Home » Posts tagged "Marcellus shale"

Marcellus shale

Harvard Study Confirms Shale’s Benefits
Just a few months in, 2013 is proving to be a very frustrating year for ideologically motivated environmental activists seeking to ban hydraulic fracturing. Now, a new report from researchers at Harvard makes clear why activists’ efforts are failing -- and will likely continue to do so.

johnkrohnJD
Communications Director

 Just a few months in, 2013 is proving to be a very frustrating year for ideologically motivated environmental activists seeking to ban hydraulic fracturing. So far, they have been confronted with three important facts: a plurality of Americans supports the technology, politicians in both parties are accepting it as a means to improve both the economy and environment, and the President’s nominees to lead the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency have both declared that natural gas, and by extension hydraulic fracturing, is a key component of the nation’s energy future.

Now, compounding this frustration, a new report from researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs makes clear why activists’ efforts are failing — and will likely continue to do so. Specifically, the report found that, on a global scale, “a long-term domestic supply of natural gas is expected to yield environmental benefits,” as the fuel “has the lowest carbon dioxide emission factor at combustion of any fossil fuel.” The study also observes that shale development is certain to continue well into the future, noting that “unconventional fossil fuel extraction from shale formations has already transformed the U.S. energy portfolio,” and that, as a result, “unconventional oil and gas are poised to dominate the U.S. market in the coming decades.”

The study also took a closer look at development in the Bakken, Barnett and Marcellus shale basins to identify environmental concerns and whether or not practices are being implemented to mitigate those concerns. Here again, activists were served a bitter pill. Even though the researchers suggested the industry typically has a “slow rate of adoption” of environmental mitigation (which simply isn’t true), they nonetheless concluded that “the degree of adoption across available technologies highlights characteristics of successful environmental mitigation strategies.” In other words, the industry is proactively addressing environmental concerns through the rapid advancement of new technology.

Now, that’s not to say the study didn’t find any areas in need of improvement. Indeed, there were about twenty items — ranging from “laying reusable mats over well pad site and planned access routes, rather than laying gravel” to “setting surface casing at greater depths.” But, as you can see, the suggestions offered by the researchers don’t point to any inherently troubling concerns with hydraulic fracturing and shale gas development. A few examples:

What ties these (and many others in the report) together is that they’re already being implemented across the country, something that the Harvard researchers also noted. Closed-loop systems are in use in the Marcellus, and many operators are already recycling fluids and drilling muds. Operators have also begun implementing central water conveyance systems in many areas, and green completions are also increasingly being utilized (MIT previously found that such technology had been adopted at a far higher rate than previous studies had estimated). Green completions will also be required for nearly all natural gas wells beginning in 2015.

So, in summation, one of the nation’s pre-eminent academic institutions took a closer look at a process that fringe environmental groups describe as being an “inherently dirty and dangerous process that decimates entire landscapes.” Because they were interested in facts instead of hysteria, they came to a completely different conclusion. Indeed, their review indicated that shale development will provide significant environmental benefits, and that reducing environmental footprints even further is not only possible, but is actually a task already in progress.

In sum, the Harvard study is good news for those of us who view shale development as a valuable part of our energy future, as well as those of us who are interested in solutions and progress. In that sense, it’s yet another reminder that those who want to demagogue “fracking” in order to raise funds from wealthy donors are actually arguing against expert consensus.

Court Records in Natural Gas Case Reveal No Health Impacts
While some media outlets fairly reported a story about the release of court records in a fabled and now settled case in Southwest Pennsylvania, others painted a picture of hidden contamination from hydraulic fracturing. The only thing being hidden, however, is what was ignored: the fact the plaintiffs agreed their health had not been impacted as they had previously alleged.

Tom

Tom
Campaign Manager, EID-Marcellus

 

Cross-posted from EID-Marcellus.

While some media outlets fairly reported a story about the release of court records in a fabled and now settled case against some natural gas companies operating in Southwest Pennsylvania, others painted a picture of hidden contamination from hydraulic fracturing.  The only thing being hidden, however, is what was left out of the story by some of these outlets: the fact the plaintiffs agreed their health had not been impacted as they had alleged.

We cannot help but notice the varied ways media outlets have reported the story about the release of court records in the case where the Hallowich family (the plaintiffs) sued Range Resources, MarkWest Energy Partners and Williams/Laurel Mountain Midstream, three natural gas companies, over alleged contamination of their air and water.  The case was settled in 2011 and the court records were sealed at the joint request of the plaintiffs and defendants.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, among others, challenged the sealing of the records. Upon their release, the newspaper produced a story that left out the central fact: the plaintiffs recanted their claims of having their lived ruined and health compromised.  Contrast this with the story from its competitor, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, which was headlined “Washington County Couple Collects $750K Settlement in Fracking Case with No Medical Evidence to Support Health Claims,” which speaks for itself.  It was likewise for the Associated Press, which noted: ”The documents released Wednesday also show the Hallowichs agreed there was no medical evidence that drilling harmed their health or their children’s health.”

StateImpact Pennsylvania, however, filed a recent post headlined Drilling Companies Agree to Settle Fracking Contamination Case for $750,000 that, without explicitly saying so, implied some secret settlement had hidden away supposed contamination resulting from hydraulic fracturing.  They, too, never mentioned the reversal of the bigger story.  Nonetheless, they did highlight the key points in their released version of the records themselves, and provided any interested reader with all the facts – if they were willing to dig for them.

Bloomberg News reported on the release by issuing a very detailed (and biased) story that failed to mention two DEP studies finding no evidence to support the plaintiff claims. Bloomberg, like the Post-Gazette and StateImpact, failed to mention the affidavit where the plaintiffs reversed their position, offering in its place the following:

In disputes from Wyoming to Texas to Pennsylvania, gas drillers have often demanded homeowners keep quiet about their complaints in exchange for buying their properties, delivering fresh water or paying out a settlement. Without the information about those individual cases, health and environmental groups say they can’t assess the risks of fracking.

Bloomberg also included a “Serious Allegations” subtitle and quote from EarthJustice, as if it was the seriousness of the charge and not the truth that mattered.  The truth is a much different story, as it turns out and it’s not really all that new.  There is no evidence in the record or elsewhere suggesting a link between any well or operation of Range, MarkWest or Williams and any purported contamination.

DEP Letter Showed No Contamination from Outset

The facts are easily obtainable from documents we’ve previously published.  Indeed, we published the facts back in September 2010, some two and a half years ago, in the form of a letter from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Hallowich case.  The most basic fact may be taken from this two sentences from the beginning of the letter (emphasis added):

Therein, you allege that Range Resources has contaminated the supply and are requesting that DEP issue an order to the company for the replacement/restoration of the supply.  After a review of the information, including primarily water analyses, we cannot affirm your conclusions.

There are another two sentences in the concluding paragraphs that confirm DEP’s position:

In summary, we question your conclusions about the contamination problems to the Hallowich water supply.  The only parameter that is clearly above the MCL is manganese, and we cannot clearly link it to the drilling of the Range Resources gas well. Therefore, DEP cannot issue a water supply replacement/restoration order to Range Resources.

These two statements are just the beginning.  The plaintiffs accused Range and other companies of contaminating their well, but the evidence they supplied didn’t ultimately change the facts, and the settlement they received was anything but a validation of their claims; it actually served to invalidate them.

The StateImpact Pennsylvania post includes access to the basic court documents, some 971 pages, and helpfully highlights certain key points, although it focused a great deal of attention on the plaintiffs’ claims.  The very brief article also includes this paragraph:

StateImpact Pennsylvania has obtained the newly available documents and we’ve posted all 971 pages below. The Hallowich family sued the gas drillers after they say nearby drilling activity, including compressor stations, made their children sick. The mother, Stephanie Hallowich became an outspoken critic of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale. But the final settlement imposed a strict gag order on the Hallowich family, as well as the gas drilling companies. The Hallowich family has since moved from their home.

Plaintiffs Admit No Health Impacts

The reader is subtlety led by this phraseology to the conclusion the accusation must be accurate because the gas companies settled and then secured a “gag order” to keep the whole thing secret.  This narrative is belied by what is later highlighted but not discussed in the post; the words of the plaintiffs themselves from an affidavit they signed in settling the case.  Here is the relevant part (emphasis added):

Plaintiffs, Stephanie and Chris Hallowich, hereby submit the following affidavit and attest that:

1. With respect to Plaintiff minors’ alleged claims mvolve nuisance and personal injury claims, there is presently no medical evidence that these symptoms are definitively related to any exposure to the activities of Defendants set forth in Plaintiffs’ [Complaint].

2. The minors have alleged claims for nuisance and personal injury in connection with Defendants’ business operations.  There is presently no medical evidence supporting that these claims related to any exposure to Defendants’ business operations as set forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.See Exhibit A.  And presently, the minors are healthy and have no symptoms that may allegedly be related to Defendants’ business operations.

3. Based upon the facts and circumstances of the case and on behalf of our minor children, we believe and certify that the proposed settlement. as set forth in the Petition, is reasonable and fair.

Screen Shot 2013-03-21 at 4.59.21 PM

If you thought a plaintiffs’ admission their complaints were false might be relevant to this story, you’re not alone. Unfortunately, some of our friends in the media operate from a different perspective, where it is the significance of the initial charge that matters, not its validity or expiration date.  The StateImpact website, to be fair, did highlight those portions of the court records and provided readers access to all the facts, but gave them no attention in the post itself.  The reader only learns of the plaintiffs’ rejection of their own claims after reading through the PDF notes or more than 200 pages of the court documents.  Journalism, by some media standards, apparently means putting your reader to the test, rather than simply telling the complete story to the reader.

Other Facts Ignored by Some Media Outlets

These were hardly the only relevant facts ignored by some of the errant media outlets.  For example, the “gag order” mentioned far and wide about the case? It was at the mutual request of the parties, including Range Resources, other defendants and the plaintiffs.  Given the fact the plaintiffs admitted their complaint was baseless, it’s not hard to imagine why they might have appreciated keeping that affidavit sealed.

The plaintiffs also repeatedly asserted their water supply had been contaminated with elements known as acrylonitrile and styrene, but the DEP analysis evaluated those allegations and found them to be baseless.  Here are the relevant excerpts from their letter (emphasis added):

The RT report mentions an impact from acrylonitrile. Again, only the “Hunt” sample reports a number, and RT’ s sampling did not detect this compound. The report identifies acrylonitrile as a possible constituent of the liner and suggests the latter as the cause because there are no other sources in the area. Acrylonitrile is used in the manufacture of plastics, glues, pesticides, ABS pipe (common drain line pipe used in homes; the “A” in ABS stands for acrylonitrile ), synthetic rubber, acrylics, carpets, dinnerware, food containers, toys, luggage, automotive parts, appliance, telephones, among others. It can also be washed from the air by rain and then enter the groundwater system. There is a plastic rock which has been placed over the water well and could be leaching contaminants into the ground during rainfall events, which interestingly enough is when Mrs. Hallowich reports that the acrylonitrile values seem to increase based upon on-going sampling that apparently has been occurring. Unfortunately, a sample could not be taken of the pit contents by RT, which could have helped to determine whether or not acrylonitrile might be leaching from the liner. It should also be noted that there is no established drinking water MCL for this compound, either by DEP or EPA.

…

Concerning styrene, only one of the two analyses reports this contaminant in the Hallowich supply and this at an undetermined concentration. RT’s [the plaintiffs' water testing laboratory] own sampling did not  measure any styrene at the reported detection level. How styrene might be related to gas well drilling is not clear. However, the water lines in the Hallowich household, as well as from the water well to the house, are PVC which contains styrene.

Then, there is the interesting matter of what came first.  The aforementioned DEP letter states the following (emphasis added):

As a bit of background, the Range gas well in question was drilled in July of 2007. The Hallowich water well was installed in October, 2007. In addition, Range constructed a lined, centralized fresh water impoundment near the Hallowich home in the summer of 2007.

A general problem in reaching conclusions about the source of any Hallowich water supply contamination is the lack of a pre-drill analysis of the water source prior to the drilling of the Range gas well. We acknowledge that the water supply was not installed until after the gas well was drilled, but we are unable to document the quality of the aquifer prior to the drilling of the gas well. Moreover, the results taken at a neighboring property (163 Avella Road), which is also close to the gas well, only shows a lead problem; the other four parameters are either non-detect or within drinking water standards. Mrs. Hallowich alleges that the drilling of the gas well polluted the aquifer. As the following will demonstrate, we are lacking any direct evidence to prove this assertion.

The plaintiffs drilled their water well after gas companies had already established their operations on adjoining properties.  According to the court records, the Hallowichs purchased the property in June 2005 and had framed in a home by May 2007, but allege they were unaware that it had been subdivided from another sold to the gas companies for purposes of natural gas development. Apparently, we are supposed to believe the plaintiffs purchased a property, didn’t bother reading the deed, and were completely unaware there was natural gas development occurring around them as they built their home – even though they were a leaseholder!

Courthouse

Washington County Courthouse

As the Observer-Reporter notes: ”The amount, and the fact that the Hallowiches retained oil and gas rights to the property, was part of the public record of the transfer tax on the property.”  So, we have plaintiffs who claim surprise and property value devastation over having natural gas wells and associated infrastructure nearby, but who simultaneously insisted on retaining their mineral rights and royalties.  Pardon me, but it sounds like they were keenly aware of their gas lease.  They are also, obviously, well aware of the resource extraction activity all around them, as Mrs. Hallowich works for a health and safety services provider to the mining industry.

Which Is It?

Hallowiches’ concern for the health and safety of her children is, no doubt, sincere. But she has spun two different stories in that regard: the one she has told numerous media outlets and special interest groups (from National Geographic to the BBC to PennEnvironment, the folks who tried to peddle a photo of a flooded Pakistani drilling rig as evidence of problems in Pennsylvania), and the one she told the court.  First, as a plaintiff, she claimed their “property has been the subject of chronic, ongoing, and unceasing environmental contamination (both water and air)” (see p. 67 of court records). Then, on July 25, 2011, she swears in the above affidavit “there is presently no medical evidence supporting that these claims.” And yet, she subsequently allowed her name to be added to this “List of the Harmed” indicating her family suffered “burning eyes, sore throats and other symptoms.”

Which is it?  When were the plaintiffs telling the truth?  Given the fact the affidavit was effectively supplied under oath, one presumes that’s the real story, but some media outlets didn’t choose to contrast the before and after.  Perhaps the plaintiffs will ask for a correction of the List of the Harmed.  Perhaps these outlets will expand their stories to provide the necessary background and perspective.  One can always hope.  Certainly they should, as the DEP did studies of air quality in the immediate vicinity of the facilities adjacent to the plaintiffs’ property over five weeks in 2010 and found this (p. 21):

Even though constituents of natural gas and other associated target compounds were detected, the screening results found during the five-week study, did not indicate a potential for major air-related health issues associated with the Marcellus Shale natural gas activities.

That makes two DEP studies, one of water and one of air, that both found exactly what the plaintiffs admitted in 2012 – there was no evidence to support their originalclaims.

So, settling up, if you will: We have a story of a baseless claim that generated untold publicity for the plaintiffs and the multiplicity of special interests using them as token victims.  The gas companies, meanwhile, got 10 acres of property and a home Trulia.com says is still worth $303,094, although the Hallowich’s listed it for $500,000 at one point.  Here is how the story is reported by the Star-Telegram:

According to a 2010 National Geographic report, Pitzarella said Range made a verbal offer to buy the Hallowich property for around $200,000, based on a real estate agent’s assessment of fair market value. The Hallowiches, who have since moved from their house, had put it on the market for close to $500,000.

Of the $750,000 paid, nearly $600,000 went to the family, including trust accounts of $10,000 for each of the couple’s two small children.

The settlement says the children’s “alleged claims involve nuisance and personal injury. There is presently no medical evidence that support that these claims are related to any exposure to the activities of defendants as set forth in plaintiff’s complaint.”

The family’s lawyer received 20 percent of the settlement, or $150,000, plus $5,179.63 in expenses.

The Hallowiches, in other words, got something on the order of $600,000 after paying their attorneys, and it wasn’t to compensate them for medical damages they experienced, but, rather, unrestricted funds, as they acknowledged there were no medical bills to pay or reason to have incurred them.  Rather, it reflected little more than what they thought their property was worth.  Sounds like it was, in fact, a good deal for all parties, and what made it all possible for the plaintiffs and their friends was the affidavit some outlets won’t talk about – the hidden story that should be told, but is ironically sealed beneath the weight of inconvenience.

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

johnkrohn

JD
Communications Director

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smithfield 2 Smithfield 1Smithfield 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

*** Cross-posted on EIDMarcellus.org

 Tom
Campaign Manager, EID-Marcellus

 

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

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

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

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

Loren Kisdadden has a water well located here:

Kiskadden Water Well Site
Loren Kiskadden Water Well Site

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

Soils Map Excerpt from Google Earth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loren Kiskadden

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve
Spokesman

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Original post from April 18, 2012—

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

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

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

According to the BLS:

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

An air quality report for northeastern Pennsylvania, which was issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), “did not identify concentrations of any compound that would likely trigger air-related health issues associated with Marcellus Shale drilling activities.” And although the report’s scope did not include an assessment of longer-term impacts, it did conduct air sampling for carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and ozone. The sampling “did not detect concentrations above the National Ambient Air Quality Standards at any of the sampling sites.” A DEP report issued two months earlier for southwestern Pennsylvania came to the same conclusions.

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

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

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

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

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

A separate assessment of the Barnett Shale area took an in-depth look at health statistics, specifically in Denton County, Texas. The researchers concluded that “even as natural gas development expanded significantly in the area of the past several years, key indicators of health improved across every major category during those times.” The researchers also made this important observation:

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

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

Grading the Duke Study News Coverage
Besides doing our part to get the facts out about natural gas and correct the record on those occasions when folks opposed to responsible development re-write the narrative or distort the reality, EID tries to hold those who cover the issue to account as well.

Besides doing our part to get the facts out about natural gas and correct the record on those occasions when folks opposed to responsible development re-write the narrative or distort the reality, EID tries to hold those who cover the issue to account as well.

Of course, we know that covering the news fairly isn’t always easy. I was a journalist for 15 years before going to work for the oil and gas industry, so I know firsthand the challenges associated with accurately and quickly reporting on issues that are both complex and sometimes controversial. But that said, even I was struck by the inconsistent quality of the news media’s coverage this week of a new study by researchers from Duke Univ.

To recap, a team of Duke researchers took a series of water samples from drinking water aquifers across Northeast Pennsylvania. They found no trace of fracturing fluids in those samples. They did find traces of saline, and theorized that it may have originally come from deep underground pockets of salty water, called brine. The saline was not found anywhere near oil and gas wells, and therefore, the researchers concluded it was naturally occurring and not caused by hydraulic fracturing. But, the researchers further theorized that if the saline was naturally occurring, and if it originally came from deep underground, then it’s possible that some of the fluids used in hydraulic fracturing and some of the natural gas released from deep shale formations could someday migrate upward, through thousands of feet and billions of tons of rock, to shallow drinking water aquifers. Everyone clear on that?

Notably, the Duke researchers didn’t say how long it might have taken for the saline to move more than a mile upwards through the rock. That omission drew heavy criticism from a Penn State geologist during the peer review process, because it would take thousands to millions of years, yet the Duke paper implies without evidence that it could have happened more quickly. This criticism, and others, were made widely available to reporters covering the Duke paper, because time is an important “news value.” In other words, something that may possibly happen thousands or millions of years from now just isn’t that newsworthy compared to what’s going on today.

For example, the Associated Press was quick on the draw and took the right approach from the start – what’s happening now is the most newsworthy part of the Duke study:

PITTSBURGH — New research on Marcellus Shale gas drilling in Pennsylvania may only add fuel to the debate over whether the industry poses long-term threats to drinking water.

A paper published on Monday by Duke University researchers found that gas drilling in northeastern Pennsylvania did not contaminate nearby drinking water wells with salty water, which is a byproduct of the drilling.

“These results reinforce our earlier work showing no evidence of brine contamination from shale gas exploration,” said Robert Jackson, director of Duke’s Center on Global Change and a co-author of the paper, which appeared online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The team evaluated 426 samples from groundwater aquifers in six counties.

Later in the same story, the AP elaborated on the theory outlined in the Duke paper, and included some criticism from Delaware’s state geologist David Wunsch, who’s also the director of science and technology at the National Groundwater Association.

Another wire service, Bloomberg News, initially decided the “news” was a theory of what might happen thousands to millions of years from now:

Hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in Pennsylvania may contaminate drinking-water supplies, a Duke University study concluded.

The report, published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said a chemical analysis of 426 shallow groundwater samples showed matches with brine found in rock more than 1 mile deep, suggesting paths that would let gas or water flow up after drilling.

While the connection predates hydraulic fracturing, it shows natural routes for seepage into wells or streams, the report says…

Later, in an updated version of the story, Bloomberg took a few steps in the direction of the AP:

A study that found hydraulic fracturing for natural gas puts drinking-water supplies in Pennsylvania at risk of contamination may renew a long-running debate between industry and activists.

The report by researchers at Duke University, published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, said a chemical analysis of 426 shallow groundwater samples found matches with brine found in rock more than one mile (1.2 kilometers) deep, suggesting paths that would let gas or water flow up after drilling. While the flows weren’t linked to hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, the study found natural routes for seepage into wells or streams…

Acknowledging in the first paragraph that there’s a debate between industry and activists – but not environmental regulators – is an improvement. But has the debate become so fierce that people no longer agree that there are 1.6 kilometers, not 1.2, in a mile?

Moving along, further down the story, there were a few more improvements to tone down the urgency and add some balance, but Bloomberg still fell short of the AP:

“We have not seen any evidence that hydraulic fracturing has contaminated groundwater in Pennsylvania,” said Kevin Sunday, a spokesman for Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection, in an e-mail. …

The study found that the minerals in shallow wells flowed there naturally, over time, and didn’t find a connection between gas drilling and water contamination. …

“The good news is that the researchers make it crystal clear that the phenomena they observed had nothing to do with shale development,” Chris Tucker, a spokesman for the industry- backed group Energy In Depth in Washington, said in an e-mail. …

It’s not clear how long it took for the brine to migrate into groundwater, and it could take thousands of years, [Terry Engelder, a professor of geosciences at Pennsylvania State University,] said. And once fracking takes place, gas and water will flow into the well and not up through any fissures that may exist. “The natural flow would be into the well bore,” Engelder said.

Given some of National Public Radio’s recent forays into energy reporting, EID was eager to see what it would make of the Duke study. Here’s an excerpt from the online version:

The nation’s boom in natural gas production has come with a cost: The technique used to get much of the gas out of the ground, called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, has contaminated drinking water. But how often and where this contamination is taking place is a matter of much debate and litigation.

Now, a new study has found natural pathways of contamination — but that doesn’t mean the drilling industry is off the hook.

Wait, what? First of all, the authors of the Duke study said very clearly their water testing found no evidence to suggest hydraulic fracturing has contaminated drinking water. From the Duke press release:

 These results reinforce our earlier work showing no evidence of brine contamination from shale gas exploration.

Secondly, any reporter who has spent five minutes covering shale-gas and shale-oil development knows – or should know – that there’s never been a verified case of hydraulic fracturing contaminating drinking water aquifers. So, EID reached out to NPR to seek a correction, and sent over the following statements:

Given EID’s previous encounters with NPR, and the fact that its story on the Duke paper did not include any comment from the industry, we should have been prepared for its response. Nonetheless, it still came as a shock. When we reached out to the editor, she declared: “No correction is needed.”

Some media outlets try harder than others to stick to the facts, and give a fair shake to everyone involved a news story. Sadly, however, some outlets don’t really try at all.

 

Another Duke Rebuke?
A new paper from researchers at Duke Univ. confirms once again that solutions involved in the fracturing process aren't getting in, near or anywhere close to shallow sources of drinking water in northeast Pennsylvania. But you'd never know that's what the report actually says by looking at the press coverage.

Chris Tucker
Team Lead

One of the most under-reported aspects of the widely reported methane paper issued by Duke Univ. researchers in May 2011 was the fact that, try as they might, the authors could find no evidence of fluids from the fracturing process in, near or anywhere close to shallow sources of drinking water underground.

Of course, that non-discovery wasn’t all that significant in a geological sense: scientists, engineers and even EPA administrators have long known that the thousands of feet and billions of tons of impermeable rock that separate deep oil and gas formations from shallow water formations make it virtually impossible for such migration to occur. But it was significant in a political sense, because the Duke research was underwritten by groups that oppose the development of oil and gas – groups that couldn’t have been happy to once again find themselves denied of the one talking point they covet above all the rest.

Against that backdrop, some may view the release this week of the second installment of the Duke paper as an attempt at atonement – with researchers finally providing opponents the evidence they need to launch a thousand new ships against hydraulic fracturing. Unfortunately for them, though, what’s most notable about this paper – similar to the first — is what the authors did not find: no fracturing fluids in water wells, and no correlation between the phenomena they report and activities associated with natural gas development. According to the paper: “The occurrences of saline water do not correlate with the location of shale-gas wells and are consistent with reported data before rapid shale-gas development in the region.”

Still, though, while the paper’s findings are benign, and the authors’ insistence that development activities had nothing to do with the detection of salt in water abundantly clear, we’ve seen this saga play out before. Already, activists are pointing to the report as evidence that fracturing fluids may someday migrate up to drinking water sources, denying the facts of science, a history of experience and even the views of the researchers themselves. And reporters, having spotted the words “hydraulic fracturing” and “contamination” in the abstract, are now deciding whether they even need to read the rest of the paper before filing on it.

Below, we attempt to lay out in intelligible terms what the second Duke paper actually says, while also running through a couple issues that Penn State geologist Terry Engelder and others identified during the paper’s peer-review process. Of course, the fact that a paper is “peer reviewed” does not imply consensus among the reviewers, nor does it mean that suggestions for clarification are actually incorporated by the authors, as indicated by the following discussion between the Duke researchers and Engelder:

Issue #1: No discussion of time-scale

Did these brine samples migrate up from depth over 100 million years, 10 million years, 10,000 years, or 10 years? Arguing that brine and other fluids can mobilize underground over time isn’t new or controversial. What’s controversial is attempting to assert that these migrations are occurring on a time scale that actually matters to humanity. To their credit, the Duke researchers don’t do that. But without even a ballpark sense of the possible time horizons associated with these phenomena, it’s impossible to assess how important the “discovery” actually is.

Issue #2: No discussion of exposure pathways

If Marcellus brine is migrating up from formations thousands of feet below, why haven’t those same cross-formational fractures caused the natural gas in the Marcellus to leak-off and disappear over that same time?

Issue #3: No discussion of whether Marcellus even contains enough brinewater to leak.

 Issue #4: No discussion of transport or drive mechanism

What forces conspired to propel brine from a largely brine-less formation up through thousands of feel of solid rock, on an undetermined time scale?

So, to recap: Duke researchers say that small volumes of brinewater were detected in a few shallow water wells in northeast Pennsylvania. They believe this brinewater originated from the Marcellus, a conclusion they reached even without identifying a pathway for it to travel, a mechanism to propel it, or a time-scale that would at least narrow the possibilities of transport speed down to a couple million years. Notified of the fact that the Marcellus doesn’t actually contain much “free” brinewater, the researchers double-down and insist that it does, apparently confusing the collection of flowback and produced water on the surface for brine that’s native to the formation.

Of course, and very much to their credit, the Duke researchers make it clear that the phenomena they observed are in no way connected to development activities in the region. And although that is an important finding, and one that serious observers will note as they take time to actually read the paper, one can’t help but wonder whether that’s the audience for which this paper was actually written – and not this one instead.

*UPDATE III* State Rep.’s Claims Don’t Pass the Smell Test
Everyone knows the story of the boy who cried “wolf” – but have you heard the one about the state representative who cried “gas well”?

UPDATE III (5/25/2012, 10:53am): Getting the facts out about the situation at Cornerstone Care must have rattled State Rep. Jesse White’s cage, based on this comment he posted on the Energy In Depth website: 

“…I have gone out of my way not to implicate anyone or any specific cause…”

You can scroll to the bottom of this page for his full comments, and EID’s reply. In the meantime, let’s do some fact checking to see if Rep. White really has been acting like a fair-minded public official. 

On May 13, Rep. White sent a letter to Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection demanding a “thorough investigation” of the odor reported inside the Cornerstone building. But in the same letter, Rep. White singles out the oil and gas industry as the most likely cause:

“I am writing this strongly-worded letter with regard to the ongoing investigation of the Cornerstone Care community health clinic …

I would like some more information regarding … all oil and gas operations in the area … [and] whether those operators were informed prior to testing.” 

No other potential source for the odor is mentioned in Rep. White’s letter. Not the spray painting operation across the road or the poorly stored construction materials on site. But Rep. White’s effort to pressure DEP investigators to focus on the oil and gas industry doesn’t end there. He also demands they test for 74 different chemical substances, and even provides a list. 

So where does acetone, the substance people say they smelled on the building’s second floor, rank on Rep. White’s list? It’s number 64. How about methane, the primary constituent of natural gas, which has no odor? It’s number three. 

Take a look at Rep. White’s laundry list of chemicals and decide for yourself whether he’s working for his constituents or helping a trial lawyer somewhere conduct a fishing expedition against the oil and gas industry on the taxpayer’s dime. 

We’ve also noticed Rep. White uses social media to engage his constituents, rally supporters and solicit campaign contributions. In fact, from Facebook, you can learn a lot about where Rep. White gets his “facts” about oil and gas, and how they shape his opinions of the industry. 

One of Rep. White’s most recent posts deals with Steve Hvozdovich, spokesman for the activist group Clean Water Action, who told the Pittsburgh Tribune Review that the men and women of the natural gas industry are like bank robbers. That’s right, Hvozdovich called natural gas workers violent criminals. 

“If somebody robs the bank and puts the public in danger, police don’t just pull the guy over and say, ‘Give the money back and say you’re sorry, and everything will be resolved,’” said Steve Hvozdovich, a Clean Water Action policy associate… 

In the same story, the DEP rejected the CWA spokesman’s comments, and so did Range Resources, one of the biggest gas developers in the Marcellus Shale. And so would any fair-minded public official. After all, you don’t have to like the people of the oil and gas industry, but calling them dangerous felons is crossing the line. So whose side does Rep. White take in this debate?

That’s right, Rep. White defended Hvozdovich, the environmental activist who thinks there’s something criminal about working for the natural gas industry. His opinion means more to Rep. White, it would seem, than the professional judgment of DEP’s regulators, inspectors and scientists. That’s really disturbing, because it suggests this state lawmaker also believes there’s something inherently wrong – even criminal – about the jobs and economic growth made possible by developing Pennsylvania’s abundant shale gas resources. 

Now, about those trial lawyers. It turns out Rep. White has his own law firm, and one of the attorneys there, JP Fridy, has been following the Cornerstone Care case pretty closely:

Rep. White was right. The odors in the building aren’t the only thing that smells funny here. There’s also the stench of frivolous litigation, and it’s getting worse by the day.

UPDATE II (5/18/2012, 11:16am): Some new photos have just surfaced that shed more light on what’s causing the odors at the Cornerstone Care building in Washington County, Pa.

To recap, there’s an auto body shop with a junkyard and spray painting facilities across the road, and there was recent construction in the building. Spray painting cars involves the use of acetone-based solvents, and the doctors, staff and patients say the odors that forced the temporary closure of the medical center smelled like acetone, or acetone-based products such as lacquer or nail polish.

But check out these photos from the parking lot behind the medical center. They show some of the building materials used in the recent construction work, which could also produce pungent odors. These materials are also poorly stored:

There are paint cans, sealant bottles, large drums labeled “corrosive” and even gasoline tanks improperly stored within a few feet of the building. There are also bottles of Quikrete, which contains acrylic polymer. According to the product’s Material Safety Data Sheet, here’s what can happen if it’s used or stored carelessly: 

Inhalation of vapor or mist can cause the following: headache, nausea, irritation of nose, throat and lungs.

The MSDS further warns that acrylic polymers, if they aren’t stored correctly, can undergo “thermal decomposition” and release “hazardous” acrylic monomers. Here’s what Arkema Inc., a major chemicals manufacturer, tells customers about acrylic monomers and how they smell:

Acrylic monomers have very low odor thresholds which means that we can smell these chemicals at very low concentrations. Their odor thresholds range from 0.1 ppb (parts per billion) to 100 ppb, depending on the product, therefore only a small amount of released material can result in an odor.

So, a small amount of material from the recent construction work is capable of producing a strong odor inside the building. The same goes for improperly stored materials just outside the building. Sounds like any investigation of a bad smell that’s limited to the second floor of the Cornerstone Care building should first be focused on nearby sources, like leftover construction materials and the spray painting operation about 350 feet across the road. 

Not according to State Rep. Jesse White, who keeps pushing the storyline to the news media that a gas well about a mile away is the real culprit. White also continues to pressure the Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection to ignore the evidence: 

Because of the media attention surrounding the closure, DEP announced it found no connection of the problems to drilling activity. I am not saying that oil and gas activity caused the problems at Cornerstone, but how could DEP make such a statement without doing proper investigation and testing? http://goo.gl/FQkFG

So, let’s get this straight. After ginning up as much media coverage as possible on Cornerstone Care, Rep. White now says media coverage is the reason the DEP didn’t find any evidence to support his allegations? Here’s a simpler explanation – the DEP hasn’t found any facts to support Rep. White’s allegations because the facts don’t support Rep. White’s allegations. And while this charade continues, the doctors, patients and staff of Cornerstone Care will be denied real answers.

UPDATE (5/15/12, 3:21pm ET) This story just crossed the line from silly into the truly bizarre, because the temporary closure of Cornerstone Care clinic just played a starring role today on NPR’s Morning Edition. Less than 24 hours after EID posted its own deep-dive investigation of the clinic, showing quite clearly that natural gas development is the least likely cause of the odors on the second floor of the Cornerstone building, NPR’s Rob Stein spent almost eight minutes of air time insinuating that the gas industry is responsible – doing his level-best along the way to avoid mention of any detail that could lead folks to question that thesis. To wit:

The whole place reeked — like someone had spilled a giant bottle of nail polish remover. …

Now, no one knows whether the gas drilling has anything to do with the problems at the clinic. It could easily turn out to be something completely unrelated. There’s a smelting plant down the road and old coal mines everywhere. …

So they’ve moved the clinic to temporary offices until someone figures out what’s going on.

If this is supposed to be a piece of investigative journalism, then someone forgot the part where the reporter actually investigates. Because there’s no mention that the odors were first complained about before drilling began, no mention that things are fine in the dental practice on the first floor, no mention of recent construction in the building, and no mention that methane – the primary constituent of natural gas – is colorless, odorless and tasteless. NPR also fails to tell its listeners that the gas well in question is almost a mile from the building, and leaves out the fact that a junkyard and auto repair shop – where cars are spray painted – sits just 350 feet away. Remember, people are complaining of something that smells like acetone, and acetone is a widely used product in spray painting.

Of course, maybe NPR does know about the spray painting that goes on across the road from Cornerstone Care, and other important facts that suggest natural gas development has nothing to do with the odors. But then, disclosing those facts might spoil the “mystery” story that NPR is trying to stand up, with the help of gas industry critics like State Rep. Jesse White.

—Original post from May 14, 2012—

Everyone knows the story of the boy who cried “wolf” – but have you heard the one about the state representative who cried “gas well”?

At Energy In Depth, we’ve investigated and debunked all kinds of slurs, myths and allegations – far too many, and far too frequently, for our liking. But every once in a while, we encounter a rush to judgment that’s more than just wrong – it’s plain silly. Consider the following effort to implicate shale development in the temporary closure of a medical facility in southwestern Pennsylvania, as reported earlier this month by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Cornerstone Care’s Medical & Dental Plaza in Burgettstown, Washington County, was evacuated Friday for the third time since the end of March due to strong industrial odors that sickened patients and employees.

County and state agencies, and air quality consultants hired by the Cornerstone, can’t find the source of the odors, and Robert MtJoy, Cornerstone chief executive officer, said he will close the medical clinic until they do. …

Cornerstone serves approximately 1,000 patients on the second floor of the two-story building along Route 18 and employs 50 workers. The Cornerstone dental clinic, on the first floor of the building, has not experienced any indoor odors and will remain open. …

Mr. Poister said the DEP air program workers did a “walk through” of the medical facility April 27 as well as the closest Marcellus well a quarter mile away but did not smell the odor at either place. …

Mr. MtJoy said the Cornerstone building is “surrounded” by Marcellus Shale gas operations …

State Rep. Jesse White, D-Cecil, said he expects the DEP to do a better job responding to the odor complaints, and said the department’s oil and gas bureau at the regional office and in Harrisburg haven’t been responsive.

“DEP’s response has been unacceptable,” Mr. White said. “My district just lost one of the only places we have to provide health care and someone needs to provide some answers. Where’s the accountability?” http://goo.gl/0t4CF

The closure of a health facility – even if temporary – is a serious matter, and one that warrants a serious examination of the causes. Such an examination would likely focus to start on the building itself, where recent construction work has been taking place; it might also take into consideration the fact there is no odor in the dental clinic on the first floor.

Another interesting fact: According to several recent news articles, patients had complained about the odor issues in the building before any Marcellus wells were drilled at all. That’s right, people were complaining about the odor before the well was even drilled. We should also mention that the well itself resides almost a mile away from the building – about four times the distance initially reported.

DEP officials have monitored the air quality outside the building and could not detect the odor. DEP officials have also visited the well site and found no evidence that the operations there are responsible for the smell. It’s important to note that methane, the primary constituent of natural gas, is “colorless, odorless, and tasteless,” according to the Energy Information Administration.

But let’s assume for a moment that the source of the reported “lacquer-like odors,” or “acetone or nail-polish removal smell,” lies outside the building. The way these news reports read, a well pad almost a mile away apparently is the only possible outdoor source that could cause these “industrial odors” to exist. But what if we told you there was an auto repair shop across the road with its own junk yard?

 

And what if the same premises had facilities on-site for painting cars? It’s about 350 feet from the medical center, and it probably uses some acetone-based products, based on this information from Dow Chemical:

As a solvent, acetone is frequently incorporated in solvent systems or “blends,” especially as the low-boiling component of “high-low” blends. Many of these acetone-solvent blends are used in the formulation of “high-solids” cellulose ester lacquers for automotive and furniture finishes. They also are used in acrylic automotive lacquers, particularly when the acrylics are modified with nitrocellulose. Acetone, which has a dilution ratio of 4.5, may be used to reduce the viscosity of lacquer solutions. …  Acetone is widely used in the textile industry for degreasing wool and degumming silk. Also, large quantities are used in paint, lacquer, and varnish stripping compounds, and in nail polish removers. http://goo.gl/Bvrp2

In fact, acetone is used as a thinner that makes it easier to pump automotive paint and lacquer through the nozzle of a spray gun. It can also be used to clean the spray gun after a paint job is complete. Indeed, environmental regulators have encouraged auto body shops to use more acetone because, unlike many other solvents, the fumes from acetone do not contribute to smog formation in the air. That said, acetone-based thinners can still cause acute health impacts if those fumes are inhaled in high concentrations. For instance, here’s the health warning from the Material Safety Data Sheet of one thinning product:

Vapor harmful. May cause dizziness; headache; watering of eyes; irritation of respiratory tract; weakness; drowsiness; nausea; numbness in fingers, arms and legs; depression of central nervous system; loss of appetite; fatigue; hallucinations; light headedness; visual disturbances; giddiness and intoxication; sleepiness; cough and dyspnea; cold, clammy extremities; diarrhea; vomiting; dilation of pupils; spotted vision.

So, to recap: The CEO of the clinic temporarily closes his facility, citing an “acetone-like” smell nearby. His default reaction, and that of his state representative, is to blame the existence of a natural gas well about 5,000 feet away. Notwithstanding the fact that an auto body shop/junk yard where acetone is used in significant quantities resides barely 350 feet away from his front porch. Or the fact that there were complaints about the acetone-like odor before the well in question had even been drilled.

 Of course, only the second floor of the clinic has been hit with the odor, and that’s the only level of the building that faces the road. The first-floor dental clinic, where no odors have been reported, was built behind an embankment that would block any fumes that drift across the road.

Plus, there’s also the possibility that the odor is coming from inside the building if one of the contractors involved in the construction work happened to leave some painting products behind. And yet, almost all the speculation focuses on a natural gas well pad almost a mile away, and the offending odor was first reported before drilling even started at that location.

It sure sounds (or smells) like someone is pushing the “blame a gas well” storyline to the news media. Perhaps someone who’s a critic of the oil and gas industry whose job security depends on getting quoted in newspapers?

State Rep. Jesse White, quick to upbraid DEP in the press for failing to blame a gas well for the odor, seems to fits that description pretty well. According to AOL Energy, he’s “an outspoken opponent of the state’s gas industry,” and let’s face it, elected officials are always looking for ways to win the media’s attention. Well, it seems some of Rep. White’s constituents already concluded he’s the one pushing this story, based on this statement from his campaign website:

Let’s stop right here for a minute, because I know the response forming in many peoples’ [sic] minds, and I want to address it right here and now. First, I am in no way saying that oil and gas activity caused the problems at Cornerstone Care. I am not a scientist, and although I know a lot more than I did a few years ago about the drilling process, I don’t pretend to be one. Second, I am not trying to whip people into a frenzy to oppose the natural gas drilling. …

So we have a system where the DEP Oil and Gas Unit is the only group who can investigate these types of problems, and although I cannot say with certainty the problems at Cornerstone are related to drilling, no one can say with certainty that they are not caused by drilling. You would think the Oil and Gas Unit would be quick to respond, if for no other reason to dispel any concerns right away, especially for a high-profile public health facility situated in the dead center of the Marcellus Shale boom. …

The odors in the building aren’t the only thing that smells funny here. http://goo.gl/bBnwL

We think that Rep. White doth protest too much. If you read the news clips above, you’ll see he’s absolutely blaming oil and gas activity for the problems at Cornerstone Care, and worse still, he’s demanding that the DEP focus its entire investigation on the oil and gas industry, even though there’s no evidence suggesting that’s where the odor came from (or the fact that the monitoring of indoor air quality isn’t even part of DEP’s job description). Remember, people in the building had reported the odor before drilling even commenced.

Unfortunately, Rep. White seems more interested in pursuing a personal political agenda than finding the actual cause of the problems at Cornerstone Care. By insisting that everyone involved stay focused on the oil and gas industry, at the exclusion of all else, when other culprits are much more obvious and likely, he’s just getting in the way of a real examination by the DEP and the owners and tenants of the building. Sadly, that probably means it will take longer for the problems at the medical center to be identified and fixed, which is something Rep. White’s constituents might be disappointed to hear.

Natural Gas Use at the Wellsite: Makes Sense (and Cents)
The culture of innovation continues to bring down the cost and lighten the environmental footprint of responsible oil and gas development. For example, companies are starting to convert the machinery at well sites from diesel to natural gas.

America’s oil and gas industry has gone through many changes since it started in Titusville, Pennsylvania, more than 150 years ago. But one thing that hasn’t changed with the times is the industry’s culture of innovation – a constant drive to find new and better ways of developing and delivering the energy that supports our way of life. That’s what brought us the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing in deep shale formations, which is probably the best-known oil and gas innovation in decades, thanks to the hundreds of thousands of jobs it’s created and billions of dollars it’s saved consumers in lower energy costs.

The culture of innovation continues to bring down the cost and lighten the environmental footprint of responsible oil and gas development. For example, companies are starting to convert the machinery at well sites from diesel to natural gas. According to a recent report from Reuters:

“Apache Corp, the largest U.S. company focused solely on oil and gas exploration and production, is in the process of converting its first rig to run on power generated by liquefied natural gas (LNG). Canada’s Encana … already has 15 of its more than 40 rigs driven by gas, and plans to convert even more.”

Reuters says some of Encana’s gas-fueled rigs used trucked-in LNG, while others used gas from the well itself. So what’s the big attraction? Another report from Bloomberg spells it out:

“Encana, Canada’s largest natural-gas producer, reduced fuel costs 47 percent, or $830,000, compared with diesel use, at a shale-gas drilling site in the Haynesville formation which spans the border of Texas and Louisiana…

The savings were based on consumption of almost half a million gallons of fuel and average prices of diesel of $3.28 a gallon and $1.11 a gallon for LNG over a period of about 160 days. The company plans to use LNG at more of its operations…

Gas emits 20 percent to 30 percent less carbon dioxide than oil-based fuels and has a fraction of the emissions of nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides and particulate matter, which are linked to respiratory health problems such as asthma, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.”

Another selling point, according to Reuters, is that natural-gas engines are quieter than their diesel counterparts. That could be a big help in shale-development areas that are densely populated, like the Dallas-Forth Worth region and parts of Pennsylvania. Prometheus Energy Group, which operates mobile LNG storage and vaporization units that can fuel the machinery at well sites, tells Reuters customers are lining up:

“’We’ve seen interest just kind of explode in the last six to eight months,’ said Ron Bertasi, chief executive officer of Prometheus…”

But Reuters points out there’s more than one innovation in this field:

“Chesapeake Energy Corp, the most active U.S. driller, is working to convert its rig fleet to run on diesel natural gas (DNG). Chesapeake aims to have more than 40 rigs running on DNG by the end of the year.

‘To our knowledge, this will by far be the largest rig fleet utilizing natural gas,’ Kent Wilkinson, vice president of Chesapeake Natural Gas Ventures, said.”

This may be an emerging practice, but it actually builds upon what the industry has been doing for a long time – harnessing the energy of natural gas to get it from the well to the customer. According to the Department of Energy, Green Energy Sources, roughly 9 percent of the gas produced from U.S. wells is actually used to power the equipment that processes and transports the fuel to homes and businesses across the country.

Marcellus Shale: Helping Keep Families Together
The economic benefits and consumer savings brought to Pennsylvania by responsible Marcellus Shale development are well-known. Perhaps less well known is the role natural gas development has played in bringing families together and keeping children and grandchildren close by. This is due to the job opportunities now available, right here in our area. No longer do our graduates have to leave home to do well.

The economic benefits and consumer savings brought to Pennsylvania by responsible Marcellus development are well-known. Perhaps less well known is the role that natural gas exploration has played in bringing families together and keeping children and grandchildren close by. This is due to the job opportunities now available, right here in our area.  No longer do our graduates have to leave home to do well.

This is the subject of Energy In Depth’s latest video “Women of the Marcellus.”  The video highlights three families from northeastern Pennsylvania that were reunited and strengthened thanks to opportunities provided by Marcellus development.

The Marcellus Shale has, as the video so magnificently demonstrates, has helped provide this foundation for families throughout the Commonwealth.  The Marcellus Shale is now employing, directly or indirectly, nearly two percent of Pennsylvania’s workforce, after just five years of development.

Just last year, job growth from the Marcellus represented approximately 80% of all new hires in the Keystone State.

This has reversed the “brain drain” that was siphoning away Pennsylvania graduates just seven years ago. That was then, this is now.

We expect this trend to not only continue, but also grow in importance in coming years as additional opportunities develop.

A recent study by Wells-Fargo indicates continued Marcellus Shale development could provide an additional 200,000 jobs by 2020.  That means even more Pennsylvanians will have an opportunity to work close to home and their extended families. From where we are sitting that’s good news.

Perhaps it’s not too far off when Pennsylvania will no longer be one of the oldest states (by population) in the country and we, as future parents, can look forward to our children being able to start their families closer to home.

Meanwhile, we add ourselves to the examples provided in this video.  Nicole has been able to stay in Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, moving only a few miles from her hometown of Williamsport to Hughesville where she found employment in the natural gas industry. Rachael has been fortunate enough to benefit from Marcellus Shale development prior to a single rig ever entering her hometown of Afton, New York, or even her state for that matter.

That was an opportunity neither of us thought we would have while we were in school.  From our point of view, it’s nice to have been wrong. And, like the other women in the video, it is our mothers and grandmothers, more so even than ourselves, who are most thankful for this miraculous change coming to our communities.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter!

*UPDATE IV* A Rolling Stone Gathers No Facts
As serious people continue to cite serious evidence in support of the proposition of responsible development, a fundamentally unserious account of the current debate was posted this week on the website of Rolling Stone magazine. Coming in at 6,200 words on the dot, the piece can most charitably be described as a not-so-quick (but plenty dirty) rehash of previously debunked charges and talking points, offered up by the same usual cast of characters that’s frequently wheeled-out and introduced anew any time a hit-piece is in the offing.

UPDATE IV (Mar. 8, 2012; 9:28 a.m.): Another thing from Goodell’s response that really chaps our hide. This statement: “But when it came time to answer more substantial questions, all traces of transparency vanished. A quick example: I asked Chesapeake three times to provide me with a statistic for the total volume of dirty flowback water the company handled in the Marcellus Shale region last year. I got no answer.”

In our last update (below), we inquired whether Mr. Goodell had access to the Internet. Assuming he does, he’ll be interested, we think, in this website: https://www.paoilandgasreporting.state.pa.us/publicreports/Modules/Waste/WasteByOperator.aspx. It’s operated and maintained by the Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection, and it tracks the volume, type and final disposition point of every barrel of wastewater that’s generated across the state (from both Marcellus and non-Marcellus wells). According to Goodell, this information is top-secret. And that’s true: unless you have a modem.

UPDATE III (Mar. 7, 2012; 5:35 p.m. ET): The full-scale, pell-mell retreat on the part of Jeff Goodell’s keystone sources – the people upon which the entire Rolling Stone narrative is based – continues this week, with peak-oil writer and solar advocate Chris Nelder joining Art Berman in distancing himself from things attributed to him by Goodell in his piece. From Nelder’s blog: The article “appears to have drawn heavily from my recent pieces on shale gas, although without direct attribution. … I should clarify that I do not agree with all of Goodell’s representations.”

So what do you do when the two sources you literally handpicked to help manufacture the thesis at the core of your 6,200-word article in Rolling Stone suddenly go sideways on you? If you’re Jeff Goodell, you write a detailed response piece to the mounting criticism of your work – but not so detailed that you actually acknowledge the existence of the statements from Berman and Nelder. Nah, you just ignore those.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but Goodell’s reply was posted at 10:22 a.m. on March 6. Berman’s post went live on March 3, and Nelder’s on March 5. Is it possible Goodell doesn’t have an Internet connection?

UPDATE II (Mar. 5, 2012; 11:10 a.m. ET): The New York Post’s Abby Schachter has a must-read piece responding to the Rolling Stone story, appropriately entitled “Another shale gas attack full of hot air.” Abby highlights the gross mischaracterization of Art Berman’s comments about shale supposedly being a “Ponzi scheme.” Definitely worth reading in its entirety.

UPDATE (Mar. 4, 2012; 4:25 p.m. ET): Obviously no secret by now that we disagree strongly with Art Berman’s much-publicized thesis on the resource potential of shale. But as we’ve written before, he’s actually a lovely guy to be around in person, and, when things need to be corrected, a stand-up guy as well — taking to his blog over the weekend to set the record straight on how Jeff Goodell “mischaracterized” comments attributed to him in Rolling Stone. From Berman’s blog: “I never said that Chesapeake or any other company involved in shale gas drilling is involved in or resembles a Ponzi scheme. That may be what Goodell thinks but that is not what I said, think or imply.” Read the complete post here.

–

If you happen to oppose the responsible development of clean, affordable and enormously abundant reserves of natural gas from shale, it’s tough to imagine the past month-and-a-half being a period upon which you, when it’s all said and done, will look back fondly.

For these folks, the unraveling began in earnest on the evening of Jan. 24, when the president devoted a portion of his State of the Union address to the promise and potential of shale, suggesting that advancements in technology are “proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy.” A couple weeks later, the Univ. of Texas released a 414-page, fact-based report on hydraulic fracturing, rendering judgment on whether fracturing technology is connected to adverse impacts on water (it isn’t) and providing new evidence of the presence of naturally occurring methane in drinking water. The study, out for nearly a month now and widely reported on in the press, has been met by a cacophony of crickets from the other side.

Back in Washington, the U.S. Secretary of the Interior derided as “urban legend” the myth of fracturing-qua-environmental scourge, lamenting to a House committee the “hysteria” that has come to distort the debate. On Feb. 9, the U.S. Secretary of Energy, winner of the 1997 Nobel Prize in physics, suggested to an audience in Pittsburgh that the development of shale “can free [the] nation.”

Last week, the International Business Times characterized EPA administrator Lisa Jackson as striking a “bullish tone” on the safety of fracturing at a forum in New Jersey. And just this week, President Clinton, himself up for a Nobel Prize, said the country needed to end its “ambivalence” over clean-burning natural gas, judging it a clear winner for our country. New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg followed that up with his own positive comments, suggesting that “with appropriate safeguards, I think fracking is something that on balance is better for this country.”

Against this backdrop, as serious people continue to cite serious evidence in support of the proposition of responsible development, a fundamentally unserious account of the current debate was posted this week on the website of Rolling Stone magazine. Coming in at 6,200 words on the dot, the piece can most charitably be described as a not-so-quick (but plenty dirty) rehash of previously debunked charges and talking points, offered up by the same usual cast of characters that’s frequently wheeled-out and introduced anew any time a hit-piece is in the offing.

But in the end, the story fails not because its original reporting is bad, though it is. It fails because nothing resembling original reporting can be found anywhere in it. According to an item posted on Friday by John Hanger, former Pennsylvania DEP secretary and CEO of PennFuture, a leading environmental group: “[Rolling Stone’s] Jeff Goodell … should split his pay with the NYT gas reporter, because Goodell regurgitates all the NYT’s greatest gas hits, including ones that the NYT public editor found to be misleading or false.”

Below, we take a look at some of the more obvious errors that contributed to what, in the end, was a pretty ridiculous piece.

–

Rolling Stone: “Fracking, it turns out, is about producing cheap energy the same way the mortgage crisis was about helping realize the dreams of middle-class homeowners.”

RS: “[N]ew studies suggest that because of fugitive emissions of methane from wellheads and pipelines, natural gas may actually be no better than coal when it comes to global warming.”

RS: “’In the Marcellus, the boom has just begun,’ says [Tony] Ingraffea, the Cornell engineer. ‘The idea is to drill everywhere.’”

RS: “According to Arthur Berman, a respected energy consultant in Texas who has spent years studying the industry, Chesapeake and its lesser competitors resemble a Ponzi scheme, overhyping the promise of shale gas in an effort to recoup their huge investments in leases and drilling.”

RS: “The Oscar-nominated film Gasland exposed the dark underbelly of fracking, interviewing residents who could literally light their faucets on fire, thanks to the gas that had contaminated their drinking water.”

RS: “Last year, The New York Times documented how gas drillers were dumping millions of gallons of irradiated wastewater loaded with toxic chemicals into Pennsylvania’s rivers and streams, largely without regulatory oversight.”

RS: “In January, the Energy Department cut its estimate of the amount of gas available in the Marcellus Shale by nearly 70 percent, and a group affiliated with the Colorado School of Mines warns that there may be only 23 years’ worth of economically recoverable gas left nationwide.”

RS: “’The more land they acquire, the more capital they have to spend upfront,’ says Deborah Rogers, a former investment banker who …looked into the firm’s financial statements after the company sunk wells near her property in Texas.”

RS: “‘Done right, drilling and fracking does not pollute drinking water.’ This, in essence, is the mantra … Everything we do is safe and environmentally responsible. Trust us.”

Don’t trust us? How about these guys?

RS: “It’s also impossible to know what chemicals are flowing out of the wells, or how toxic they are, because companies … are not required to disclose the compounds they use in fracking operations. Providers of fracking fluids … claim that the composition of such fluids can’t be revealed without disclosing trade secrets. In 2005, the industry lobbied hard for what’s known as ‘the Halliburton loophole,’ which exempts it from federal disclosure requirements.”

RS: “Last year, scientists at Duke University … published the first rigorous, peer-reviewed study of pollution at drilling and fracking operations. Examining 60 sites in New York and Pennsylvania, they found ‘systematic evidence for methane contamination’ in household drinking water … The study caused a big stir, in part because it was the first clear evidence that fracking was contaminating drinking water.”

RS: “[Sherry] Vargson noticed not long after production began in 2009 that water in the trough out back stopped freezing on cold nights. Inside the house, the faucet began to sputter and spit. Her husband seemed to have a lot of headaches, and Vargson felt nauseous if she stayed in the shower for more than a few minutes. Acting on a tip from a friend, she had her water tested. It was loaded with methane.”

READ MORE

Old Line State Takes a New Look at the Marcellus
States that have safely and responsibly developed their natural gas resources have seen significant increases in job creation and economic activity in recent years. As Maryland examines whether to develop its shale resources, a new study shows its westernmost counties could support thousands of jobs by producing nearly $300 million worth of natural gas located two miles underground.

States that have safely and responsibly developed their natural gas resources have seen significant increases in job creation and economic activity in recent years.  As Maryland examines whether to develop its shale resources, a new study shows its westernmost counties could support thousands of jobs by producing nearly $300 million worth of natural gas located two miles underground.

The study, released last week and commissioned by the Maryland Petroleum Council, found that portion of the prolific Marcellus Shale underlying Garrett and Allegany counties holds significant volumes of natural gas.  Specifically, the study reached the following conclusions:

The study, which is based on conservative estimates, only focused on direct employment and did not take into account ancillary jobs that may be realized – jobs, as we’ve seen in other states, that are created up and down the entire supply chain.  But even considering just the direct employment impact of responsible shale development, we’re still talking about a welcome bit of news for a portion of Maryland with higher unemployment rates than elsewhere in the state.

Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley has, on more than one occasion, highlighted the development of Maryland’s clean energy economy as a means to move the state forward while protecting its environment. To wit:

“In these last three years, we have made the choices that have transformed Maryland into one of the leading clean energy states in the nation. Each element of our energy agenda is structured to provide resources and incentives for our families and workforce, create jobs, and fuel innovation as we continue to strive for a Maryland that is truly smart, green and growing.” (1/10/10)

While the state is currently home to approximately 80 natural gas wells, the study clearly shows continued development of clean burning natural gas could provide significant economic benefits to Marylanders while advancing the Governor’s commitment to a clean energy.

A Lesson In How Crackers are Made
With EID programs currently up and running in both Pennsylvania and Ohio -- and having great, collaborative relationships with our friends in West Virginia as well -- it's fair to say that EID is more than a little bit conflicted when it comes to our institutional position on where Shell should build its new $2-billion ethane-fed cracker facility among the several sites currently under review throughout the three-state region.

With EID programs currently up and running in both Pennsylvania and Ohio — and having great, collaborative relationships with our friends in West Virginia as well — it’s fair to say that EID is more than a little bit conflicted when it comes to our institutional position on where Shell should build its new $2-billion ethane-fed cracker facility among the several sites currently under review throughout the three-state region.

But as you might expect, the senior U.S. senator from Pennsylvania isn’t quite so torn. In a letter sent this week to Mark Quartermain, president of Shell Energy North America, U.S. Sen. Robert Casey (D-Pa.) lays out a pretty compelling case for why Shell should set-up shop in Pennsylvania, citing the state’s skilled workforce, extensive rail transportation network, and the “great potential that Marcellus Shale resources” has to offer. Not to be outdone, federal lawmakers from Ohio and West Virginia (and governors too) have weighed in as well, each hopeful that their workforce, infrastructure and shale-related geology will help put their state over the top – and snag 10,000 new jobs in the process.

As Sen. Casey alludes to his letter, the reason Shell’s in the position today to make such an enormous investment in the region is directly related to the remarkable volumes of natural gas (and especially, natural gas liquids) currently being produced from shale. What the senator doesn’t mention in his letter, though, is the fact that he’s currently the co-author and chief sponsor of legislation in the Senate that has the potential to shut down shale development all across the country, starting in his home state of Pennsylvania.

At least that’s the position of Gasland director Josh Fox, who has called for a nationwide ban on the technologies needed to harvest energy from shale, and for good measure, a global ban on all fossil fuels. Over on his website, Fox directs visitors to call their elected representatives and “let them know you support the FRAC Act.” Why that bill? Because “we can’t stop fracking without you.” Does that sound like a disclosure bill to you?

All of which sets up an interesting question: Had Sen. Casey actually passed his legislation when it was first introduced a couple years back, would Shell have decided to invest $2 billion in a facility whose entire business case is premised on continued access to affordable energy resources from the Marcellus and Utica shales? We can’t say for sure. What we do, though, is that one of the provisions included in the $41-billion merger between Exxon and XTO in December 2009 was a clause suggesting the deal could be called off if Congress were to pass a bill making “hydraulic fracturing or similar processes… illegal or commercially impracticable.” Sounds a little bit like Sen. Casey’s bill, doesn’t it?

Separate and apart from the legislation, the senator also appears to have a habit of “shooting first” and asking questions later when it comes to assigning blame in rare occasions when things go wrong. In March 2011, Sen. Casey wrote a letter to the U.S. Department of Energy asking the agency to investigate “yet another gas-migration-related explosion” in McKean Co., Pa. – telling Secretary Chu that, to him, “it appears” the incident was caused by “extensive new deep drilling activities.” Less than a month later, PA DEP released the findings of its investigation, showing the source of methane migration to be shallow, abandoned wells drilled in the area more than 125 years ago. Not shale. And not new.

All that aside, though, Sen. Casey deserves credit for standing up for his state and fighting for thousands of family-supporting jobs at an otherwise very difficult time for our country and our economy. The good news for everyone is that, wherever the cracker is located, most experts believe that the entire region will benefit tremendously from the multi-billion dollar shot-in-the-arm that this facility portends. According to Keith Burdette, West Virginia’s commerce secretary, “the sites [are] just so closely grouped together that the impact across state lines will be significant.”

Of course, all things being equal, Mr. Burdette wants that sucker in West Virginia. Ohio governor John Kasich wants it in Ohio. And Sen. Casey? Well, he wants that cracker in Pennsylvania. As for us? We’d settle for a box of wheat thins. That, and maybe before anyone sends out any more letters – perhaps a moment of reflection on what’s made this entire conversation possible?

*Update II* Fracturing Technology Lowering Energy Prices – Even In Areas It’s Not Used

Try as some folks might, it’s just getting tougher and tougher to avoid/ignore/deny the reality of responsible shale development qua massive creator of jobs, revenue and American opportunity. Just this week, the Associated Press highlighted the significant employment gains being made right now in the Buckeye State — where natural gas development is re-invigorating the U.S. steel industry and pumping literally billions of dollars back into communities that could sure use the lift right now.

Of course, you could also look west to North Dakota, where the state is enjoying a nation leading 3.5% unemployment rate thanks to the development of the Bakken.  And as those development activities have continued across the country, another benefit is making itself known to the American consumer: significant cost savings in the form of lower energy bills.

In a recent article in the Buffalo News, Gary Marchiori, President of Energy Mark, a local energy services firm in upstate New York, summed this up quite succinctly stating:

Whether they realize it or not, consumers in the Buffalo Niagara region are benefiting from natural gas production in the Marcellus Shale every time they turn their furnace on.

Here, he’s talking about how the responsible development of the Marcellus Shale – and other tight reservoirs in the east – has had the effect of driving down natural gas prices across the entire country, reducing the cost of heating homes, cooking your food and manufacturing just about anything in the world that matters.

In New York, this trend is borne out in estimates for heating costs this year put forward by the National Fuel Company.  The company declared that the typical residential household will have winter heating costs of approximately $719 which is a $350 decrease from prices paid just two years ago.

Sounds nice right? Just to make sure, we thought we’d give Mr. Marchiori a call ourselves, having never spoken to the man previous to seeing him quoted in the newspaper. And guess what? Turns out Gary’s a great guy who knows a great deal about energy markets in western New York, and beyond. According to Gary:

Due to excess surplus from shale, you should have [natural gas] stored and retained throughout the year, keeping prices low well through next year.  Adding to this stability is presence of major natural gas producers, whose additional exploration and production can be expected to lead to a more predictable supply, thus removing significant market volatility and also helping to keep prices low for the consumer.”

Of course, these benefits are not limited to New York.  In fact, the UGI corporation, one of the largest utilities on the east coast providing natural gas to approximately 56,000 customers, also announced that it would be lowering its natural gas prices resulting in cost savings on average of 13.5% to residential customers. While a rate decrease of this magnitude may not seem significant, with this decrease natural gas costs for UGI customers will be about 27% less than they were just three short years ago.  This good news may just end up meaning an extra present or two below the Christmas tree this year in many homes thanks to cost savings brought about by shale development.

According to Vicki O. Ebner, Senior Vice President, Customer & Government Relations at UGI, this all attributable to the safe and responsible development of our nation’s shale resources:

The increase of supplies of natural gas from Marcellus Shale has helped create continued downward price pressure on natural gas. We are pleased to pass this cost savings on to our customers as we approach the winter heating season, especially in the midst of extreme price volatility for other energy sources. Now more than ever, natural gas is an affordable, efficient and reliable American fuel, and the energy source of choice for homes and businesses.

All of this comes on top of news released earlier this year from the Energy Information Administration (EIA).  EIA stated earlier this year that throughout the northeast, wholesale natural gas prices were down between 2% and 15% over the summer, reflecting both lower regional demands and growing natural gas production from the Marcellus Shale.

Benefits like these can’t be trivialized easily by those opposing natural gas development as it means the chance to breathe a bit easier for our nation’s neediest families. After all with announcements earlier this year indicating that  16 million U.S. children are living below the poverty level this year (highest level since 1962) we are pretty sure that many families appreciate cost savings wherever they can be found.  Thanks to natural gas development one place to look is your monthly utility bill.

Update 1- December 1, 2011

Today, the Scranton Times Tribune also featured the cost-savings brought about in northeast Pennsylvania thanks to Marcellus development.  The paper adds to this already great story, stating:

Update II- December 2, 2011

The hits just keep on coming.  Today, the Des Moines Register confirmed that shale gas is significantly bringing down consumer prices of natural in the Hawkeye State and across the continental United States.  The article, titled “Natural Gas Story Warm and Fuzzy” highlighted the benefits shale development is bringing to folks in Iowa, among many other places.  Specifically informing Iowans that while they may be preparing for their first sub-freezing temperatures of the year staying warm may be just a bit less costly as:

 the price of natural gas, the prime heating fuel in the state, is running at a five-year low thanks to expanded domestic production.

Iowa joins Pennsylvania, New York, Rhode Island (and just about all of New England for that matter) and countless other states enjoying reduced utility bills this winter thanks to the safe and responsible development of our natural gas resources.  As our nation continues to struggle with stubbornly high unemployment rates for many Americans struggling to make ends meet it is  likely comforting to know that staying warm will cost less and that continued production should keep this the case for some time.

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.”

NPR: Shale Development a Huge Boon to U.S. Manufacturing

Today, National Public Radio’s Morning Edition highlighted the remarkable impact that responsible shale development is having on American manufacturing, filing a short piece focusing on Marcellus development in Pennsylvania. The program highlighted how hydraulic fracturing is stimulating significant job growth for the manufacturing sector due to affordable and stable supplies of clean-burning natural gas — which is helping to create thousands of jobs during these challenging economic times. Here are several key excerpts from the story:

Energy production is stimulating growth along the supply chain. You can’t drill without steel; you can’t weld without workers. Whether an oil and gas producing state or not, domestic energy production is creating jobs in a wide array of manufacturing sectors.

And the American people are catching on! A poll released today by the American Consumer Institute Center for Citizen Research (ACI) noted that 80% of Americans support increased energy development to create jobs. Natural gas is no exception.

With the American economy currently on the ropes, natural gas development continues to be a light at the end of the tunnel (or well hole) for thousands of Americans trying to provide for themselves and their families. American innovation created hydraulic fracturing; American determination has enabled it to prosper and will continue to provide for our growing, energy-consuming nation.

Before increasing our reliance on foreign fuels and “our so-called friends in the Middle East” (CBS-21’s RJ Harris, 10/10/11), let’s look to the great domestic energy potential—right beneath our feet.

High Flies the Falcon: HF Helping to Create Jobs from Pennsylvania to Poland

What does Pennsylvania and Poland have in common other than a love for polka, a taste for haluski, and a propensity for Babushkas? Well, the responsible development of clean-burning natural gas from shale formations – enabled by hydraulic fracturing – is helping to create jobs. Thousands of them.

In fact, Dow Jones reports this today under the headline “Polish Shale Sector Needs Hands”:

If Poland is to develop its reserves of shale gas, the material that has created an energy bonanza in the U.S., one of its biggest obstacles is likely to be securing a qualified labor force, industry participants say. “There are about 1,000 shale jobs in Poland right now, but there will be 50,000 to 100,000 in the next 10 years,” says Jakub Kostecki, chief executive of New Gas Contracting, a Warsaw-based recruiting firm.

Poland has recoverable shale-gas resources of 5.3 trillion cubic meters, equal to more than 300 years of the country’s annual natural-gas consumption, the US Department of Energy says in a report.

Business is picking up, but Geofizyka Torun is facing increasing competition as rival companies set up shop in Poland, bringing their own equipment to do seismic testing and hiring young professionals, says Sylwia Kowalska, a human-resources director at the company. But Geofizyka Torun offers to pay for its employees’ lodgings and provides them with English classes, she says. “We’re seeing employees who left coming back,” Ms. Kowalska says. “They miss Poland.” She estimates that in May the company hired at least 70% more people than a year ago.

Responsible American natural gas production in Pennsylvania continues to be an economic catalyst for small businesses and those looking for work. This from today’s Sunbury (PA) Daily Item:

Dennis Hain believes in learning a trade, then being able to find a job in that trade. As director of SUN Area Technical Institute, he sees the school’s pilot program with Pennsylvania College of Technology as fitting the bill by preparing students to work in the natural gas industry. … “I can tell you I’ve never received as many phone calls from businesses asking for students. We don’t have enough to fill the positions.”

If working for a natural gas company is an ethical issue for some, for others it’s a means to a good paycheck and benefits that they wouldn’t have otherwise without leaving the state. “A high school diploma and a real good work ethic are about what you need to get hired in an entry-level job up there,” said Tracy Brundage, assistant vice president of workforce and economic development at Penn College. She noted that a good driving record and clean background also are important.

Take it a step further with more education, and a student can make a solid career with a salary two or three times what he or she would make in another industry, plus good benefits.

And in a weekend editorial, the Altoona (PA) Mirror underscores the important fact that “the Marcellus industry has pumped needed dollars into rural areas of our state.” This all, of course, helps explain why Gallup’s Chief Economist Dennis Jacobe recently said “One thing the U.S. could do to stimulate job growth going forward would be to place more emphasis on expanding the nation’s energy and commodity sectors.”

Just The Facts: University of Pitt. Prof. Sets the Record Straight on Hydraulic Fracturing

Just The Facts: University of Pitt. Prof. Sets the Record Straight on Hydraulic Fracturing
Positive benefits created by fracture stimulation technology continue to pour in from coast to coast

In an interview with KDKA radio’s Mike Pintet, Professor Radisav Vidic of the University of Pittsburgh’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, sets the record straight on hydraulic fracturing – the 60 year-old energy stimulation technology that has been safely used to produced domestic oil and gas over 1.1 million times. Dr. Vidic, who holds a Ph.D. in environmental engineering, underscores hydraulic fracturing’s tight regulations and long and clear record of environmental safety.

On Hydraulic Fracturing’s Clear, Long Record of Protecting Groundwater: “There hasn’t been any proven case”

On Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Disclosure: “Go on the DEP’s website”

On GasLand Claims About Flaming Faucets: “It’s not caused by drilling”

What are others saying about domestic oil and natural gas production enabled by hydraulic fracturing? We’re glad you asked.

 

 

 

 

Dem. Pa. House Policy Chief Sinks to New Low in Debate Over American Energy Production

According to his website, Pennsylvania state Representative Mike Sturla’s (D-96) — as the House’s Democratic Policy Chairman — “is instrumental in crafting the caucus’ policy agenda.” This is a very unsettling notion, considering the coarse rhetoric he offered yesterday about the region’s natural gas industry. Mr. Sturla’s commitment to new, massive taxes on responsible, clean-burning, job-creating American natural gas development cannot be questioned.

And while reasonable minds may disagree about natural gas tax policy and the associated economic impacts that such proposals may carry, Mr. Sturla – a key legislative leader in Pennsylvania – stooped to a new low yesterday about Pennsylvania’s natural gas industry, which has helped put more than 140,000 folks to work at a time when our national economy remains anemic.

As reported by the Harrisburg, Pa.-based news outlet Capitolwire (“Walker says forestland royalties key to solving state’s economic problems”) today, Mr. Sturla – in several emails to reporter Pete DeCoursey – lodges a host of unsubstantiated claims about the natural gas industry, including that its responsible for spreading “venereal disease.”

This direct quote – via email – from Mr. Sturla, as reported by Capitolwire:

“Also, aside from building roads so their trucks can get to drill sites and doing a little stream work to mitigate damage from their road building, exactly what are all those things the drillers are doing for the local communities? Patronizing the bars at night? Driving up the cost of rental housing? Spreading sexually transmitted disease amongst the womenfolk? Causing school districts to ask local governments to ban truck traffic on local roads during school bus pick up and drop off times so kids don’t get killed? Upgrading emergency preparedness equipment to handle a well blow out? Running compressor stations that have decibel levels equal to a jet engine?…Really community oriented stuff…”

Disparaging usage of ‘womenfolk’ aside (it’s 2011 by the way, good representative), Mr. Sturla’s comments are downright arrogant, inflammatory and, above all else, patently false.

While there’s not – and will likely never be any Marcellus Shale development in Mr. Sturla’s district – he should be aware of the impact that our industry is in fact having throughout communities across the region. As much it may pain Mr. Sturla, he – and others interested – should take a good, hard look at a series of recent news reports about the “really community oriented stuff” that our industry is responsible for:

Note to Mr. Sturla: Facts and science must serve as the foundation for our dialogue — not hyperbole, bald-faced lies and scare tactics.

NYT Doubles-Down on a Really Bad Bet

*** Cross-posted on MasterResource.org and EIDMarcellus.org

When New York Magazine reported earlier this month that the national editor of The New York Times had sent an internal memo laying out a “surprisingly detailed” defense of reporter Ian Urbina’s latest front-page attack on natural gas, the hope was that the memo would spur an equally detailed response by Arthur Brisbane, the Times’ public editor. That hope was realized when Mr. Brisbane’s 1,100-word piecewas posted on the paper’s website over the weekend, a column in which Brisbane takes square aim at theTimes for going “out on a limb” and “lack[ing] an in-depth dissenting view in the text.”

Keep Reading »

Investment from state shows gas is our future

Congressman Tom Reed (N.Y.-29)

A recent article in this newspaper said that New York has invested more than $1 billion from its pension fund into natural gas companies. I applaud state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli for recognizing the importance of this valuable natural resource and for investing in America’s energy future as well as the American economy.

New York’s decision speaks volumes about the stability and economic importance of our natural gas resources. It illustrates that natural gas development is seen as a predictable and enduring investment.

More so, this is an investment in the United States. This decision reinforces my belief that natural gas will be important to our economy and for reducing our dependency on foreign energy for years to come.

As a whole, the natural gas industry employs nearly 3 million people in all 50 states. In states that allow development of the Marcellus Shale, the economic effects are already being realized. A Penn State University study determined that 48,000 jobs have been created as a result of Marcellus development. By 2020, it is estimated that the Marcellus-related industry could create 175,000 jobs.

Additionally, in times of fiscal crisis, development of Marcellus Shale is generating badly needed revenue for state and local governments. The Pennsylvania Department of Revenue (DOR) announced on May 2 that companies engaged in and related to natural gas drilling activities in Pennsylvania, primarily in the Marcellus Shale, have paid more than $1.1 billion in state taxes since 2006. According to the DOR, those taxes came on top of the billions of dollars of infrastructure investments, royalty payments and permit fees paid by the industry.

Beyond the economic benefits of extracting natural gas are the national security considerations. One of the biggest threats to our nation is our continued dependence on fossil fuels from other countries. In order to stop being victim to instability across the world, we must develop our own energy solutions that will reduce our dependence on foreign energy.

Hydraulic fracturing in New York can be done in a safe and responsible way. It is time that our leaders move forward with natural gas development and do so in a transparent manner.

The honest public dialogue on natural gas exploration must continue, with a focus on the areas of well siting and completion, chemical use, wastewater treatment and air quality. We must stress the need for adequate safety standards and the importance of accountability. New York’s Department of Environmental Conservation has a long, effective record of monitoring the energy industry. It will ensure that exploration and extraction is done safely with appropriate oversight.

We must bring all stakeholders together to have an honest conversation that will move development forward and allow New York to realize the benefits for our state and our nation. I was pleased to learn of DiNapoli’s investment in natural gas. It is an investment in all of us.

Reed, of Corning, represents New York’s 29th congressional district.

NOTE: This op-ed originally appeared in the Elmira Star-Gazette. Click HERE to learn more about Congressman Reed.

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:

Running Headlong Into a False Headline

Down On The Farm (in PA)

NY League of Conservation Voters (LCV) urges supporters to stand up for family farms – WE AGREE! Have they seen what the Marcellus Shale is doing for farmers in PA?

NYLCV Urges Immediate Action to Save Family Farms from Going Under … … While in PA, the Marcellus Continues to Keep Family Farms in the Hands of Actual Families

 
LCV EMAIL TO SUPPORTERS:“You already know that locally grown is good for New York’s environment, economy and public health. It tastes better, too.

“But did you know this? A New York farm goes out of business and is lost to development every three and a half days.

“The state’s existing Farmland Protection Program simply cannot keep up with the high demand or intense pressure to develop agricultural lands. A new approach is needed right away, or more farms will be lost for good.

“Over the coming days, lawmakers in Albany will be working on proposals to generate new revenue to save New York’s farms.

“Please join NYLCV in asking the Legislature to protect New York’s agricultural industry and keep high-quality, locally made products on New Yorkers’ tables.” (NYLCV “Act Now” email alert, 4/27/11)

 Natural Gas Drilling Leases Saving Farms: ”It let us build a heifer barn” for female cattle that have not produced calves, owner Paul Manning said of a lease covering 147 acres of his North Abington Twp. farm. … Improvements, such as the $240,000 investment in the heifer barn in 2008, would have been unlikely without the gas lease, Mr. Manning said. … The region’s emerging Marcellus Shale natural gas industry…helps provide economic security for some farmers. … “Farmers have said that receiving the lease payments has allowed them to stay on the farm and without that, they would not have been able to survive economically,” said Timothy Kelsey, Ph.D., an agricultural economist at Penn State University.” (Scranton Times-Tribune, 5/10/10)

 

“Marcellus Shale Payments Give Hope To Family Farms”: As a farmer in Wayne County I am pleased to see the Marcellus Shale gas leases bringing new hope and renewed optimism to many family farms in Northeastern Pennsylvania. The revenue generated by these gas leases allows farm families to make much needed investments in their farming operations. Barns are being repaired and equipment that should have been retired 20 years ago is now being replaced. The ability to make these new investments and the relief from financial stress will insure a future for their farms today and for future generations. The Marcellus Shale gas will be an important part of our energy future. It will improve the environment, improve our agriculture economy and save family farms. (Citizens Voice, 7/5/10)

Marcellus Shale Helping To Keep Family Farms In Tact: Nearly 600 residents attended Wednesday’s day-long DRBC meeting to plead their clashing cases: That drilling is needed not only to produce relatively clean energy but to save economically desperate communities … Landowners like Judy Ahrens of Hanesdale, Pa., argued that they should be able to lease the mineral rights to their land. “It enables those of us who have farms to keep our farms so they can be passed on to our families so they don’t have to be split up and developed,” she said. (Associated Press, 7/15/10)

Pa. Farm Country Radio Host: “Marcellus Shale ‘Crop’ Sustaining Family Farms”: Natural gas is a new crop for farmers in many parts of the state. It is harvested thousands of feet below the topsoil. This new revenue it generates has allowed countless farms to stay in business, repair and upgrade their barns and buy new equipment to plant their crops. The lease revenue has saved many farms from development and allowed farmers to invest in modern no-till equipment to farm in a more efficient and environmentally friendly way – both are good for water quality and the environment. … Marcellus Shale gas is responsible for preserving family farms and supporting our number-one industry: agriculture. It is keeping our farmland in production and saving farms from development. The benefits of Marcellus Shale are many; agriculture should be added to the list, along with much-needed jobs and stimulating our local economy. (Times-Leader, 10/28/10)

Marcellus Shale “A Win Win Situation All Around”: “It will help to maintain open space and keep our forest grounds grounded and our farms farming. The influx of cash is desperately needed in the state of Pennsylvania, and particularly in the depressed areas of Wayne County, said Alliance Executive Director Marian Schweighofter. … “The effect this has had is its given us the ability to make a college fund for our family members. We think it’s a win win situation all around, most definitely for the economic ability of Wayne County,” said Schweighofter. (WNEP-TV, 7/13/10)

“Marcellus Shale Development Can Preserve Family Farms”: Marcellus Shale development can preserve family farms by creating additional revenue for farmers through gas leases and royalties, [Richard Adams, senior regulatory advisor for Texas-based Chief Oil and Gas] said. (Williamsport Sun-Gazette, 3/25/10)

Lock Haven University Small Business Development Center: With many family farms receiving sizeable [Marcellus royalty] checks, farm life is changing as well. New equipment purchases, a shift in operations and the ability to have disposable income has local retail establishments growing in a down economy. This may mean a third generation dairy farm is now focused on crop production, but at the same time providing an opportunity for a new dairy farm to establish itself. (9/16/10)

Former Pa. Agriculture Secretary Dennis Wolff:
“The Marcellus has served as a ray of hope for many farmers working through tough economic times, battling low milk prices and rising fuel and feed costs.” (Release, 1/13/11)

Bradford Co. County Commissioner Douglas McLinko: “Gas Fuels Growth”: Marcellus drilling activity has allowed out of work men and women to earn a paycheck and feed their families. While others in the country are idled by unemployment, workers in Bradford County are learning and developing job skills. Trained workers ensure the area is attractive to prospective employers, which will lead to increased job creation and a diversified workforce. The family farm is the soul of Bradford County. … Marcellus Shale development has preserved more farmland than any government program at zero taxpayer expense. Bradford County farmers continue to feed America while meeting its energy demands. (Commonwealth Foundation, 8/3/10)

Pa. Independent Oil & Gas Assoc.: The Marcellus shale has opened opportunities in Pennsylvania that none of us could have envisioned just five short years ago. Farmers have received literally billions of dollars in upfront lease payments to allow development of this resource. (Pa. senate testimony, 1/26/10)

Marcellus Shale Coalition: “In addition to the direct economic benefit farmers realize from leasing their land — enabling many to hold on to their family farms, and make investments in newer, more efficient agricultural technologies — the entire farming community will continue to see a positive impact as a result of Marcellus development through more stable fuel prices, lower energy costs, and more affordable fertilizers.” (Release, 1/13/11)

H’burg Patriot-News Steps Up with the Facts on Fracturing

{cross-posted over at EIDMarcellus.org}

Ever notice how some of the best news pieces out there on the Marcellus Shale also happen to be among the longest in form and most detailed in their presentation?

If you’ve had a chance to read Bryan Walsh’s balanced account of shale development in TIME Magazine last month (as a companion to EID’s quick fact-check) or Mike Soraghan’s 4,800-word take-down of Gasland in The New York Times (of all places) in Feb., you’ve seen firsthand how good, thorough, well-sourced reporting oftentimes produces final stories that turn out to be less-than-favorable from the opposition’s point of view.

So why do you think that is? Can it be that every single long-form writer in America is currently being paid in secret by the oil and natural gas industry? Or could it be a function of the fact that longer articles allow the reporter to lay out a volume and quality of facts, science and context that you don’t come across as often in blog blasts on the Huffington Post or 450-word unsigned editorials on the back page of the newspaper?

Whatever the answer, a report published today in the Harrisburg Patriot-News by journalist Donald Gilliland continues a trend we’ve seen evolve over the past two years – namely, that when reporters are given the time and space to do a genuine “deep dive” on issues related to shale and fracturing technology, they return to the surface with an account of the process that looks almost nothing like the narrative being advanced by professionals on the other side. Gilliland’s rebuke of Gasland is especially trenchant, referring to the movie as an example of “great emotional filmmaking and absolutely rotten science.”

Of course, if your main sources of news on the Marcellus continue to be wing-ding press releases and 140-character-or-less broadsides on Twitter, you probably wouldn’t know, for instance, that natural gas originating from the Marcellus Shale formation has never once been found in underground drinking water supplies thousands of feet above. You also wouldn’t know that the “iconic image from ‘Gasland’ [of] people lighting their tap water on fire … has nothing to do with fracking.” But it doesn’t, which Colorado regulators have testified to time and time again.

Plenty of other things here in the Gilliland piece worth highlighting – but hopefully you’ll have the time to take a look at the 2,000-word story for yourself. Definitely worth your time, especially considering how much of it you likely spent on Twitter today — are we right?

Memo to Volz: The Internet Is Forever

A new, hard-hitting and incredibly revealing video (not produced by Energy In Depth, unfortunately) has a home here on our blog. The six minute video’s main character (and he’s quite a character)? Conrad ‘Dan’ Volz, a soon-to-be former assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh.

This isn’t Mr. Volz’s first rodeo on EID’s blog, but given the host of baseless, ridiculous and downright nutty claims he’s made over the months regarding American natural gas development and hydraulic fracturing, we think this video serves as a prudent reminder to trust, but verify.

A quick walk down memory lane for those less familiar with Volz.

Last Sunday, following the initial release of this video (hat tip to JunkScience and Commonwealth Foundation), the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported that Mr. Volz was leaving the University of Pittsburgh. Mr. Volz, who testified last Tuesday before the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, was reminded of this news report by panel’s top Republican, Senator Jim Inhofe (see 3:50 of this hearing video).

In a follow up story, the Tribune-Review reports this last Tuesday:

A researcher and Marcellus shale drilling opponent who said he is leaving the University of Pittsburgh over “philosophical differences” can speak his mind about environmental dangers of natural gas extraction, Pitt officials said yesterday.

Researcher Conrad “Dan” Volz told the Tribune-Review for a story on Sunday that he would step down as director of Pitt’s Center for Healthy Environments and Communities because the university said he could not be an advocate for public and environmental health causes. He said yesterday that he expects to leave by the end of May.

“The university does not oppose Dr. Volz’s personally held views,” said Allison Schlesinger, spokeswoman for Pitt’s Graduate School of Public Health, where Volz worked since 2004. “He, like any other researcher or faculty member, has the academic freedom to study and research anything he’d like and to express his views based on that research and study.”

And while it remains uncertain as to whether or not the former assistant professor will be able to secure Pitt basketball season tickets (or Panther football tickets) moving forward, Mr. Volz – the Godfather of FracTracker – writes this in a recent ‘Citizens Concerned about Natural Gas Drilling’ Google Group thread:

“AND FOR PA-WV-MD AND oh we will have a potential 100 million dollar market.”

Enjoy, folks.

Click HERE to view this must-watch video.

TIME for an EID Fact-Check

TIME cover story on Marcellus Shale gets a whole lot right – but at 4,100 words, misses the mark on some key facts along the way

Keep Reading »

Albany Times Union Editorial: “Informed public policy won’t come from silencing diverse views”

A bad lesson in censorship
Albany Times Union, Editorial
Monday, April 4, 2011

One might reasonably assume that the state’s top staff geologist would have some relevant thoughts about drilling for natural gas. But good luck finding out what’s on Langhorne B. Smith Jr.’s mind, now that the state has muzzled him.

If only irony were an alternative energy source. Here’s the state Education Department — an agency responsible for fostering knowledge — barring Mr. Smith from talking to reporters after his comments on gas drilling caused a backlash among environmentalists — who normally are the first to cry out when politics takes precedence over science.

We don’t particularly agree with Mr. Smith on a few key points, either. But shutting down an informed voice is absolutely the wrong thing for the government to do, and for environmentalists to support, if only in their failure to denounce it.

As the Times Union’s James M. Odato found, Mr. Smith has been forbidden to talk to reporters since he spoke out on hydraulic fracturing, a controversial process of extracting natural gas that the energy industry wants to employ in the vast Marcellus Shale formation that lies under six states.

We and many others have expressed concern about potential problems, including drinking water contamination. No permits have been issued in New York while the state Department of Environmental Conservation works on regulations and the federal Environmental Protection Agency studies the practice of hydrofracking.

Mr. Smith in an interview last month spoke positively of the Marcellus Shale’s natural gas as a “huge gift” and characterized reports of water contamination as exaggerated and distorted.

He called for vigorous oversight of hydrofracking by the DEC and said natural gas could help relieve global warming and reliance on dirtier-burning fuels like coal.

Hydrofracking opponents, such as Environmental Advocates, the Sierra Club and United for Action, objected, with some suggesting that Mr. Smith’s opinion is tainted because of his private work as an energy industry consultant.

The blowback apparently has made the Education Department uncomfortable enough to cite a protocol that requires employees to check with the agency’s communications office before talking to reporters, or face “appropriate administrative action.” The agency said it’s looking into Mr. Smith’s private work, too.

We’ve been down this unfortunate road before. The state’s former wildlife biologist, Ward Stone, endured official intimidation, including a threat of transfer, for his dogged pursuit of pollution. He was an important voice on issues like the state’s own now-defunct trash incinerator in downtown Albany, where his tests found evidence of pollution in residential neighborhoods. Environmentalists protested the state’s attempts to silence him.

Not here, though. They’re content to let a scientist they disagree with be gagged.

They should join us instead in calling on Education Commissioner David Steiner and the Board of Regents to relax their stifling policies and let public employees contribute to important public discussions without checking with official handlers. This debate should be all about finding the truth, not winning even at the cost of it.

THE ISSUE:

 

The state Education Department bars a knowledgeable employee from talking about gas drilling.

 

THE STAKES:

 

Informed public policy won’t come from silencing diverse views.

NOTE: Click HERE to view this editorial online.

READ MORE

ICYMI: Pa. Environmental Regulator, “There is virtually no physical way for frac water to interfere with, or directly communicate with drinking water supplies”

Pa. Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Regional Director George Jugovic Jr., a former PennFuture attorney, addressed the Marcellus Shale Gas Environmental Summit this week in Pittsburgh. Following are key excerpts from his remarks:

On Fracture Zone and Groundwater:

On the FRAC Act:

Audio clip available HERE.

March Madness: Small Group in Congress Renews Efforts That Could Cost Jobs, Undercut American Energy Security

Unable to pass the bill in the previous two sessions of Congress, or secure even a single committee hearing during that time, proponents of the so-called FRAC Act re-introduced legislation earlier this week that seeks to fundamentally re-write a 37-year-old federal statute – with an eye on assigning the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) direct authority over the regulation of hydraulic fracturing for the first time in the history of the Act, the technology, or the agency itself.

In a statement, Energy In Depth’s Lee Fuller underscored the potential impact this far-reaching, Washington-knows-best policy could have on America’s economy and job creators, as well as our nation’s energy security:

“Hydraulic fracturing is one of the most critical processes that occurs at the wellsite; it’s also among the most stringently regulated. With this technology, it’s possible that literally quadrillions of cubic feet of clean-burning natural gas can be rendered available for American consumers in the future, resources that would otherwise be too deep and diffuse to access. It’s a technology that’s been around a long time, stretching all the way back to the Truman administration. But it’s also a technology that’s never been more important to our nation’s economic and environmental future than it is today. Unfortunately, somewhere along the way, it became a victim of its own success. If hydraulic fracturing weren’t as patently effective as it is, it’s tough to imagine it’d be as strangely controversial as it has become.”

And today’s Wheeling News-Register reports this on the misguided legislation:

Lee Fuller, executive director of Energy In Depth, went further than Klaber, saying the FRAC Act is “based on fundamentally incorrect information,” noting the Safe Drinking Water Act was never used to regulate fracking. “Its backers say it’s about forcing companies to disclose the composition of the … solution that’s not water and sand, even though just about every state regulatory agency in the country will attest that such information is already available,” Fuller added.

Those responsible for regulating oil and natural gas development, and fracture stimulation technologies, are in agreement with energy producers on the facts: this 60 year old technology has never impacted groundwater, thanks in large part to the industry’s commitment to protecting the environment and the common sense state regulations and laws in place. This from Oklahoma’s News On 6 (also on EID’s YouTube page):

Chesapeake Energy’s Chairman and CEO, Aubrey McClendon, said he welcomes the study. “I think the EPA will do a good job of examining it,” McClendon stated, “and if we’re doing something wrong…somehow hurting the environment and we don’t know about it, then we want to fix what we’re doing wrong.”

But McClendon said Chesapeake has hydraulically fractured formations 14,000 times since 1989, and the record shows there isn’t anything wrong.

Larry Nichols, Devon Energy Executive Chairman, agrees. “Show us one single well where hydraulic fracturing has caused any problem,” Nichols said. “I’ve said that in testimony before Congress, and no one has yet to come up with one single well where hydraulic fracturing has caused a problem, that anyone can document with any scientific accuracy.”

The Oklahoma Corporation Commission has oversight of all drilling in the state, including fracking. Commissioner Bob Anthony believes the EPA study is a political scare tactic. “The facts are,” Anthony said in a written statement, “that hydraulic fracturing has been used in Oklahoma about 100,000 times in the last 60 years, with no documented cases of groundwater contamination.”

Nichols worries that the Obama administration’s goal, through the EPA study, is to wrest control of onshore drilling from the states. His fear is that they would then do to onshore drilling what they’ve done to offshore — “Shut it down,” he said.

A quick look around the U.S. at the overwhelmingly positive impacts that hydraulic fracturing – which is tightly and aggressively regulated by energy-producing states – continues to have, all of which would be jeopardized if the FRAC Act were to become law:

MT Gov. Brian Schweitzer, Western Governors Association chair, and fmr. Democratic Governors Association chair: “We’re increasing in Montana by thousands of jobs in drilling in what’s called the Bakken (Shale Formation) in eastern Montana,” the state’s Governor Brian Schweitzer told Fox News. “It is the richest geologic structure in all of the United States. Recent estimates are that there’s about 25 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Bakken in North Dakota and Montana. To put that in perspective we import about 4 billion barrels a year. We use about 6 billon barrels a year. So this one structure in North Dakota and Montana could be one of the keys to energy independence in the short term.” (Fox News, 3/17/11)

Louisiana Association of Business and Industry (LABI) President Daniel Juneau: The second factor that can greatly expand economic activity in the state is for the federal government to stay out of regulating shale oil and gas drilling activities. In 2004, the EPA concluded a 5-year study that concluded that the hydraulic fracturing process used in shale drilling was safe. Now the current EPA wants to go back and revisit the issue. If the EPA outlaws hydraulic fracturing, it will be the death-knell for shale oil and gas production. There is currently a tremendous amount of economic activity going on in northwest Louisiana from shale gas drilling in the Haynesville Shale play. Across central Louisiana, there is a potential for as much as 70 billion barrels of crude oil from the Tuscaloosa Shale play. Production from these shale plays can be a real shot in the arm to jobs and investment in our state. (Bastrop Daily Enterprise Op-Ed, 3/16/11)

“Penn State study shows sales tax revenue higher in Marcellus counties”: A new Penn State University publication examines state tax collection data and specifically compares counties where there is drilling and production activity in the Marcellus shale play with that of non-Marcellus counties. … The data indicates that local spending has increased in counties with major Marcellus activity. State tax collections of the personal income tax and realty transfer tax show similar differences between Marcellus and non-Marcellus counties. (Oil & Gas Journal, 3/16/11)

“Why North Dakota Is Booming: They’re drilling for oil, attracting high tech, and keeping the tax burden moderate. Result: 3.8% unemployment.” Living on the harsh, wind-swept northern Great Plains, North Dakotans lean towards the practical in economic development. Finding themselves sitting on prodigious pools of oil—estimated by the state’s Department of Mineral Resources at least 4.3 billion barrels—they are out drilling like mad. And the state is booming. Unemployment is 3.8%, and according to a Gallup survey last month, North Dakota has the best job market in the country. Its economy “sticks out like a diamond in a bowl of cherry pits,” says Ron Wirtz, editor of the Minneapolis Fed’s newspaper, fedgazette. (Wall Street Journal Op-Ed, 3/15/11)

PA State Rep.: Marcellus Shale’s “powerful [economic] ripple effects are spreading throughout the commonwealth”: And in those once-depressed counties where clean natural gas trapped in the deep shale rock is now being reached for energy consumers through high-technology horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, residents are enjoying a dramatic rebirth of jobs, business growth, and income. And, as a result, the Pennsylvania state treasury and the municipal governments in those regions are already receiving significant boosts in tax revenue … Pennsylvania natural gas is creating jobs, generating income, and boosting tax revenues. And while much of the economic activity remains concentrated in the Marcellus Shale regions, powerful ripple effects are spreading throughout the commonwealth. (The Sentinel Op-Ed, 3/12/11)

“Increased Drilling Creates Jobs”: An oil drilling boom across the American West is creating a wealth of job opportunities at a time when most segments of the economy remain sluggish. The boom is the result of new and updated technologies allowing companies to go after oil reserves that until recently were trapped in shale formations, making them too expensive and difficult to tap even five or ten years ago. “This is solid rock, so it’s not like a conventional resource where you just drill a well and the oil starts to flow,” Kathleen Sgamma, Director of Government and Public Affairs for The Western Energy Alliance, explained. “We have to crack that rock through a process that we call hydraulic fracturing where we pump high pressure water and a mixture, and sand down into the formation to crack the rock and create micro-fissures in the rock and prop it open with sand.” (Fox News, 3/17/11)

“This is an employment opportunity for the region. It’s going to provide a new workforce opportunity”: This summer, Clarion University’s Venango Campus will begin offering a natural gas technology program. “Obviously the Marcellus Shale industry is emerging in Pennsylvania and beyond, and it is going to be requiring a huge workforce,” said Christopher Reber, Executive Dean of Clarion University-Venango Campus. “There’s already been a phenomenal investment in Pennsylvania.” … “This is an employment opportunity for the region. It’s going to provide a new workforce opportunity, and certainly we’re committed to promoting economic development for the whole area,” Reber said. (WYFX-TV, 3/16/11)

ND’s Oil Boom Has “has created a $1 billion state budget surplus”: North Dakota, the state with the nation’s lowest unemployment rate, capped a decade of economic prosperity with dramatic population growth in its biggest cities. … North Dakota is enjoying an oil boom in the western part of the state, drawing workers from across the country. Williston, in oil country, grew 17.6% to 14,716. The oil windfall has created a $1 billion state budget surplus. … “We feel extremely fortunate for the position we’re in,” says North Dakota Commerce Commissioner Paul Govig. (USA Today, 3/17/11)

Hydraulic Fracturing, American Oil Production Creating Blue Collar Jobs: Increased drilling in the Niobrara Shale Formation in eastern Wyoming and Colorado is also creating job opportunities. “Currently, Noble Energy has over 60 jobs that are available in this area,” according to Stephen Flaherty, Director of Government Relations for Noble Energy. “The opportunities range from field pumpers, which just require a high school degree and no oil field service all the way up to petroleum engineers and everything in between; information technology services and accounting, just about every discipline.” (Fox News, 3/17/11)

ICYMI – NY State’s Top Geologist: “No Cases in Which [Hydraulic Fracturing] Has Led to Groundwater Contamination”

Fmr. NY DEC Commissioner & Fmr. State Rep. for Manhattan’s Upper East Side:
“Dangers of [Hydraulic Fracturing] Are Overblown”

Scientist says the spin is on
James M. Odato
Albany Times Union
Monday, March 14, 2011

 

Key Excerpts:

NOTE: Click HERE to view this story online.

 

READ MORE

Welcome to Urbina Island

Keep Reading »

Small Town versus Big City/National Media

What does Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Buffalo have in common with South Union Township, Fayette County, PA? Not much, from where we’re sitting, but that’s where we begin.

Over the past few months, both big cities in Pennsylvania passed measures to restrict the responsible development of the Marcellus Shale. Pittsburgh passed a resolution to ban development, Philadelphia passed a measure restricting the city-owned utility from the purchasing Marcellus gas. Surely you’ve seen stories about these non-binding measures in some of nation’s largest news outlets and wire services. Here are a few in case you’ve missed it. And just yesterday, the city of Buffalo, New York adopted a similar resolution. Reuters was first to report last night around 5:30, shortly after the resolution was adopted.

What went unnoticed last week, though, is something we believe may be a first in Pennsylvania: the small enclave of South Union Township, Fayette County – Southeast of Pittsburgh, PA, just north of the Maryland border – passed a resolution in support of “responsible Marcellus development.”

Why is this significant? Well, for starters, Fayette County has a few natural gas wells within its confines, 3,944 to be exact – 86 of which are horizontals into the Marcellus formation. South Fayette Twp., while only home to a handful of conventional wells (eight as of July of 2010), recognizes the tremendous economic benefit its residents will soon realize when Marcellus exploration makes it to their community.

And while industry has no intentions of drilling in Pittsburgh anytime soon, or Buffalo for that matter, and Philadelphia is miles from formation itself, we wanted to give the folks in South Union Twp. some additional attention, since the national media seems to have missed this story.

Here’s how the Herald-Standard reported on the unanimous vote:

At Wednesday’s meeting, supervisors Rick Vernon, Thomas Frankhouser and Robert Schiffbauer voted 3-0 to adopt the resolution, noting that responsible development will stimulate economic activity in the local economy.

“To try to take steps to stop it without any good reason is certainly detrimental,” he said.

“The township of South Union and Fayette County are benefiting from the responsible development of natural gas from the Marcellus shale geological formation,” the resolution states, further noting that the industry’s growth will result in a needed increase in tax revenue during uncertain economic times.

Schiffbauer, who made the motion to adopt the resolution, said all efforts to promote the growth of the natural gas industry should be made and that development should not be hindered.

“I think we should be taking every step we can to develop our own natural energy resource,” he said.

Schiffbauer said it’s wrong to try and deter progress by hindering the industry’s growth when no strong evidence has been presented to show that the responsible drilling and removal of natural gas is harmful.

Amidst all the talk about the heavy-on-symbolism, light-on-substance resolutions coming out of areas where producers have no interest in producing, it’s worth noting this small town of 12,000, which is actually home to actual development, recognizes full well that this process can be done in a safe, environmentally responsible manner while benefiting its residents through job creation, added revenue and energy security for Pennsylvania and the nation.

Conflict of Interest? Powerful Manhattan Pol Puts Frivolous Lawsuits, Personal Financial Gain Before NY’s Struggling Economy

In a scathing New York Post analysis today, Brendan Scott – the paper’s Albany correspondent – uncovers a remarkable and equally questionable connection between one of the state’s most powerful legislative leaders, and his personal financial interest in undercutting responsible natural gas development in the region. Under the headline “Shelly’s $hale game: His law firm pushes gas-drill ‘frack’ suits”, Mr. Scott reports this:

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver leads the fight to block a type of natural-gas drilling in New York, his private law firm is in other states trying to drum up multimillion-dollar lawsuits against the practice, The Post has found.

The speaker’s massive Manhattan-based personal-injury law firm, Weitz & Luxenberg, plans a pair of public forums this week in Pennsylvania and West Virginia to “listen to the concerns of the community, share information and discuss legal options” about the gas-exploration phenomenon known as “hydrofracking” or “fracking.”

Silver (D-Manhattan) … has emerged as a leading foe to expanded natural-gas drilling, which proponents argue could improve New York’s energy independence and revive upstate’s long-stagnant economy.

Drilling advocates, government watchdog groups and even some Democrats say Weitz & Luxenberg’s anti-drilling push, which follows a similar forum last month in Pennsylvania, raises questions about the powerful speaker’s independence on the high-stakes issue.

“You have the speaker highlighting the alleged danger of hydrofracturing at the same time the law firm that’s paying him is out looking for clients interested in suing over the issue,” said a prominent Democrat who has frequent contact with Silver. “It’s further proof that we need a genuine ethics law in New York,” the Democrat said.

At the same time, Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC) president took to the pages of several New York papers today to underscoring the enormous opportunity presented by the environmentally proven development of clean-burning shale gas for the Empire State. In her column, “Delaying drilling will hurt NY,” MSC chief Katyrn Klaber writes this in the Ithaca Journal, the Press & Sun Bulletin, and the Elmira Star-Gazette:

In Pennsylvania, Marcellus exploration created more than 88,000 new jobs over the past two years, with researchers from Penn State predicting that number will climb past 110,000 new jobs over the next 12 months. Some of these jobs go to the folks who drill the wells, naturally — but the vast majority are along the supply chain. Certainly there will be thousands of jobs created if New York decides to develop the Marcellus. Less certain is how many of those jobs will follow if Albany continues to delay.

We’re talking about the people who forge steel, manufacture pipe, produce sand, do environmental work, research deeds and operate hotels. Faced with the prospect of indefinite delay in New York, these folks have decided to move ahead in Pennsylvania instead — building facilities and opening offices less than a half-hour’s drive from New York’s border. Those jobs will remain in Pennsylvania, and the longer the delay, the better the chances they’ll be held by Pennsylvanians.

The short-term economic case for harvesting clean energy resources from the Marcellus is no less compelling — especially with 900,000 New Yorkers out of work, and the state dealing with a $9 billion gap in its budget. New taxes, pay freezes for state workers, consolidation of public schools — these are some of the tools that Gov. Andrew Cuomo has indicated he’ll use to get the state back on a path toward fiscal sustainability. Why not one more? Has there ever been a more important time to take advantage of these opportunities? Has there ever been a more obvious one?

And as New York continues to slow-walk the responsible development of the Marcellus Shale’s clean-burning, job-creating natural gas reserves, here’s what they’re saying about the overwhelmingly positive economic and energy security benefits associated with American oil and natural gas production across the nation, enabled by hydrofracturing:

STEAL CITY

Faced with state takeover of city pension fund, Pittsburgh City Council opts for massive increase in parking-meter fees – while spending time and money on bizarre crusade against Marcellus

Keep Reading »

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

This past weekend, New York Gov. David Paterson vetoed a misguided bill that would’ve established a blanket ban on responsible energy development all across the state – effectively bringing to an end an industry that’s been in place in New York for more than 170 years. This directly from the governor’s office:

“The Governor vetoed legislation that would have placed a moratorium on high-volume, horizontal hydraulic drilling and more conventional vertical drilling. The Governor’s order obviates the need for a moratorium on high-volume fracking. However, vertical drilling has been a fact in this State for 40 years without demonstrable environmental damage. Permitting for such drilling will continue unless the DEC’s comprehensive review requires it to be stopped.”

Our friends at Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York (IOGA of NY) also weighed-in on the governor’s decision. In a statement, IOGA-NY executive director Brad Gill said:

“We are grateful to Governor Paterson for his courage and clear-headed judgment in vetoing S.8129-B (Thompson)/A.11443-B (Sweeney). This bill would have had far-reaching consequences to the state’s oil and natural gas industry, and to the communities in which our member companies work.

“We are very pleased that the governor saw the bill for what it was – a flawed piece of legislation replete with unintended and dire consequences for the people and businesses in our industry. Our members are aware of the considerable pressure put upon lawmakers and the governor to approve this bill. We’re hopeful that the governor’s veto today will set the stage for a more reasoned and rationale public discussion about these issues going forward.”

Unfortunately, many claims continue to be made about the safety, effectiveness and overall ability for domestic energy producers to ensure that the process is done right, which will ultimately help deliver affordable supplies of homegrown energy to American consumers who continue to face historic unemployment rates.

Here’s a few recent claims, and actions, that are flatly disconnected with the reality and the facts as it relates to the overwhelmingly positive economic impact of shale gas production and fracturing’s long and clear record of environmental safety.

CLAIM

Doug Shields, Pittsburgh City Council

Three weeks after enacting a ban on natural-gas drilling in Pittsburgh, city council on Tuesday voted to discourage Marcellus Shale production farther afield.

The nonbinding resolution, called a “will of council,” urges the trustees of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History not to allow drilling or extraction on the 2,200-acre Powdermill Nature Reserve in Westmoreland County. … It can allow extraction without allowing drilling on the property because of horizontal drilling, which would allow a company to drill a well off of the Powdermill property and extend the line horizontally underneath the site to extract its gas.

The resolution says Carnegie trustees may lease Powdermill land “for shale gas exploitation” because of a potential royalty windfall. The resolution urges the trustees to “reject any and all offers” from gas companies. The resolution was introduced by Councilman Doug Shields, the sponsor of council’s recently enacted law banning gas extraction citywide. (Post-Gazette, 12/11/10)

FACT

The Pittsburgh City Council isn’t at all bashful when it comes to passing misguided – and unconstitutional – bans on job-creating shale gas production, for sure. But why is the council working aggressively to ban clean-burning natural gas production outside of its city-limit jurisdiction in other Pennsylvania counties, as well as in other local and municipal governments across the Commonwealth?

FLASHBACK:

The lure of millions of dollars in natural gas royalties has prompted officials at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History to study whether to permit drilling on the Marcellus shale range at its Powdermill Nature Reserve in Westmoreland County. Carnegie spokeswoman Betty Momich said trustees of the Pittsburgh-based museum are a long way from deciding whether to allow drilling on the 2,200-acre preserve in Cook Township.

“We are a science-based organization that is very passionate about environmental and conservation issues,” she said. … “It’s a tremendous opportunity for the state, private landowners and organizations like ourselves. But that’s not the only consideration here,” Momich said. (Tribune-Review, 8/25/10)

CLAIM

Cornell Prof., who runs a university-funded ‘green jobs’ site:

Susan Christopherson, an economic geographer at Cornell, said that almost 70 percent of the economic gains would go to upstate landowners and that most of the industry jobs and long-term economic gains would go elsewhere.

“The oil and gas industry is much more like financial services than manufacturing,” she said. “You don’t have continuous jobs and long-term production. What you usually get is a boom and bust cycle.” (New York Times, 12/12/10)

FACT

Study: Marcellus Production in NY Could Create 16,000 In-State Jobs Over 10 Years

Over a 10-year period the economic impact of drilling alone could exceed $15 billion, supporting more than 16,000 person-years of employment and generating salaries and wages of $792 million. State and local tax coffers would receive $85 million of new revenues. (Potential Econ. & Fiscal Impacts from Natural Gas Production in Broome Co., NY; 7/09)

New Fed. Govt. Report Highlights Hydrofracutring’s Postitive Energy Security, Environmental Impact

Yesterday, the Energy Information Administration, an independent arm of the U.S. Department of Energy, released its Annual Energy Outlook anaylsis. Key findings? “Significant update of the technically recoverable U.S. shale gas resources, more than doubling the volume of shale gas resources assumed in” last year’s report. How’s this possible? Hydraulic fracturing, a 60 year-old oil and natural gas stimulation technology, coupled with advacnements in horitzontal drilling techniques.

Here are just a few highlights from the news cycle regarding the se preliminary findings:

But despite the fact that fracturing and expanded shale gas production is putting the United States on stronger economic footing and helping to slash greenhouse gas emissions, some in Washington remain committed to thwarting this positive progess, and the tens of thousands of good-paying jobs being created through this production. And here’s what academics and editorial pages are saying about responsible shale gas production enabled by tightly-regulated, environmentally proven fracturing technologies:

Live From New York…

Jobs, affordable energy and robust economic development – that’s what New York will be leaving on the table if Governor Paterson signs symbolic legislation into law that would effectively ban the basic technologies needed to deliver clean-burning natural gas resources to the folks who need them. That’s our position on the matter – and it’s also the position of New York state assemblyman Michael Benjamin, Democrat from the Bronx.

In a letter he sent this week to the governor, Asm. Benjamin makes reference to the growing economic development and jobs being created just across the border in Pennsylvania.

New York could also benefit by taking a page from Pennsylvania’s book when it comes finding a revenue stream to hire additional inspectors and regulators to oversee Marcellus development. In Pennsylvania, the natural gas industry worked with the state Department of Environmental Protection and proactively agreed to increase permitting fees from $100 to about $4,000 per well so that additional inspectors and engineers could be hired, at no expense to the taxpayer, to regulate all aspects of the industry.

Hats off to Assemblyman Benjamin for standing up at an important time to serve as the voice of reason in a debate that’s often lacked facts and basic civility. Here’s to hoping the governor sees the many benefits of responsible production and heeds the advice laid out in the letter below.

November 30, 2010

Governor David Paterson
Executive Chamber
Albany, NY 12224

Dear Governor Paterson:

I strongly urge you to veto A.11433-B/S.8129-B, which would suspend hydraulic fracturing for the extraction of natural gas or oil until May 15, 2011.  This bill is flawed because it is overbroad and will cause an unnecessary halt to gas exploration in Western NY and areas outside the Marcellus Shale.  I am opposed to a moratorium on hydrofracking in New York.  I believe that natural gas exploration will provide our State with desperately needed jobs in these tough economic times.  To arbitrarily suspend drilling without any evidence of danger to our water supply would not be in the best interest of our economy.  I believe that New York’s current regulations, along with pending DEC rule changes, are sufficient to protect New York’s natural resources and to prudently dispose of wastewater.

In addition to the state DEC and EPA reviews already underway, there is a de facto moratorium on natural gas exploration in the Marcellus Shale because funding for 29 additional DEC inspectors was not included in the FY 2010-2011 state budget.  Without the added inspectors, no new permits can be issued for expanded natural gas exploration in the Southern Tier, which makes this legislation redundant.  In addition, recent budget cuts have decimated DEC and will slow the permitting process for new and existing wells.

If passed, these bills will act as an unnecessary deterrent to New York’s ability to keep and create jobs, and provide cheaper natural gas to our residents.  Today, I received an email from Mr. John Holko, President of Lenape Resources, Inc., who informed me that a blanket moratorium on natural gas exploration will force his company to close. Mr. Holko’s assertion supports a study by the American Petroleum Institute that found in 2009 alone, natural gas production in the Marcellus Shale yielded 57,000 new jobs in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.  It also found that New York’s reluctance to exploit the Marcellus Shale has already resulted in $11 billion in lost economic output. This figure is staggering considering our current fiscal situation.

Instead of passing legislative impediments, we should allow the DEC to continue to revise regulations for exploration in the Marcellus Shale area.  Once the DEC’s review is released, we will have a greater understanding of the impact of hydraulic fracturing on the quality of the local water supply and the surrounding environment.  Until then, I recommend that we avoid a rash and unnecessary moratorium that will undoubtedly impact this important economic opportunity.  Instead, we should protect our future by becoming less dependent on foreign sources of energy, while we continue to develop alternative energy sources in America.  And New York can be a leader in the safe extraction of natural gas.

For the aforementioned reasons, I strongly urge you to veto A.11433-B/S.8129-B.

Sincerely,

Michael Benjamin
Member of Assembly

Albany After Dark

What’s worse than a lame-duck vote on a bill to impede Marcellus development in New York? A lame-duck vote in the middle of the night.

It turns out your mother was right all along: Nothing good ever happens after midnight.

Of course, when it comes to state legislature in Albany, it’s not entirely clear that much good happens before it either. Monday night, at around 11:30 p.m. EST, the New York State Assembly signed-off on legislation seeking to install a six-month ban on “the issuance of new permits for the drilling of a well which utilizes the practice of hydraulic fracturing.” The late-night, lame-duck vote follows passage of the same bill in the New York State Senate in August – remarkably, a debate that was held even later in the evening than the Assembly had to endure this week.

Which got us to wondering: Why do you think it is these guys insist on taking up sweeping moratoria bills in the dead of the night, while the vast majority of their constituents are fast asleep? Although we can’t say for sure, one of the reasons may be that the legislation in question is so slapdash in its construction that, if it actually were to ever take effect, virtually all oil and natural gas development in New York could come to a halt – irrespective of which formations are being targeted. Our friends at ProPublica (!) made precisely this point back in August when the State Senate initially passed the bill:

But the language in the final bill … does not differentiate between the different ways hydraulic fracturing can be used. It appears to be a blanket prohibition that would also stop hydraulic fracturing in New York’s many vertical oil and gas wells and would apply to drilling in geologic formations outside the Marcellus.

Just in case you’re scoring at home, there are more than 6,700 producing natural gas wells currently in service in New York, according to the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), and about 5,000 producing oil wells. Just about every one of them requires fracture stimulation technology to remain a viable source of energy. And they also require workers. So how many folks might lose their job if this bill successfully initiates a coup de grâce on oil and gas in New York? According to the Independent Oil & Gas Association of New York (IOGA), the impact would be far from insignificant – especially at a time when more than 900,000 New Yorkers are already out of work:

[IOGA] warned that the legislation as written could halt hydraulic fracturing already going on elsewhere in the state. … If that were to happen, the group said, it could jeopardize 5,000 industry jobs and the $1 million in annual revenue that the state collects from drilling permit fees. … “The governor must be made to understand the vast unintended consequences and act quickly to reject this needless legislation,” Brad Gill, executive director of the trade group, said.

It’s a sad turn of events for a state that’s been producing natural gas since the second-term of the Monroe administration – and especially difficult to understand when one considers New York consumes more natural gas than every state in the Union save California and Texas. Maybe that’s why its per-capita CO2 emissions are the lowest in the nation as well. But you know what? Ninety-five percent of New York’s natural gas has to be pipelined-in from someplace else, mostly the Gulf Coast and Canada. And if this bill ends up being signed into law, it’d be tough to imagine that number not climbing up to 100 percent pretty soon thereafter.

But wait a second: Maybe we’re being a bit too pessimistic in appraising the actual impact of this legislation. And maybe we’re being a bit too complimentary of the opposition in suggesting this bill represents a dispositive (and fatal) development at a time when DEC is still actively working to finalize its draft regulations.

Take a look at the language of the moratorium bill once again: “This act shall …expire and be deemed repealed on May 15, 2011.” So basically we’re dealing with a bill that bans the development of the Marcellus at a time when the development of the Marcellus was already effectively halted, pending the release of DEC’s final regulatory framework.

And of course, no one believed that DEC was going to release that final document before May anyway – not with a new governor coming in, and an entirely new leadership team installed atop the agency. “We already have a de facto moratorium on horizontal hydrofracking in the Marcellus Shale, and as far as I’m concerned, this really was a big mistake from the beginning.” Another comment from Brad Gill and IOGA-NY, right? Actually, this statement comes from anti-shale activist Walter Hang in today’s Ithaca paper. For once, Walter, we agree with you.   

The indefatigable Tom Shepstone, friend of Energy In Depth and an active exponent of responsible shale development in PA and NY, shares his analysis of what the New York Assembly vote actually means in practice:

[Shale gas opponents] are obviously ecstatic but I’m not at all sure they should be.  All evidence is that New York State is still acting in a pro-gas fashion … and a 6-month moratorium is essentially meaningless, as it will take that long for the … regs to go into place and a new Governor to put his stamp on the drilling process in New York.  This is, indeed, classic New York State politics – demagoguery that masks actions of precisely the opposite effect. 

Practical effects aside, though, the message that Albany sent this week is that “New York State is closed for business,” according to Democratic Asm. Michael Benjamin, who represents a district in the Bronx and views the responsible development of the Marcellus in the Southern Tier as an important stream of revenue for the state and a potential source of good-paying jobs for his constituents.  And of course, he’s right. But then, the other side’s got good arguments too, right? Here’s how Asm. Robert Castelli, Republican from Westchester County, justified his pro-moratorium vote to the Ithaca Journal: “Our environment should not be reducing the protection of the environment to the level of a political football.” Unfortunately, no English translation was available.  

So what happens next? Unfortunately, the outgoing governor appears poised to sign this ramshackle bill into law later this month, hoping against hope that this single act initiates a rapprochement with the special interest groups that blasted him apart following the abrupt dismissal of DEC commissioner Pete Grannis. And hey, there’s already some evidence out there indicating this may be a smart move for him politically. Keep in mind, the bill hasn’t even been signed yet. But that didn’t stop activists from Catskill Citizens for Safe [read: “No”] Energy from projecting what Gov. Paterson’s legacy will be if it is:

By signing this bill, Governor Paterson will cement his reputation as the first Governor in the country to protect his citizens from the precipitous onslaught of dangerous and poorly regulated shale gas extraction.

Yeah, we get it: tough economic times out there, and who can blame a man who’s just looking for his next job? But you know who else is looking for work right now? More than 900,000 of the governor’s fellow New Yorkers – some of whom could extricate themselves from the unemployment rolls tomorrow if the development of the trillion-dollar resource known as the Marcellus Shale was allowed to commence today. Isn’t it about time for Albany to stand up and represent those folks’ interests as well?

« Older Entries