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?
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:
|
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
- Video: Dimock residents tell Binghamton mayor “enough already”
- Guest post: Dimock residents lay out the true story of their town
- Flashback: EPA sends email to Dimock indicating water is safe
- Spreadsheet: Complete water testing data for Carter Rd. residents
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.”
- “Hydraulic fracturing,” as it’s more accurately known, is not a “natural-gas drilling” process. It’s a post-drilling well stimulation technology that has been deployed more than 1.2 million times over nearly 65 years of commercial use. NYT/E&E News: “The method of drilling is not called ‘hydraulic fracturing.’ … Fracturing has been used by drillers for around 60 years.” (Groundtruthing Gasland, NYT/E&E News, Feb. 24, 2011)
- According to EPA, fracturing technology is used not only in the context of oil and natural gas development, but also to aid in the recovery of geothermal energy and as a means of enhancing the clean-up of Superfund sites. (“A Citizen’s Guide to Fracturing,” EPA fact sheet, May 2001)
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.”
- Contrary to what’s been reported, fracturing technology is neither banned in New York State nor under temporary moratorium. For evidence of that, click here to view a permit issued by New York’s Dept. of Environmental Conservation (DEC) on Oct. 25, 2010. The permit approves the use of hydraulic fracturing – in the Marcellus Shale, no less – in Otsego Co., New York.
- In 2008, DEC announced that it would delay new permits for development projects requiring more than 80,000 gallons of water as part of the fracturing process until the agency’s updated Marcellus regulations were in place. Those regulations were released in draft form this past September, with the final document anticipated in early 2012.
- According to the state’s DEC, fracturing technology has been deployed safely in New York “since at least the 1950s.” All told, more than 75,000 oil, natural gas and salt wells have been drilled in New York over the past 150 years. According to DEC, more than 14,000 remain active today, almost all of them having been fractured.
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.”
- To her credit, Griswold does include a comment from Range further down in the piece stating that the company does not use glycols as part of its development processes. Unfortunately, she fails to mention DEP’s extensive testing of Ms. Voyles’ water, as well as the agency’s findings that her water is not contaminated.
- DEP letter to Voyles (last month): “Finally, you raised concerns that your water supply might be contaminated by glycols. There is no credible evidence of the contamination of your water supply by ethylene, di-ethylene, or tri-ethylene glycol. … [N]either the sample analyses performed by Summit Environmental Technologies Inc. … nor Test America’s analyses … showed any evidence of glycol in your water supply.” (DEP letter to Ms. Voyles, Oct. 19, 2011)
- More from that letter: “We have concluded our investigation and have determined that there is no evidence to substantiate the complaint. … In summary, DEP has determined that Range has not contaminated your water supply.” (Ibid)
- Voyles’ own veterinarian disputes her statement about her animals: “On November 10, 2010, you voluntarily supplied Range Resources with lab results from both your dog and horse veterinarians. Upon review of these results, Range contacted the canine and equine veterinarians. … [I]t was stated by the veterinarian that the test results were inconclusive for anti-freeze [ethylene glycol] poising. … The veterinarian indicated that the horse had toxicity of the liver, which he felt was not related to [ethylene glycol] poising.” (Range letter to Voyles, Jan. 14, 2011)
- Tests for metals also come up clean: “[F]ollowing conversations with the veterinarians, Range ordered additional testing of your water supplies, including testing for heavy metals such as arsenic, mercury and lead. … Upon review of the information provided [by independent, state-certified Microbac Laboratories], the test results … indicate that both of your water supplies meet all of the EPA minimum primary drinking water standards for all parameters tested.” (Range letter to Voyles, Jan. 14, 2011)
- DEP also tests water of Ms. Voyles’ neighbor, and reaches same conclusions: “The methane gas in your water well was clearly identified through isotopic analysis to be drift gas, not natural gas that would be coming from a gas well. … The three hydrocarbons detected at low levels are common reagents in laboratories, are used as solvents and cleaning agents and can be found in groundwater throughout Pennsylvania where there has been residential or industrial development.” (DEP letter to Mr. Loren Kiskadden, Sept. 9, 2011)
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.”
- Pennsylvania DEP lays out very different story in another letter to Voyles: “[O]ver a period of three months, on 24 separate occasions, the Department visited your property and detected no malodors.” (DEP letter to Ms. Voyles, Sept. 22, 2011)
- More context from DEP: “Additionally, last summer, the Department conducted a short-term study of ambient air concentrations of target pollutants near certain Marcellus Shale gas drilling operations in southwestern Pennsylvania [including your property] … Results of the ambient air sampling did not identify concentrations of any compound that would likely trigger air-related health issues associated with Marcellus Shale drilling activities.” (Ibid)
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.”
- The economic benefits of natural gas development extend well beyond a few households in Amwell Township. According to company data, more than $25 million has been returned to landowners in Amwell since 2009 in the form of lease, royalty and bonus payments. With just short of 1,500 households in the township, that translates into more than $16,700 per home.
- It’s worth noting here the writer’s use of the term “chemical pond” to describe temporary impoundments comprised almost entirely of freshwater. Keep that one tucked away; we’ll get back to it in just a bit.
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.”
- This assertion is directly rebutted by Pennsylvania DEP: “Drilling companies must disclose the names of all chemicals to be stored and used at a drilling site … These plans contain copies of material safety data sheets for all chemicals … This information is on file with DEP and is available to landowners, local governments and emergency responders.” (PA DEP Marcellus FAQ, accessed Nov. 21, 2011)
- Straight from Pa. code: “Within 30 calendar days of cessation of drilling or altering a well, the well operator shall submit a well record to the Department that includes the following information. … A descriptive list of the chemical additives in the stimulation fluid, including any acid, biocide, breaker, brine, corrosion inhibitor, crosslinker, demulsifier, friction reducer, gel, iron control, oxygen scavenger, pH adjusting agent, proppant, scale inhibitor and surfactant.” (25 Pa. code chapter 78.122, accessed Nov. 21, 2011)
- On the federal level, operators are bound by requirements of the Community Right-to-Know Act (passed in 1986), which mandate that detailed product information sheets be drawn up, updated, and made immediately available to first-response and emergency personnel in case of an accident on-site. (OSHA Standards, accessed Nov. 21, 2011)
- More recently, an effort led by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) culminated in the creation of a searchable, nationwide database with specific well-by-well information on the additives used in the fracturing process. Just six months after it was launched in April, GWPC announced in October that information on more than 5,200 wells is now posted on FracFocus.org. (E&E News, Oct. 21, 2011)
- Ironically, the company highlighted in the piece, Range Resources, was among the first major shale operators in the country to actively disclose online the specific materials used in the completion process. (“Natural-Gas Driller to Disclose Chemical Use,” Wall Street Journal, July 14, 2010)
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.”
- This charge is categorically false. Hydraulic fracturing has never in its nearly 65-year history been regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. It has, however, been aggressively regulated by the states, which have compiled an impressive record of enforcement and oversight over the past six decades – a record that EPA has acknowledged as being sound as recently as … last night on the Rachel Maddow Show.
- EPA administrator Lisa Jackson on Maddow: “States are stepping up and doing a good job. So I always say: It doesn’t have to be EPA that regulates the 10,000 wells that might go in. (Jackson interview with Rachel Maddow, 9:01, aired Nov. 21, 2011) Jackson, this past weekend: “[Y]ou can’t start to talk about a federal role [in regulating fracturing] without acknowledging the very strong state role.” (Jackson interview on EnergyNOW!, aired Nov. 20, 2011)
- Incidentally, SDWA isn’t even a disclosure bill; the word “disclosure” only appears twice in the entire 77,000-word text, and only in sections unrelated to underground injection (search the legislation here for yourself).
- Language adopted in 2005 simply reaffirmed the fact that states have always taken the lead in regulating the fracturing process. And incidentally, the 2005 energy bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support — with 74 “yea” votes in the U.S. Senate, including ones from the top Democrat on the Energy Committee; current Interior secretary Ken Salazar, then a senator from Colorado; and then-Sen. Barack Obama. In the U.S. House, 75 Democrats supported the final bill, including the top Democratic members on both the Energy & Commerce and Resources Committees.
- Fmr. Clinton EPA administrator Carol Browner explains: “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].” (Browner letter to David Ludder, Esq., May 5, 1995). How could it be a “loophole” if even EPA itself admits it never regulated the process in the first place?
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.”
- According to DEP, a total of 4,257 Marcellus wells have been developed in Pennsylvania since 2005, an average of 608 new wells per year. Only 1,446 Marcellus wells were drilled in 2010 (DEP’s end-of-year report for 2010 is available here), and the number for 2011 is currently more than 300 short of 2,000 – far below the projections reported in this piece. Not even the most optimistic Marcellus production scenarios for the state even come close to 100,000 future wells.
- For perspective, Pennsylvania was already home to more than 46,000 active natural gas wells before the first Marcellus well was ever spud back in 2005, according to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Using the latest available data, Marcellus wells account for barely eight percent of all active natural gas wells in Pennsylvania – and only 1.1 percent of all total wells drilled. According to DEP, more than 350,000 oil and natural gas wells have been drilled in the state since 1859 (DEP fact sheet, accessed Nov. 21, 2011)
- Thanks in large part to advances in horizontal drilling technology — which allows producers today to access significantly greater volumes of natural gas from significantly fewer wells — the total number of wells drilled in Pennsylvania over the past six years has dropped 29 percent, even as the volume of natural gas being produced on a daily basis has increased roughly 12-fold. (DEP well reports, 2010)
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.”
- According to a report from the Pennsylvania Dept. of Labor released earlier this month, total employment for industries related to Marcellus development is 214,000 – ten times the number cited by NYT (Pa. Dept. of Labor and Industry, Nov. 4, 2011). According to that same report, more than 48,000 new Marcellus hires were made in just the past year.
- According to a report issued in July 2011 by researchers from Penn State, actual employment in 2010 tied to Marcellus activities translated into nearly 140,000 jobs. That same report estimates that, by 2020, shale development could support more than 256,000 jobs in Pennsylvania. (PSU Marcellus report, July 20, 2011)
NYT: “Currently, companies operating in Pennsylvania pay no tax to extract gas.”
- According to an analysis conducted by the Pennsylvania Dept. of Revenue this past May, “companies engaged in and related to natural gas drilling activities in Pennsylvania have paid more than $1.1 billion in state taxes since 2006.” (Dept. of Revenue release, May 2, 2011)
- And much more to come, say Penn State researchers: “Our estimates suggest that in 2020 the Marcellus industry in Pennsylvania could be creating more than $20 billion in value added, generating $2 billion in state and local tax revenues, and supporting more than 250,000 jobs.” (“Penn State report even more bullish on Marcellus Shale,” Philadelphia Inquirer, July 20, 2011)
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.”
- These are very serious (and specific) charges, and ones for which the writer provides not a single shred of evidence, data or even a stray anecdote.
- Here’s an informed view on lending and leasing, offered by long-time, Pa.-based mortgage lender and real estate attorney: “My experience is that gas lease bonus payment enabled a lot of our customers to resolve mortgage issues and pay off many of them. … Lenders see the value in the additional collateral and recognize the potential future income opportunities a gas lease offers both landowner and lender.” (John F. Spall, director of The Dime Bank, Honesdale, Pa.; Oct. 25, 2011)
- EID’s Marcellus team runs the numbers on charges of diminished property values, comparing counties in Pa. with shale activity to those without it: “[F]armland values in Bradford County averaged $6,984 per acre for properties of 10 acres or more. Fourteen sales in Susquehanna County (1,182 acres) averaged $4,993 per acre. Sullivan and Wyoming County properties averaged $5,579 and $7,215 per acre, respectively. … Now, compare this to similarly rural Wayne County, which is still waiting on the DRBC to allow gas exploration, where the average was $2,921 per acre; or Pike County, where it was $3,168 per acre, despite both counties being much closer the New York City, that factor having traditionally driven property values in those areas. … Lackawanna County, despite being a much more urban area, likewise only produced an average value of $3,889 per acre.”
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.”
- The disposition of wastewater associated with the natural gas development process is and has always been regulated by EPA under the Clean Water Act; surface discharges of treated water require a permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (also known as an NPDES permit); and treated water must meet stringent safety standards under federal law.
- Fmr. DEP secretary John Hanger: “The water that’s coming out of the tap in Pennsylvania is meeting the safe water drinking standards when it comes to total dissolved solids. Every single drop that is coming out of the tap in Pennsylvania today meets the safe drinking water standard.” (KDKA, Jan. 4, 2011) According to current DEP secretary Michael Krancer, the notion that wastewater is being discharged into the state’s waterways untreated, as implied by NYT, is “a total fiction.” (Associated Press, Nov. 16, 2011)
- Most troubling here, the writer fails to include even a passing mention of wastewater recycling, which is how the vast majority of water is currently being managed in Pennsylvania today: “State environmental regulators say that nearly 70 percent of the wastewater produced by Marcellus Shale wells is being reused or recycled. The Marcellus Shale Coalition, an industry group, puts the number higher, saying that on average 90 percent of the water that returns to the surface is recycled.” (Scranton Times-Tribune, Feb. 27, 2011)
- And advances in technology continues to push those recycling percentages even higher: “Range Resources is evidence to how fast this transition can happen. It first used a mixture of fracturing flowback in the Marcellus Shale water and fresh water in August 2009. [By] 2010, it said it reused 96 percent of its produced water in Pennsylvania.” (Stephen Rassenfoss, Journal of Petroleum Technology, July 2011)
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.”
- Although Griswold graciously takes time here to cite the myriad ways in which the royalties and rents from natural gas development are improving the lives of Amwell resident Ray Day and his family, her insistence on referring to temporary water impoundments as “chemical ponds” here (flashback to a previous section) is again noteworthy – and curious.
- All told, Griswold uses the term “chemical pond” or “chemical impoundment” seven separate times in her story, perhaps unaware that many of these units actually hold freshwater. Even where flowback is temporarily stored near the development site, this water is treated at the wellhead; salt is by far the most prominent non-water component of these units.
- Interestingly, “chemical pond” appears to be a term used particularly frequently by John Smith, a plaintiff’s attorney who collaborated with Griswold on this piece and currently represents the people in Amwell Twp. suing DEP. Mr. Smith is also active in an ongoing campaign to spur passage of local ordinances in the region seeking to subvert the state’s oil and gas law by zoning responsible development off the map. In an article this past September in the Youngstown (Ohio) Vindicator, Mr. Smith again uses the term “chemical ponds,” telling an audience at a community center that the units are completely unregulated.
- But that’s not true at all. Pa. code on impoundments: “[T]he operator may not use a pit for the control, handling or storage of brine and other fluids produced during operation, service or plugging of a well unless the pit is authorized by a permit under The Clean Streams Law (Pa. code, chapter 78, section 78.57, accessed Nov. 21, 2011)
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.”
- Independent study released in 2009 debunks notion that natural gas producers adversely affected the Mon River: “Analysis of samples taken over the October through December time period [2009] indicate that the percent of chlorides in [total dissolved solids] did not change significantly after the exploration and production companies had stopped or significantly reduced disposal of flow back and produced water at the municipal treatment plants.” (“Evaluation of High TDS Concentrations in the Monongahela River, Tetra Tech NUS, Inc., Jan. 2009)
- More from Tetra Tech study: “[T]he results of this study clearly indicate that discharges from natural gas exploration and production operations contributed only minimally to the total TDS concentrations and mass loadings in the Monongahela River during the time period the study was conducted. The main chemical component detected in the TDS concentrations and mass loadings was sulfate, which mostly likely is the result of mine drainage.” (Ibid)
- Still more: “TDS and sulfate concentrations in the Monongahela River were near the maximum allowable levels upon entering Pennsylvania from West Virginia in October and November 2008; therefore, there was little to no assimilative capacity for TDS or sulfates in the river during that time period.” (Ibid)
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:
- An end to the moratorium would spur over $11.4 billion in economic output.
- The typical Marcellus shale gas well generates about $4 million in economic benefits.
- Some 15,000 to 18,000 jobs could be created in the Southern Tier and Western New York, regions which lost a combined 48,000 payroll jobs between 2000 and 2010.*
- Another 75,000 to 90,000 jobs could be created if the area of exploration and drilling were expanded to include the Utica shale and southeastern New York, including the New York City watershed. (This assumes a regulatory regime that protects the water supply but permits drilling to continue.)
- Localities and the state stand to reap $1.4 billion in tax revenues if the moratorium is allowed to expire.
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.”
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:
- Lisa Jackson, President Obama’s EPA Administrator: “I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water.” (5/24/11)
- Taury Smith, Top NY State Geologist and Self-Described Liberal Democrat: “He said he has been examining the science of hydrofracturing the shale for three years and has found no cases in which the process has led to groundwater contamination.” (Albany Times Union, 3/14/11)
- John Hanger, Gov. Rendell’s DEP Secretary and Founder of PennFuture: Pennsylvania’s chief environmental regulator said on Friday he saw no evidence that the chemicals used in the shale gas drilling process known as hydraulic fracturing contaminates underground water supplies. … “It’s our experience in Pennsylvania that we have not had one case in which the fluids…have returned to contaminate ground water,” Hanger said. … Hanger said the public and the media appear to overestimate the risks of hydraulic fracturing. “There’s a lot of focus in the media and the public on the problems that we have not had,” he said. (Reuters, 11/4/10)
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.”
