

Sprawling piece on natural gas development in SWPA lands in NYT Sunday Mag; EID sorts through the data that NYT’s Griswold leaves behind

If it’s true that the definition of a good compromise is one in which both sides leave unhappy, it might seem that the 5,700-word piece on Marcellus development in Washington Co., Pa. filed this past weekend in the Sunday magazine of The New York Times comes close to being one heck of a deal.

Writing about the piece on the environmental website Grist – no friend to shale – Sarah Laskow concludes that “anyone who already understands the issue should probably skip it, to avoid getting ticked off.” For what it’s worth, we happen to agree — albeit for different reasons.

On the positive side of the ledger, NYT contributor Eliza Griswold includes about a half-dozen stories from real folks in the Amwell Twp. community whose lives have been made materially better owing to the local development of enormous reserves of clean-burning natural gas from shale. Folks who now can keep their farms, send their kids to college, maybe even retire somewhere someday. Folks who care deeply about the quality and nature of their local environment, and who, despite the hype, have seen no evidence heretofore that Marcellus activity is deleterious to it.

Those are the parts that Grist doesn’t like, preferring instead the ones in which Griswold attempts to paint a picture of natural gas development as scourge to air, water, and land; hoof, hound and equine. But a closer look at the air and water testing data compiled by state regulators and third-party technicians – every bit of it publicly available; very little of it mentioned in this piece — reveals a reality in tiny Amwell Twp. very much at odds with the narrative put forth by the Times.

Below, we take a closer look at some of the claims made in the piece, and see how they stack-up when juxtaposed with the science.

Wrong on the basics

NYT: “’Fracking,’ as it is known, is a process of natural-gas drilling that involves pumping vast quantities of water, sand and chemicals thousands of feet into the earth to crack the deep shale deposits and free bubbles of gas from the ancient, porous rock.”

NYT: “This summer, Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York moved to lift the state’s yearlong moratorium on fracking against vocal opposition from environmentalists and many local residents. Following a series of hearings this month, New York will decide whether to allow fracking early next year.”

Wrong on Amwell Township

NYT: “Beth Voyles, 54, a horse trainer and dog breeder … signed the lease with Haney in 2008. She told Haney that her 11 /2-year-old boxer, Cummins, had just died. Voyles thought that he was poisoned. She saw the dog drinking repeatedly from a puddle of road runoff, and she thought that the water the gas company used to wet down the roads probably had antifreeze in it.”

NYT: “Voyles … called the Department of Environmental Protection to register yet another complaint about the stench. The D.E.P. sent out a water specialist, John Carson. … Voyles claims that Carson refused to take her complaint.”

NYT: “In Amwell Township, your opinion of fracking tends to correspond with how much money you’re making and with how close you live to the gas wells, chemical ponds, pipelines and compressor stations springing up in the area.”

Wrong on disclosure

NYT: “Popular concerns about natural-gas drilling have centered on what chemicals companies are putting into the earth, not least because this list is a proprietary secret.”

NYT: “In 2005, Vice President Dick Cheney spearheaded an amendment to the energy bill, which critics call the Halliburton Loophole. This legislation exempts hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act and protects companies like Halliburton, of which Cheney was once the C.E.O., from disclosing what chemicals are going into the ground.”

Wrong on the numbers

NYT: “There are more than 4,000 Marcellus wells in Pennsylvania, with projections ranging from 2,500 new wells a year to a total of more than 100,000 over the next few decades.”

NYT: “According to a recent study by Pennsylvania State University, the industry has created 23,000 jobs, including employment for roustabouts, construction workers, helicopter pilots, sign makers, Laundromat workers, electricians, caterers, chambermaids, office workers, water haulers and land surveyors.”

NYT: “Currently, companies operating in Pennsylvania pay no tax to extract gas.”

NYT: “Banks have expressed reluctance to back home mortgages within up to three miles of a well. Whole towns could become brown fields, and home values would drop precipitously.”

Wrong on water management

NYT: “Disposing of the chemical water has meant trucking it to another state or paying local treatment facilities to process it. The facilities, which are not equipped to remove salts, have often sent the frack water back into local rivers.”

NYT: “Thanks to the money [Ray] received from allowing Range Resources to drill, build a compressor station and dig a chemical pond on his land, he has been able to reroof two barns, buy a new hay baler and construct an addition to his house for his 94-year-old mother.”

Wrong on “The Mon”

NYT: “In 2008 … [f]or several months, the Monongahela River, which provides most people in the Pittsburgh area with drinking water, no longer met state and federal standards. Following a request from the State of Pennsylvania, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers found it would require five times the amount of water in their reservoirs to dilute the river. It took five months to clean it up.”

New Study Underscores Enormous Potential Economic Benefits From NY’s Marcellus Shale

Earlier this week, New York’s state House doubled down on its bad bet of a year ago and sought to extend by another year the state’s moratorium on the use of fracturing technology — at least the kind requiring enough water to access the Marcellus. Such a proposal seeks to only further put out of reach the potentially widespread economic benefits – tens of thousands of jobs, millions in revenue – associated with shale gas production for New York State.

A recent New York Post editorial captures the contours of this debate:

“The longer fracking is verboten in New York, the longer the upstate region loses out on a promising economic boost. Indeed, new drilling operations alone could create thousands of jobs for the economically ailing area.”

Further, and perhaps even more clearly, these facts and economic potentials are echoed in a Manhattan Institute report issued this week. The report analyzed the economic and environmental impacts of shale gas development in New York State as based upon Pennsylvania’s Marcellus activity. The study indicated that a moratorium on drilling provides little environmental benefit while imposing large scale economic cost.

Data was generated on a per-well basis to create an “economic-environmental benefit-cost ratio for a typical Marcellus shale gas well.” The study further notes the importance of understanding the downstream positive externalities of natural gas potentials as an alternative to coal and oil energy generation.

Here are several key findings:

The authors also determine that “Clearly, the economic benefits of shale gas drilling far outweigh the environmental costs.” And it’s true, hydraulic fracturing has never impacted groundwater. And despite claims, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson – our nation’s top environmental watchdog – told Congress this recently when asked about fracturing:

“I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water.”

Misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the science and facts surrounding shale gas production has diluted the potential of hydraulic fracturing for New York’s energy and economic future. And New Yorkers need only to look Pennsylvania and West Virginia, where natural gas development is being done in an environmentally responsible way.

Yesterday, under the headline “Gas drilling makes millionaires in Marshall County”, West Virginia Public Broadcasting notes the positive economic benefit drilling has brought into the homes of its residents, as well as its small businesses and community:

Some residents in Marshall County are becoming rich off Marcellus shale drilling. The gas drilling boom is creating an economic upswing throughout the community. Despite the recession, Marshall County is doing better than most counties in the state. It is now the #2 coal producing county in West Virginia. It’s also become a big draw for gas companies looking to tap the natural gas in Marcellus Shale deep underground.

Marshall County Commissioner Donald Mason said this means big money for some residents. “We have seen several people in our county become instant millionaires with the signing of the leases and some of them are already producing. There are rumors that some people are getting as much as $60,000 a month from their gas wells,” Mason said.

And the money from those lease checks is trickling into the community.

Back at Auto Choice in Moundsville, John Hunnel said he’s seen the Northern Panhandle area suffer from a loss in manufacturing jobs like glass and steel over the years. He said the Marcellus shale drilling activity has him feeling pretty optimistic about the future. “Anytime you have different jobs coming in to the area it does help. It brings other businesses along with it which is good, but I think this whole area is going to change dramatically within the next probably 5 to 10 years for sure,” said Hunnel.

Modern shale gas development is a labor-intensive task, for sure, requiring continual man power and thereby generating continued and much-needed employment opportunities. According the Pennsylvania Department of Labor & Industry, there are 141,000 Marcellus related jobs in the Commonwealth, with an average Marcellus wage of $69,996.

New York’s ongoing de facto moratorium – as well as the one passed by the General Assembly – will only continue to stifle the desperately needed economic potential of shale gas production for the state. The economic benefits are too great to be ignored.

As the Manhattan Institute study lays out, “Our analysis of Marcellus development in Pennsylvania suggests that environmentally safe development is possible in New York. Our study finds the net economic and environmental benefits from shale gas development to be considerable, suggesting that the current moratorium is far costlier than its proponents, or even its opponents, realize.”

Those in Glass Houses Shouldn’t Throw Stones: Pa. Paper Lodges Baseless Claims About Hydraulic Fracturing

Perhaps you caught the editorial in today’s Doylestown (Pa.) Intelligencer under the headline “Cawley vs. DEP: Two stories about natural gas fracking.” True to form, EID is eager to separate the facts from fiction regarding the claims made about hydraulic fracturing in this editorial.

But first, by way of background, here’s what the paper’s hard news section reported on Sunday under the headline “Cawley: No evidence of pollution from fracking”:

Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. Jim Cawley on Friday said that there was no documented evidence of water being affected by the fracking process used in the mining of Marcellus shale natural gas.

Now back to today’s editorial, which plays fast-and-loose with the facts. This from the piece:

Lt. Gov. Jim Cawley may want to check his facts a little more closely the next time he talks about the natural gas mining technique known as fracking.

The former Bucks County commissioner and now chairman of the Governor’s Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission last week told members of the county Transportation Management Association that there “has never been a documented case of water being affected by fracking for Marcellus Shale.”

…

Cawley’s deputy chief of staff maintained what his boss said was accurate, and that the process of fracking is not in itself risky.

With all due respect, a statement like that is akin to saying coal mining is not in itself risky. Or drilling for oil is not in itself risky. Or a nuclear power plant is not in itself risky.

But as they say, facts are awfully stubborn things. So, with all due respect to the paper’s editorial board members and editors, here are the facts:

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.

Energy in Depth Issue Alert: Rep. Hinchey, EPA Administrator Jackson, HF, SDWA

On Tuesday, May 19, the office of U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) issued a press release subsequent to a hearing of the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee suggesting the congressman had gotten EPA administrator Lisa Jackson to “acknowledge” the need for her agency “to reexamine the Bush administration’s misguided views on the risks associated with hydraulic fracturing.”

Context

In 2005, Congress passed (with the vote of then-Sen. Barack Obama) the Energy Policy Act, a key provision of which sought to clarify Congress’s historical intent on whether the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 was ever designed to regulate hydraulic fracturing.

The answer was no, and in this case, history proved an effective guide: When SDWA was passed in 1974, hydraulic fracturing had already been in use for 25 years. Hydraulic fracturing was never considered for inclusion under SDWA jurisdiction at the time. The Act was amended in 1986, and then again in 1996. At no point in the process was the concept of SDWA regulation over fracturing ever considered a necessity – or even a possibility.

Subtext

Hydraulic fracturing is a commonly used, and increasingly critical, technology for finding and developing oil and gas resources trapped below rock that would otherwise be too deep, too hard and too expensive to access. The technique has been deployed more than a million times over the past 60 years, delivering to the American people more than 600 trillion cubic feet of American natural gas and seven billions barrels of American oil.

In 2008, a report issued by professors from Pennsylvania and New York suggested that the Marcellus Shale formation, a unit of sedimentary rock spread across much of the Appalachian Basin, could contain 516 trillion cubic feet of natural gas – enough to heat more than 60 million homes for 160 years. Without hydraulic fracturing, these resources cannot be feasibly or economically produced.

Politics

Those who oppose the responsible development of American energy have seized on hydraulic fracturing as a means of blocking reasonable access to, and production of, domestic energy resources. The centerpiece of their campaign appears to be focused on blaming hydraulic fracturing for everything from exploding houses in Ohio, to flammable water in Colorado, to hard water deposits in New York (each of these accusations, and others, are debunked here).

Despite these claims, hydraulic fracturing continues to be aggressively regulated by the states, and has compiled an unparalleled record of safety over the 60 years since its first commercial use.

Economic Impacts

More recently, legislation co-sponsored by Rep. Hinchey has sought to destroy this existing state-federal regulatory partnership in favor of an EPA-only approach. Were this and other restrictive regulatory measures to come to pass, a recent analysis showed it could result in the forced closure of more than half of America’s oil wells, a third of its gas wells, cost the federal government $4 billion in lost revenue, slash American oil production by 183,000 barrels per day, and natural gas by 245 billion cubic feet per year.

EPA on Record

In 1995, then-EPA administrator Carol Browner (currently the president’s energy and environment czar) wrote that that her agency saw “no evidence” that hydraulic fracturing “has resulted in any contamination or endangerment of underground sources of drinking water (USDW).”

“Moreover,” she added, “given the horizontal and vertical distance between the drinking water well and the closest gas production wells, the possibility of contamination or endangerment of USDWs in the area is extremely remote.”

In 2004, EPA issued a landmark report examining the question of safety as it relates to hydraulic fracturing, finding “the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids” poses “minimal threat to USDWs.” In arriving at that conclusion, EPA stated it had “reviewed more than 200 peer-reviewed publications, other research, and public comments.”

States on Record

Recognizing that hydraulic fracturing is both a safe technology and a key driver of local economic development, states such as Alabama, Louisiana, North Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, Oklahoma and Texas have recently taken up or passed resolutions informing Congress and EPA that the current regulatory relationship is working well, and that efforts to disrupt it could produce serious and long-term consequences.

In New Mexico, former U.S. Energy Secretary and current Governor Bill Richardson introduced a plan in February aimed at easing unnecessary compliance burdens, recognizing that thousands of jobs and millions in potential revenue were tied to safe, responsible, state-regulated natural gas and oil production.

Statement from Lee Fuller, policy director for Energy In Depth

“Those familiar with the history surrounding the passage and amendment of the Safe Drinking Water Act understand what this measure was intended to do, and what it clearly was not. Unfortunately, instead of taking on the issue of responsible energy development candidly and on its merits, opponents of natural resource development have decided to target the essential tools needed to safely and efficiently bring this energy to market.”