Home » Posts tagged "natural gas" (Page 2)

natural gas

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

Steve
Spokesman

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dana
Staff Geologist

 

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

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

—Original post, January 9, 2013—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve
Spokesman

 

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

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

Fact One: This was not a failure of hydraulic fracturing

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

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

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

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

Fact Three: No threat to the public

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

Fact Four: Implications for the United States

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

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

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

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

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

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

Simon
Research Director

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mistake #2 – Asking a clearly biased question

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“…the injection is typically done at depths of around 6,000 to 7,000 feet and drinking water is usually pumped from shallow aquifers, no more than one or two hundred feet below the surface. Fracturing fluids have not contaminated any water supply and with that much distance to an aquifer, it is very unlikely they could.”

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

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

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

“A series of federal laws governs most environmental aspects of shale gas development. For example, the Clean Water Act regulates surface discharges of water associated with shale gas drilling and production, as well as storm water runoff from production sites. The Safe Drinking Water Act regulates the underground injection of fluids from shale gas activities. The Clean Air Act limits air emissions from engines, gas processing equipment, and other sources associated with drilling and production. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that exploration and production on federal lands be thoroughly analyzed for environmental impacts.”

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

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

Mistake #3 – “Priming” the respondents  

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

HF in Illinois: All You Need to Know on a Single Fact-Sheet
As many of you know, environmental groups like our friends at Southern Illinoisans Against Fracturing Our Environment (SAFE) and Food & Water Watch, among others, have relentlessly pushed for a ban on hydraulic fracturing, relying heavily on false characterizations of the process. To help prevent these myths from being ingrained in the minds of Illinoisans as truth, EID has just released a new one-page fact sheet for Illinois that dispels some of the biggest misconceptions about hydraulic fracturing.

Kyna
Field Director, Illinois

 

The Illinois General Assembly completed its veto sessions last week, and one issue that was thought to be on the docket – but still did not come up – was a regulatory package for the continued use of hydraulic fracturing in Illinois.

As many of you know, environmental groups like our friends at Southern Illinoisans Against Fracturing Our Environment (SAFE) and Food & Water Watch, among others, have relentlessly pushed for a ban on this well-understood technology, which has been used safely thousands of times here in our state, and more than 1.2 million times across the country. Others have tried to be more subtle, calling for a “moratorium” until “further study” can be completed. Of course, either path is simply a means to the same end: blocking responsible energy development in Illinois (be sure to read our untangling of the “ban versus moratorium” issue by clicking here). And let’s not forget: oil and natural gas production has been a part of our state’s economy for roughly 150 years.

The most troubling part of these groups’ activities, however, is that they seem to be working – based as they are on half-truths, distortions, and debunked talking points. Carbondale, Carlyle, Anna, Alto Pass, Union and Jackson are among the cities and counties that have enacted or called for bans in recent months. But it bears repeating: The groups working behind the scenes to urge support for these bans are not interested in facts, and they are desperately hoping the public won’t demand a science-based discussion about shale development. Instead, they proliferate unfounded and unproven myths, not only to the people of Illinois, but also to our lawmakers – all in the hopes of advancing a carefully crafted agenda that would harm hardworking men and women across Illinois with lost jobs and less economic growth.

To help prevent these myths from being ingrained in the minds of Illinoisans as truth, EID has just released a new one-page fact sheet for Illinois that dispels some of the biggest misconceptions about hydraulic fracturing.

For example, opponents commonly claim that hydraulic fracturing contaminates groundwater. In addition to state regulators and independent experts from across the country concluding otherwise, even the U.S. EPA’s Lisa Jackson says that claim is not true. “In no case have we made a definitive determination that [hydraulic fracturing] has caused chemicals to enter groundwater,” Ms. Jackson said earlier this year. She made similar remarks a year before that, too.

And what’s this about the industry not disclosing what’s in hydraulic fracturing fluids? Well, hydraulic fracturing fluid is more than 99 percent water and sand, with the remaining one percent being additives that can vary depending on local geology. How can we know what additives are used, though? Well, for one, there’s this fact sheet that has lived on the Energy In Depth website for several years. Additionally, anyone can visit FracFocus.org and find a listing of the additives, including on a well-by-well basis within a searchable database.

So check out the fact sheet, which can be viewed below or by clicking here.
Hydraulic Fracturing in Illinois

Clearing the Air on HF Laws in Texas
Recently, a media outlet with a track record of aggressively protecting its own proprietary information published an article that called into question how some contractors have chosen to use the Texas hydraulic fracturing fluid disclosure provision since the law became effective in February of this year. The article contained numerous quotes from well-known anti-energy development activists and politicians with long track records opposing responsible development of our nation’s bountiful oil and natural gas reserves.

Elizabeth Ames Jones
Immediate Past Chairman, Texas Railroad Commission

 

**This op-ed originally appeared on Forbes.com**

Texas became the first state in the union to require well-by-well disclosure of all ingredients of fracturing fluids being used anywhere in the state when Governor Rick Perry signed into law House Bill 3328, the Texas Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid Disclosure bill, in June, 2011.  As Chairman of the Texas Railroad Commission, the nation’s premier energy oversight agency, I made sure that the prompt enactment of rulemaking to implement the statute supported our very important dual mission of ensuring responsible production of Texas’s bountiful energy resources, protecting the environment, and ensuring the safety of Texans.

Like every other law governing fluid disclosure, the Texas law contains a provision that allows contractors to protect chemical ingredients or compounds that qualify as proprietary information. It does so using a process governed by the State Attorney General’s office that has been a feature of Texas law for decades, and it contains a process for concerned parties to file challenges if they believe the process is being abused.

This provision of Texas law that assigns oversight of proprietary information to the Attorney General  has proven to be fair and effective over time. That is why the sponsors of HB 3328 decided to use it as the procedure for the hydraulic fracturing disclosure law.

Recently, a media outlet with a track record of aggressively protecting its own proprietary information published an article that called into question how some contractors have chosen to use this provision since the law became effective in February of this year. The article contained numerous quotes from well-known anti-energy development activists and politicians with long track records opposing responsible development of our nation’s bountiful oil and natural gas reserves.

Substantively, though, perhaps the story’s biggest failure is that it fails to report on the fact that a process for appealing company decisions on disclosure actually exists assuming a spill occurs, and the need for disclosure becomes immediate. Unfortunately, the article is chock full of hyperbole and frightful accusations, but precious little evidence that any wrongdoing has actually taken place, or that protecting proprietary information is dangerous for the public.

Texans, including those working in the oil and gas industry, want this law to be effective, and everyone wants service providers to comply with not just the letter of the law, but its spirit as well. An overwhelming majority of oil and natural gas producers supported this law and the subsequent rulemaking at the Railroad Commission. These companies want to make sure that their fellow Texans can be confident that energy produced in Texas – and all the states for that matter – is produced responsibly. They and their families live here, too.

Opponents of the oil and gas industry can’t have this argument both ways.  After all, they support passage of a federal FRAC Act but what you seldom hear from supporters of that federal act is that it, too, contains a provision to allow providers of fracturing services to protect trade secrets. Protection of trade secrets is as American as apple pie. Here’s why.

Service providers spend millions of dollars each year on research and development designed to optimize the effectiveness of the fluids they use. Much of that R&D investment is geared toward finding ways to reduce or even eliminate the need for the use of chemicals, and companies like those negatively mentioned in the article in question have made enormous strides in that direction over the last few years. As we all know, no company – regardless of industry – will invest millions of dollars in research into any cutting edge technology if a competing company can uncover the blueprints and license it as their own.

So the supporters of the federal FRAC Act understand what the sponsors of HB 3328, Governor Perry, I and my two fellow Railroad Commissioners, who are directly elected by the people of Texas, understood at the time: If we don’t allow these service providers to protect legitimate trade secrets, the value of their R&D efforts will be dramatically diminished, and that’s not good for anyone who supports technological progress.

If service providers in Texas are abusing the disclosure law’s trade secret provision, then there is a longstanding, very workable process in place for challenging them on it. I would suggest that, rather than running to the media to complain, opponents of the oil and gas industry should encourage qualified parties to take advantage of that provision and participate in the process in good faith.

That would be a change in behavior we would all welcome, and certainly one that would truly be in the spirit of public transparency.

Elizabeth Ames Jones served on the Texas Railroad Commission from 2005-2012.

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

Julia
Researcher

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Krasinski: “Correct.”

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

Krasinski: “Ahhhh, who needs that?”

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

Krasinski: “You’ve done your homework …”

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

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

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

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

Krasinski: “100 percent.”

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

Dana
Staff Geologist

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don’t we all.

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

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

Steve
Spokesman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finger Lakes Region Has Been Developing Oil & Gas For Decades
While Pennsylvania continues to reap the benefits of shale gas development, New York again gets hit with another delay in the regulations they have been waiting on for more than four years. The Department of Environmental Conservation will miss the November 29th Deadline they set to have the regulations completed. The most ironic part about this constant feet dragging is the oil and gas industry has been operating safely in New York since 1821, when the first commercially produced well was drilled in Fredonia. Yes, the industry has been developing in New York for a long time including in the wine-rich Finger Lakes region.

Joe
Marcellus Field Director

 

New York continues to wait for Governor Cuomo to make a decision about whether to bring shale gas development into the state. Many who oppose natural gas development don’t know that it has successfully been done in the state and around the Finger Lakes extensively for years.

While Pennsylvania continues to reap the benefits of shale gas development, New York again gets hit with another delay in the regulations they have been waiting on for more than four years.  The Department of Environmental Conservation will miss the November 29th Deadline they set to have the regulations completed.  The most ironic part about this constant feet dragging is the oil and gas industry has been operating safely in New York since 1821, when the first commercially produced well was drilled in Fredonia.  Yes, the industry has been developing in New York for a long time including in the wine-rich Finger Lakes region.

A majority of the Finger Lakes wine region lies on top of the Marcellus Shale, a formation currently being developed over the border in Pennsylvania. It is debatable at this time if the Finger Lakes will see development in the Marcellus Shale due to certain depth regulations in the current draft SGEIS, but, nonetheless, it has been a hotbed of opposition to the state moving forward.

The biggest concern for hydraulic fracturing to jump the border lies with the wine industry and their concern over whether the oil and gas industry can coincide with the winery industry. This “Wine and Brine” campaign has even led to some of the largest consumers of propane and natural gas in the state, the wineries, opposing propane storage at historically proven locations. Here is some of the reasoning behind their fears for co-existence.

Some grape growers fear that if shale gas drilling, or fracking, is allowed in this region of postcard-perfect hills and crystal-clear lakes, the muddy well sites and rumbling trucks will not only endanger the environment but threaten the Finger Lakes’ reputation for pristine beauty.

In their view, wine does not pair well with drilling. – Boston Globe Article

What many people don’t understand is that there is already development in the Finger Lakes Region.  Most, if not all, of the existing wells are vertical as opposed to horizontally developed, which has a greater surface land disturbance because of the number of wells needed to produce the same amount of gas. Yet, despite this more noticeable difference, most people don’t even know these wells surround their vineyards and wineries.

Gas & Oil Wells Co-Existing with Vineyards
Gas & Oil Wells Co-Existing with Finger Lake Vineyards & Wineries

Provided above is a section from a map of currently producing oil and gas wells and their proximity to wineries and vineyards between Seneca and Cayuga Lakes.  Horizontal gas development would, of course, significantly reduce the amount of surface disturbance to extract the same amount of gas  and increase the separation between wells as well as wineries, thereby reducing the impacts, whatever they may be, from what already exist.  Yet, here is what we hear from some wineries:

‘‘If the drilling does come to the Finger Lakes, what I can see happening in a heartbeat given a couple of accidents, all of the sudden the consumers are going to say, ‘Are your vineyards near any wells?’’’ said Peter Saltonstall of King Ferry Winery by Cayuga Lake. ‘‘If people start thinking something is wrong with it, then we are sunk. That’s something I stay up nights and worry about.’’ – Boston Globe Article

Winery owners should already be answering the question, “Are your vineyards near any wells?” with a yes, based on the proximity of many of these wineries to gas and oil wells.  They should already know the impacts, because they’ve been living with them for years, but, of course, they don’t because the impacts are minimal. In fact, some vineyard owners already have gas wells on their properties helping to provide ancillary sources of income to cover the holding costs and keep the properties in their favored use as vineyards, as open space and as tourism attractions.

Winery owners also worry about tourism being negatively impacted by the temporary sight of rigs and truck traffic, but the reality is that rigs are temporary as well as few and far between.  As for the traffic?  Well, try to get through Watkins Glen on race day.  If the area can survive that traffic, the additional from natural gas development is a walk in the park.

Importantly, unlike Pennsylvania’s situation, there will be an ad-valorem tax implemented in New York if and when horizontal shale gas development comes across the border.  The ad-valorem tax will flow money right into the local community where the well is located to do things that will improve the area, support tourism and stimulate the economy.   This New York State property tax will kick in as soon as a New York well is in production.  Please watch the following presentation on the ad-valorem.

Pennsylvania has proven to us that this process can be done safely.  Given the history of gas development in New York, especially in the Finger Lake region, and its prolific nature, there is no reason the wine industry and the natural gas industry cannot co-exist together.

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

Steve
Spokesman

 

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

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

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

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

But wait, there’s more.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Key Concessions You’ll Never Hear About in New TEDX Air Report
When you add up the TEDX paper’s flaws, it’s hard to see what scientific purpose it serves. It includes air quality measurements, but makes no connection between those measurements and nearby wellsites. Those measurements also show air quality levels are safe. The rest of the paper is mostly unsupported opinion and speculation from a group with a clear agenda against natural gas development.

Simon
Research Director

No doubt concerned about recent reports linking increased natural gas consumption in the United States to falling greenhouse gas emissions, as well as a rash of stories highlighting industry efforts to convert rigs and other wellsite equipment over to natural gas – reducing emissions even further – anti-shale activists have been working hard to score some press coverage for a new paper about natural gas development and air. The report, available here, was produced by The Endocrine Disruption Exchange (TEDX), a Colorado-based group led by Theo Colborn, one of the stars of Josh Fox’s anti-industry film Gasland.

TEDX says it took air quality samples near a newly developed natural gas pad in western Colorado, reviewed the results, and determined the “human and environmental health impacts … should be examined further given that the natural gas industry is now operating in close proximity to human residences and public lands.” For the activists, this is just the latest evidence that oil and gas development, and especially hydraulic fracturing, poses an unacceptable risk to public health, and thus should be stopped.

Of course, in reality, the paper doesn’t actually say that – and provides no evidence in support of that case. Instead, the paper cleverly presents opinion and speculation in a way that, the authors hope, will bait news reporters into writing scary-sounding stories about the industry. Here are the details:

No connection to gas wells

Starting with the title, and throughout the paper, the authors insinuate that natural gas wells are responsible for what they found in their air quality samples. But then they make the following admission:

 “The chemicals reported in this exploratory study cannot, however, be causally connected to natural gas operations.” p. 8

Strangely, the authors don’t bother to explain why a study about air quality near natural gas operations failed to connect air quality with natural gas operations. Perhaps they wanted to avoid a detailed discussion about why only two days of “baseline” samples were taken, and why an inadequate baseline could result in natural gas wells being blamed for pollution that actually came from other sources, including Interstate-70, located just 1.1 miles away.

If this methodology sounds familiar, that’s because the authors of another highly criticized paper on gas wells in western Colorado also decided the best location to sample was less than a mile from I-70, so exhaust fumes from thousands of cars and trucks could be blamed instead on natural gas development. Blaming gas wells for tailpipe emissions from cars and trucks was also the modus operandi of another Gasland star, Al Armendariz, the author of a discredited 2009 paper that claimed emissions from oil and gas development in the Dallas Fort-Worth area were higher than emissions from all the region’s motor vehicles. Armendariz later became the U.S. EPA’s Region 6 Administrator, and then resigned in April 2012 after he was caught on camera saying his philosophy as a regulator was to “crucify” natural gas operators. He now works for an activist group, the Sierra Club, that wants to eliminate the oil and gas industry.

Safe air quality readings

After conceding that the TEDX paper makes no connection between natural gas wells and air quality, the authors make another admission:

 “The concentrations at which these chemicals were detected in the air are far less than U.S. government safety standards…” p. 11

So, a study about air quality near natural gas operations also failed to find any violations of air quality standards. Instead, the authors just argue that in their opinion, they don’t believe those government standards are good enough. In fact, the authors provide no evidence of actual health impacts tied to the gas wells they studied, and their only source for challenging those government safety standards is another paper co-written by Theo Colborn, which doesn’t have anything to do with natural gas development.

Anti-industry bias

Since this paper presents no evidence of unsafe air quality readings that can be blamed on natural gas wells, it’s conclusions really come down to the opinions of the authors and their employer, TEDX. A quick tour of the TEDX website shows those opinions are more ideological than scientific:

 “All meaningful environmental oversight and regulation of the natural gas production was removed by the executive branch and Congress … [T]he gas industry is steamrolling over vast land segments in the West. … From the air it appears as a spreading, cancer-like network of dirt roads over vast acreage, contributing to desertification.”

So, TEDX is an organization that has a very negative opinion of the industry, and even advertises this anti-industry bias on its website. No wonder the authors of the TEDX paper were undaunted by the lack of evidence to support their insinuations: their minds were already made up.

It’s also worth noting that one of TDEX’s major benefactors, the New York Community Trust, also has some strong opinions on the subject. The NYCT currently funds a number of groups opposed to natural gas development, and according to the group’s website, it has given TEDX at least $425,000 since 2005. In April, NYCT said the following things about hydraulic fracturing and shale development while boasting about the money it had given to anti-industry lobbying groups:

“You’ve probably heard the horror stories from Pennsylvania, Wyoming, and Texas about poisoned wells, sickened communities, and flammable tap water caused by horizontal hydraulic fracturing. … In other states, unknowing families drank and showered in this water and suffered a range of ailments, including permanent brain damage. … When you’re dealing with flammables, toxic chemicals, and drinking water for millions, the potential for disaster is great.”

So, the TEDX paper was written by a team of researchers who have already decided for themselves that hydraulic fracturing is unsafe, and one of their biggest funders also believes hydraulic fracturing is unsafe. Are we expected to believe that the conclusions of this paper were ever in doubt?

As for NYCT’s “horror stories,” let’s compare this panic-inducing rhetoric with the February 2012 congressional testimony of President Obama’s Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, a former U.S. Senator and Attorney General from Colorado who oversees oil and gas development on roughly 700 million acres of federal mineral estate:

“There’s a lot of hysteria that takes place now with respect to hydraulic fracking, and you see that happening in many of the states. … My point of view, based on my own study of hydraulic fracking, is that it can be done safely and has been done safely hundreds of thousands of times.”

Wrong on the basics

Besides the obvious anti-industry bias, the lead author of this paper – zoologist, former World Wildlife Fund employee and TEDX president Theo Colborn – is also just plain wrong about the regulatory safeguards in place designed to protect public health. According to the Glenwood Springs Post Independent, which published a news item on the TEDX paper, Colborn believes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “has been locked out of scrutiny of the oil and gas industry by the 2005 Clean Water Act exemptions enacted by the Bush administration.”

On the TEDX website, Colborn elaborates in a video presentation, which further claims the George W. Bush administration imposed “a moratorium on the use of federal environmental laws to regulate natural gas activity.”

Really? Let’s check those assertions against a report from the U.S. Department of Energy and the state-led Ground Water Protection Council, which was compiled during both the Bush and Obama administrations:

“The development and production of oil and gas in the U.S., including shale gas, are regulated under a complex set of federal, state, and local laws that address every aspect of exploration and operation. All of the laws, regulations, and permits that apply to conventional oil and gas exploration and production activities also apply to shale gas development.” p. ES-2

“A series of federal laws governs most environmental aspects of shale gas development. For example, the Clean Water Act regulates surface discharges of water associated with shale gas drilling and production, as well as storm water runoff from production sites. The Safe Drinking Water Act regulates the underground injection of fluids from shale gas activities. The Clean Air Act limits air emissions from engines, gas processing equipment, and other sources associated with drilling and production. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that exploration and production on federal lands be thoroughly analyzed for environmental impacts.” p. ES-3

When the lead author of the TEDX paper makes statements about natural gas regulation that are so completely at odds with what federal and state regulators have been saying for years, it undermines TEDX’s credibility and makes it clear that that ideology, rather than evidence, is driving the group’s research.

Playing to the media

When you add up the TEDX paper’s flaws, it’s hard to see what scientific purpose it serves. It includes air quality measurements, but makes no connection between those measurements and nearby wellsites. Those measurements also show air quality levels are safe. The rest of the paper is mostly unsupported opinion and speculation from a group with a clear agenda against development.

So what’s the real motive behind TEDX’s “research” agenda, and who is the real audience for its work? Theo Colborn herself made that pretty clear in March while speaking at an event hosted by another anti-industry activist group:

“Somehow, some way, we need to get drilling and all the other sources of the pollution into the headlines, along with fracking. We’ve got to work on the media on this.” (at 23:25)

Ask yourself – is that the voice of an objective, independent scientist, or someone who manufactures talking points for a PR campaign against domestic oil and gas production?

FracFocus: Myths and Facts
As President of the Ground Water Protection Council, I have been involved with FracFocus, the Chemical Disclosure Registry website managed by the GWPC and IOGCC, since its inception in 2010. Recently, attempts have been made to paint FracFocus as an incomplete, inaccurate, and insufficient means of reporting hydraulic fracturing chemicals. It’s time to set the record straight.

Stan Belieu
President, Ground Water Protection Council

 

***Cross posted from GWPC.org

As President of the Ground Water Protection Council, I have been involved with FracFocus, the Chemical Disclosure Registry website managed by the GWPC and IOGCC, since its inception in 2010.  Recently,  attempts have been made to paint FracFocus as an incomplete, inaccurate, and insufficient means of reporting hydraulic fracturing chemicals.  It’s time to set the record straight.

Myth:  In a July, 2012 report, the Natural Resources Defense Council criticized the use of FracFocus to satisfy state disclosure requirements. Though many states and drillers are using FracFocus, the report said, the site lacks any way for companies to record much of the information required by some states. [NOTE: the NRDC report can be found here]

Fact:  FracFocus was never intended to contain ALL of the information related to a fracture job or well treatment.  It is a “chemical disclosure system”.  Many of the elements referred to by NRDC are, and have been, collected on state well completion reports for many years . Collecting them again in FracFocus would be redundant and inefficient.

Myth: “Because the information provided by FracFocus is so limited, there is not a single state in which disclosures on the site contain all information required by the state rule,” NRDC wrote.

Fact:  This is simply not true.  If the FracFocus system did not contain all of the information required by a state’s rule on chemical disclosure, the state could not use it for their regulatory reporting, yet eleven states already do so and nine more are in the process of adopting it.  FracFocus contains ALL of the information required by these states with respect to “hydraulic fracturing chemical disclosure”.  It will also continue to evolve as state’s needs change.

Myth:  Some environmental groups have been disturbed to see FracFocus becoming a substitute for traditional regulatory disclosure. They say the registry limits its usefulness in a way that provides less transparency and accountability than standard government disclosure.

Fact:  Because FracFocus allows any individual to go to a single website to obtain chemical disclosure information, rather than having to request the information directly from state agencies on an individual state by state basis, it increases access to the information.  Further, the idea that it is somehow less transparent than standard government disclosure is inaccurate.  Most states do not require electronic reporting so the fact that FracFocus provides information on a well by well basis is nearly identical to the “standard” way in which states would provide the information based on an “open records” request.

Myth: “I can’t see much in there that suggests it will contain good data,” said  a programmer who co-founded a British company called ScraperWiki and has “scraped” some of the data from the PDFs and put it in a format downloadable to a spreadsheet.

Fact:  Improving the quality of the data is one of the main purposes of going from the current Excel based system to an XML based system.  Excel has limited data validation capabilities when compared to XML and FracFocus 2.0 will utilize many more data validation checks to improve the already good quality of the data.

Finally, it is important to remember that prior to FracFocus, public availability to hydraulic fracturing chemical information was practically non-existent.  Today, FracFocus provides a valuable, easily accessible tool for the public with the most comprehensive, complete and accurate accounting of hydraulic fracturing chemical use in the United States.

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

Steve
Spokesman

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–

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

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

“…lays waste to the water we drink…”

  • Lisa Jackson, current EPA administrator: “In no case have we made a definitive determination that [hydraulic fracturing] has caused chemicals to enter groundwater.” (April 2012)
    • Jackson: “I’m not aware of any proven case where [hydraulic fracturing] itself has affected water.” (May 2011)
  • U.S. EPA: “EPA did not find confirmed evidence that drinking water wells have been contaminated by hydraulic fracturing fluid injection…” (2004)
  • Carol Browner, former EPA administrator: “There is no evidence that the hydraulic fracturing at issue has resulted in any contamination or endangerment of underground sources of drinking water.” (May 1995)
  • U.S. Dept. of Energy and Ground Water Protection Council: “[B]ased on over sixty years of practical application and a lack of evidence to the contrary, there is nothing to indicate that when coupled with appropriate well construction; the practice of hydraulic fracturing in deep formations endangers ground water. There is also a lack of demonstrated evidence that hydraulic fracturing conducted in many shallower formations presents a substantial risk of endangerment to ground water.” (May 2009)
  • Center for Rural Pennsylvania: “[S]tatistical analyses of post-drilling versus pre-drilling water chemistry did not suggest major influences from gas well drilling or hydrofracturing (fracking) on nearby water wells…” (Oct. 2011)
  • John Hanger, Former Pa. DEP Secretary: “We’ve never had one case of fracking fluid going down the gas well and coming back up and contaminating someone’s water well.” (2012)
  • Dr. Stephen Holditch, Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas A&M University: “I have been working in hydraulic fracturing for 40+ years and there is absolutely no evidence hydraulic fractures can grow from miles below the surface to the fresh water aquifers.” (Oct. 2011)

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

  • Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection: “Results of the limited ambient air sampling initiative in the northeast region did not identify concentrations of any compound that would likely trigger air-related health issues associated with Marcellus Shale drilling activities.” (Jan. 2011)
    • Pa. DEP: “Results of the limited ambient air sampling initiative conducted in the southwest region did not identify concentrations of any compound that would likely trigger air-related health issues associated with Marcellus Shale drilling activities.” (Nov. 2010)
  • Texas Commission on Environmental Quality: “After several months of operation, state-of-the-art, 24-hour air monitors in the Barnett Shale area are showing no levels of concern for any chemicals. This reinforces our conclusion that there are no immediate health concerns from air quality in the area, and that when they are properly managed and maintained, oil and gas operations do not cause harmful excess air emissions.” (Aug. 2010)
  • Sue Mickley, M.P.H., and Uni Blake, M.S., Toxicology: “Health records indicate that while production increased, fewer residents were diagnosed with serious illnesses such as cancer, respiratory disease, strokes, and heart disease.” (Oct. 2011)
  • Associated Press: Critics of fracking often raise alarms about groundwater pollution, air pollution, and cancer risks, and there are still many uncertainties. But some of the claims have little — or nothing— to back them. For example, reports that breast cancer rates rose in a region with heavy gas drilling are false, researchers told The Associated Press. Fears that natural radioactivity in drilling waste could contaminate drinking water aren’t being confirmed by monitoring, either. And concerns about air pollution from the industry often don’t acknowledge that natural gas is a far cleaner burning fuel than coal. (July 2012)

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

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

  • Fatih Birol, International Energy Agency: “The replacement of coal by shale gas is a key factor and what happened in the U.S. could very well happen in China and other countries and could definitely help in reducing CO2 emissions.” (June 2012)
  • Fred Krupp, President of Environmental Defense Fund: “Natural gas burns cleaner than coal, emits less in the way of greenhouse gases, and avoids mercury and other pollutants from coal… We need to find a way to take advantage of this historic opportunity to cut back on burning coal, which is the worst energy option.” (Nov. 2011)
  • President Barack Obama: “The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy.” (Jan. 2012)
    • President Obama: “By 2035, 80 percent of America’s electricity will come from clean energy sources. Some folks want wind and solar. Others want nuclear, clean coal and natural gas. To meet this goal, we will need them all– and I urge Democrats and Republicans to work together to make it happen.” (Jan. 2011)
  • Heather Zichal, White House energy and climate adviser: “The president has made clear that he believes this important, abundant domestic resource [natural gas] holds unique promise to fuel our energy sector, fuel our vehicles, as well as fuel job growth — all while reducing harmful emissions.” (May 2012)
  • Associated Press: “In a surprising turnaround, the amount of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere in the U.S. has fallen dramatically to its lowest level in 20 years, and government officials say the biggest reason is that cheap and plentiful natural gas has led many power plant operators to switch from dirtier-burning coal.” (Aug. 2012)
  • Reuters (referencing U.N. energy expert): “Natural gas, including non-traditional shale gas, should play a major role in cutting greenhouse gases, protecting forests and improving the health and living standards of the world’s poor, the co-head of a U.N. sustainable energy program said on Monday. Without it, the U.N.’s Sustainable Energy for All Initiative will have difficulty meeting goals of ensuring universal energy access, doubling the world’s share of renewable energy and doubling the rate of improvement in energy efficiency by 2030, Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of the initiative, told Reuters.” (June 2012)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And here’s some evidence to support that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–

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

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

Dana
Staff Geologist

 

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

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

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

So, what does the CRS have to say?

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

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

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

Benefit 2 – Consumers enjoying lower energy prices:

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

What does this mean, more specifically? CRS explains:

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

Benefit 3 – A cleaner environment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Benefit 5 – Lower costs for America’s farmers:

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

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

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

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

JD
Communications Director

 

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

—Original post, November 8, 2012—

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

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

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

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

–

ISSUE 1: IGNORES EXPERT OPINIONS AND FACTS ABOUT SAFETY

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

ISSUE 2: USES EXCEPTION AS THE RULE

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

ISSUE 3: INVENTS SAFETY FEARS WHERE THERE ARE NONE

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

ISSUE 4: MISREPRESENTS REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

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

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

–

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

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

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

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

*UPDATE* Computer Models, Actual Data, and Smog
A new study by Eduardo B. Olaguer of the Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC) purports to show that emissions from oil and gas operations will prevent nearby metropolitan areas -- particularly Dallas-Fort Worth -- from meeting federal ozone standards. Fortunately for people in the Metroplex, empirical data shows that such a conclusion is simply unsupported by the facts.

Steve Everley
Spokesman

 

UPDATE (11/5/2012, 12:02pm ET): A piece in the Austin American-Statesman also examines the flaws in Olaguer’s report, likening it to a person’s doctor suggesting he or she is suffering from health problems despite medical tests showing the opposite — all based on a computer simulation using actuarial data and medical histories. The author then asks, “Wouldn’t you want a second opinion from someone who knows the difference between a computer model and the real world?” The piece adds an important conclusion to the whole debate about supposed smog-impacts from any process: “Citizens legitimately concerned about healthy air should ask for the real-world facts — facts more accurately revealed by monitored measurement of ambient conditions.”

—Original post, September 5, 2012—

A new study by Eduardo B. Olaguer of the Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC) purports to show that emissions from oil and gas operations will prevent nearby metropolitan areas — particularly Dallas-Fort Worth — from meeting federal ozone standards. Fortunately for people in the Metroplex, empirical data shows that such a conclusion is simply unsupported by the facts.

It’s worth noting, however, that the “ozone/smog issue” is a central plank in the anti-shale crowd’s agenda (part of its gradual shift of emphasis toward air quality). It began in earnest when Al “crucify them” Armendariz released a report in 2009 alleging that emissions of ozone precursors from oil and gas operations in the Barnett Shale were more than twice those emanating from mobile sources (i.e. cars and trucks). Given Dallas-Fort Worth’s well-known air quality problems, the study was cited far and wide.

The problem with Armendariz’s study — and other recent research suggesting harmful emissions from shale development — is that it relied on a modeling exercise that extrapolated an outlier of data into a broader trend. Proof of that has come from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), which has used state-of-the-art air quality monitors in the region to conclude not only that emissions from mobile sources are a larger contributor to smog, but that oil and gas operations have a minimal-at-worst impact (more on that below).

Against that backdrop, it’s unsurprising that the HARC study — distributed to the press by none other than Downwinders at Risk, one of the most vocal anti-drilling organizations in the area — relied on modeling in lieu of observable data to reach its conclusions, which were wholly predictable based upon the report’s stated objectives.

Below is just a sampling of the errors and oversights found in the HARC study.

–

Olaguer: “We used a neighborhood scale (200 m horizontal resolution) three-dimensional (3D) air dispersion model with an appropriate chemical mechanism to simulate ozone formation in the vicinity of a hypothetical natural gas processing facility, based on accepted estimates of both regular and nonroutine emissions.” (HARC study, p. 966; emphasis added)

FACT: To summarize, the author himself has described this report as a modeling exercise that simulates ozone formation from a hypothetical facility. It’s not data collected from actual air monitors, nor is it an analysis of existing infrastructure — exactly the kind of work that state regulators, most notably TCEQ, have been doing for years. In fact, available data from TCEQ directly rebuts claims about high emissions levels from oil and gas activity in the Barnett Shale. Here’s what TCEQ Chairman Bryan Shaw said about DFW area emissions:

“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.” (emphasis added)

This kind of definitive conclusion is probably why opponents have to rely on hypotheticals and modeling exercises; reality simply doesn’t support their thesis.

Olaguer: “Using these methods, Armendariz (2009) estimated peak summer emissions of ozone precursors in 2009 from all oil and gas sources in the Barnett Shale to be 307 tons per day (tpd). By comparison, he estimated on-road mobile emissions from the five counties in the DFW ozone nonattainment area with significant oil and gas production in 2009 to be 121 tpd.” (HARC study, p. 967)

FACT: If the name Armendariz sounds familiar, it should. But it’s also worth noting that it was Armendariz’s study that gave anti-drilling activists a self-proclaimed license to claim Barnett Shale development is worse for DFW area ozone than all the cars and trucks on the road. The only problem, of course, is that air sampling data debunked his modeled scenario.

TCEQ data shows quite clearly that emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from oil and gas operations are considerably less than those from mobile sources. In fact, VOCs — which Armendariz and others continue to emphasize — aren’t even the proper focus in assessing ozone formation. Instead, emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) are a much more significant source, and TCEQ has found that NOx emissions from mobile sources are “approximately 15 times higher” than those from oil and gas development.

As the Barnett Shale Energy Education Council (BSEEC) has pointed out: “Even if all man-made VOCs were eliminated in this region, there are more than enough naturally occurring VOCs from trees, plants and other organic sources to combine with NOx to cause smog.”

To be fair, Olaguer listed Armendariz’s paper in the context of other available research on this subject. But he also neglected to mention what TCEQ — through actual air monitors — has determined with respect to smog precursors in the region, and how that real-world data rebuts Armendariz’s computer model. Whether deliberate or accidental, that’s an omission that unfortunately speaks volumes.

Olaguer: “Figure 1 shows 1-hr ambient monitoring data collected at a pipeline compressor station in Lake Arlington, Fort Worth, during the BSEEC study. Note the very large short-term concentrations of formaldehyde (HCHO) approaching or exceeding 100 ppb around the site. Such large concentrations may be cause for concern, not only because of short-term health impacts such as nosebleeds, vomiting, and skin irritation, but also because of formaldehyde’s capacity to release radicals and thus contribute to rapid ozone formation (Olaguer et al., 2009).” (HARC study, p. 967; emphasis added)

FACT: Large concentrations of formaldehyde could indeed be cause for concern, so let’s see what the above-mentioned study (conducted by TITAN Engineering) actually said about those HCHO concentrations:

“Formaldehyde concentrations exceeded the short-term AMCV in several samples at the Lake Arlington compressor station. TITAN determined that formaldehyde at this site originated from off-site sources.” (emphasis added)

This is important for a couple of reasons. First, Olaguer is clearly misrepresenting the findings in that study by suggesting the concentrations are from the compressor station analyzed, even though the authors of the study came to a completely different conclusion. Second, Olaguer concludes his paper by saying the oil and gas industry needs more regulation, including the “control of formaldehyde emissions” (HARC study, p. 976). In other words, based partially upon a clear misreading of a separate study, Olaguer is trying to make the case for costly new regulations — hardly the kind of sound scientific basis that should guide policymakers (take note, Dallas City Hall).

Olaguer: The author states the study set out to answer a series of questions, including: “How far from the source are significant ozone impacts likely to be seen?” (HARC study, p. 968; emphasis added)

FACT: It’s probably not a great idea to use leading questions to guide your research — unless, perhaps, you’ve already determined what the answers are before you conduct the study. For example, Olaguer asks “how far” away from the source will “significant” impacts be seen, instead of asking the obvious question: “Are there significant ozone impacts from oil and gas activities?” Clearly, Olaguer had already decided what the answer to that question would be, and his decision clearly did not mesh with what the available data actually show. So, instead of even trying to explain that away, he simply leaped from hypothesis to supposition.

Olaguer: “To answer these questions, we conducted a schematic modeling exercise that was not intended to implicate any actual operational facility, but only to provide reasonable quantitative bounds.” (HARC study, p. 968; emphasis added)

FACT: The language above says it all — this isn’t an assessment of what’s actually in the field, and it’s certainly not an aggregation of real-world data. And yet, Downwinders at Risk director Jim Schermbeck said the report is “proof” that industry facilities are improperly managed, and that “our air is not getting cleaner because gas pollution is still under-regulated.” Again, it’s a hypothetical situation shaped by carefully constructed inputs in a computer model…which is fitting, because that’s perhaps the only realm where opponents can possibly validate their claims.

Olaguer: “Given the possible impact of large single facilities, it is all the more conceivable that aggregations of oil and gas sites may act in concert so that they contribute several parts per billion to 8-hr ozone during actual exceedances.” (HARC study, p. 976; emphasis added)

FACT: In addition to the lack of definitive conclusions about actual air quality — to be expected from a modeling exercise — data from the past few years actually contradicts Olaguer’s “maybe, possibly” conclusion. For example, here’s a graph showing 8-hour ozone levels in the Dallas-Fort Worth area between 1999 and 2009, along with the substantial increase in natural gas production.

Gas production increased between the years 1999 and 2009. The eight-hour ozone value declined. Data is in the table below.

If natural gas production were a significant contributor to area ozone — which the HARC paper tried to establish essentially by decree — then ozone concentrations would increase along with an expansion in natural gas production. But that’s simply not what the data show — inconvenient as that may be for those claiming otherwise.

Olaguer: “Our findings suggest that improved regulation of the upstream oil and gas industry in nonattainment areas should include reporting of emission events, and more aggressive deployment of control strategies, such as vapor recovery to avoid flaring, and the use of oxidation catalysts on stationary engines.” (HARC study, p. 976; emphasis added)

FACT: It’s well known that natural gas in much of the Barnett Shale — especially in Dallas County — is what’s known as “dry gas” since it contains little if any associated liquids. Mandating the use of vapor recovery technology on gas that isn’t producing vapor reflects a poor understanding of the subject matter itself. Even if liquids were present, strict regulations are in place for the Barnett Shale (details can be found here) that mandate the use of vapor-recovery systems.

As Ed Ireland from BSEEC has noted:

“[M]ost of the natural gas produced in and around the 9‐county DFW NAA [non-attainment area] is very “dry” gas. The reason, geophysicists say, is that this part of the Barnett Shale is “thermally mature”, meaning that these natural gas wells produce no associated oil or other liquids. This means that the vast majority of Barnett Shale wells in the 9‐county DFW NAA do not require tanks for condensate storage. Little or no VOC is emitted from these gas wells.”

Olaguer said that his findings constitute “a severe challenge to oil and gas producers in the DFW area,” and Downwinders at Risk said the Dallas city council specifically “has a chance to react positively to this new evidence.” But what does it say that at least one of the recommendations behind those claims is something that literally makes no sense for Dallas County?

–

Some might argue that TCEQ is only one source of information, so there’s plenty of room for additional research. That’s certainly a valid point. But in the absence of other meaningful assessments that rely on empirical data instead of computers models, TCEQ’s findings have to be seen as the benchmark.

It’s also worth stressing that this isn’t meant to demonize the use of computer models in research. Indeed, when gaps in available data exist for a given subject, modeling exercises can play an important role in estimating impacts (or the lack thereof). But in this case, that data actually do exist, and it’s unfortunate that people choose to believe hypothetical emissions estimates are more valid than easily-accessible readings from actual air monitors.

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

Steve
Spokesman

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kyna
Field Director, Illinois

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Erik
Field Director, Michigan

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

CO2 emissions in the United States in 2011 fell by 92 Mt, or 1.7%, primarily due to ongoing switching from coal to natural gas in power generation and an exceptionally mild winter, which reduced the demand for space heating. US emissions have now fallen by 430 Mt (7.7%) since 2006, the largest reduction of all countries or regions.

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

Shale Putting America Back In Motion
At the end of 2011, IHS CERA released a report on the enormous benefits being created by natural gas development across the United States. This past summer, a second installment of the IHS CERA study found that, by 2015, responsible natural gas production from shale and other “tight” reservoirs will create an astounding 1.5 million jobs. Now, just months later, IHS has released its latest report – a comprehensive and exciting compilation of America’s energy awakening, undoubtedly thanks to shale.

Dana
Staff Geologist

 

At the end of 2011, IHS CERA released a report on the enormous benefits being created by natural gas development across the United States. This past summer, a second installment of the IHS CERA study found that, by 2015, responsible natural gas production from shale and other “tight” reservoirs will create an astounding 1.5 million jobs. Now, just months later, IHS has released its latest report – a comprehensive and exciting compilation of America’s energy awakening, undoubtedly thanks to shale.

As the report lays out, production of these reserves via hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling is generating significant economic growth – and will continue to do so well into the future. According to IHS, continued oil and gas development from shale will lead to:

That’s unquestionably good news for a nation looking to jumpstart its economy and free itself from foreign energy dependence. And with nearly 1 in 10 new U.S. jobs created by oil and natural gas development, it’s not surprising the outlook is shining bright.

In fact, the development of American shale is already providing a major boost to American manufacturing. As the Wall Street Journal reported today, America’s once abandoned rust belt is now coming back to life thanks to affordable, clean-burning natural gas. From the Journal:

“‘I never would have expected that as a region we’d have a second chance to be a real leader in American manufacturing,’ Bill Flanagan of the Allegheny Conference on Community Development, a regional business group, told a crowd of locals who came to hear about the chemical plant. ‘Suddenly we’re back in the game.’

“…’The U.S. is now going to be the low-cost industrialized country for energy,’ the energy economist Philip Verleger says. ‘This creates a base for stronger economic growth in the United States than the rest of the industrialized world.’

And as Daniel Yergin, IHS Vice Chairman and a leading global authority on energy, also described it in the Wall Street Journal, shale development holds a “tantalizing prospect that the U.S. could regain market share among the world’s manufacturing exporters”, a statement confirmed time and again across the nation and in recent reports by PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Yet atop these outstanding economic impacts (as described in local, regional, and national news), the broader socio- and geopolitical impacts of America’s ability to generate its own energy  cannot be overlooked.  Reducing our trade deficit and decreasing our reliance on foreign, often insecure sources of energy have wide reaching benefits for our national security and economy alike.

From Dr. Yergin:

“Shale gas alone is now 10% of the overall U.S. energy supply. And similar technologies to recover so-called tight oil trapped in rock formations are largely responsible for boosting U.S. oil production by 25% since 2008—the highest growth in oil output of any country in the world over that time period.

“…the energy revolution is having other effects that get less attention. The balance of payments is one. The increase in domestic oil production over the past five years will reduce our oil-import bill this year by about $75 billion. The growth of shale gas will save the U.S. from spending $100 billion a year on imported LNG, which was the likely prospect five years ago.

“There is also a geopolitical dimension. The increase in U.S. oil production since 2008 is equivalent to almost 80% of what was Iran’s export level before the imposition of sanctions on the Tehran regime. Without the additional oil coming from the surge in U.S. oil output, the Iranian oil sanctions could not have worked as well as they have.

“…The rapid growth of oil and natural gas production represents a major opportunity for the U.S. Without these energy resources, the disappointing economic picture would look worse, and so would the jobs numbers. Instead, the energy revolution is helping revitalize the economy and make the U.S. more competitive in the global marketplace.”

From the creation of millions of jobs to the strengthening of our national security, the development of America’s shale reserves is proof-perfect that American ingenuity and technology can truly put America back in drive.

 

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

David
Field Director, Texas

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dave
Field Director, California

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

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

Steve
Spokesman

 

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

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

—Original post, May 22, 2012—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Unregulated Free For All? Is He Serious???
Last Friday, I traveled to Austin to participate in a panel discussion on the Sustainability of Shale Natural Gas at the annual SXSW Eco Conference. My basic role was to be the lone spokesperson for the natural gas industry on a panel whose other three participants were otherwise tilted (predictably) in the opposite direction. Which was fine – I actually enjoy a good debate, at least when the debate is based on facts and focused on real issues surrounding shale gas production.

David Blackmon
Field Director, Texas

Last Friday, I traveled to Austin to participate in a panel discussion on the Sustainability of Shale Natural Gas at the annual SXSW Eco Conference.  My basic role was to be the lone spokesperson for the natural gas industry on a panel whose other three participants were otherwise tilted (predictably) in the opposite direction.  Which was fine – I actually enjoy a good debate, at least when the debate is based on facts and focused on real issues surrounding shale gas production.

Unfortunately, as is typical of this kind of setup, that turned out to largely not be the case.   (To be fair, the representative on the panel from the Environmental Defense Fund, Dr. Elena Craft, did stick with real issues and delivered a very thoughtful and balanced presentation.)

One statement made by the representative of the NRDC, Dr. George Peridas, really stood out from the rest.  During his opening remarks, he characterized shale gas development as “an unregulated free for all”, and claimed that the “industry is exempt from RCRA, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act”, and other major federal environmental laws.

That characterization of the oil and gas exploration and production industry would come as a huge surprise to those who work in it.  I personally have had a 33 year career in the industry, and know beyond any doubt that NRDC’s contention here is completely false.  The fact of the matter is that pretty much everything anyone at an oil and gas company does on a daily basis is heavily regulated at the federal, state, and local levels, often at multiple levels simultaneously.  I know that, and could only marvel that the NRDC could somehow remain unaware of it after years of opposition to the industry’s existence.

This reality was really brought home to me this week as I listened to the director of Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) for a large independent natural gas producer go through a presentation about the various state and federal laws and regulation his team of 35 people is responsible for ensuring the company be in compliance with.  Note that this company employs around 700 people, so fully 5% of its workforce works full time to ensure compliance, and that does not include the daily efforts by the company’s field and office personnel to ensure compliance in their own activities.

At one point, the HSE Director showed a slide listing the major federal acts the company must comply with.  Lo and behold, that list included “RCRA, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act” and other major environmental laws like the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and OSHA, the act that governs workplace safety.

The HSE Director’s next slide listed, in very small print, all the various provisions of just the Clean Air Act that apply to exploration and production activities.  If I tried to list them all here I’d run out of space, so I won’t try to do it.  But one key point to understand is that just a few months ago, the EPA finalized a major new rulemaking related to National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) that apply specifically to oil & gas E&P operations.

Is it really possible that Dr. Peridas and his colleagues at the NRDC somehow missed completely a rulemaking process that dragged on for almost a year?  Or was he just engaging in the very common practice preferred by these anti-development groups these days of throwing out inaccurate, hyperbolic statements about the oil and gas industry, expecting to go unquestioned on them by a sympathetic news media or a general public that doesn’t know any better?

While this practice is no doubt a useful way for anti-development groups like the NRDC to raise money by creating a perception of a never-ending crisis, it is a wholly non-productive exercise in what ought to be a quest to find real solutions to real issues that do exist around the development of this nation’s incredible wealth of shale oil and gas resources.

Are the existing regulations around shale gas development  perfect?  Probably not.  Could they use some modernization?  Probably so.  But characterizing the oil and gas E&P industry as “an unregulated free for all” is simply not true, and serves no useful purpose from a problem solving perspective.

GAO Report Confirms Facts about HF and Groundwater
A new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examines the relative risks of shale development and hydraulic fracturing, using existing research as its guide. Unfortunately for opponents who have invested so much time stating otherwise, GAO finds no evidence of hydraulic fracturing fluids migrating from depth up into groundwater.

Julia
Researcher

 

A new report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) examines the relative risks of shale development and hydraulic fracturing, using existing research as its guide. Unfortunately for opponents who have invested so much time stating otherwise, GAO finds no evidence of hydraulic fracturing fluids migrating from depth up into groundwater.

Granted, GAO wasn’t conducting an original investigative report, but rather aggregating research that’s been done to date. For that reason, the report did not make conclusions or recommendations on the topics it examined. Nonetheless, its findings are instructive in the broader discussion about hydraulic fracturing, specifically as it pertains to groundwater.

Here are a few excerpts worth highlighting:

GAO even listed studies in relation to the “HF causes water contamination” claim: one from the Center for Rural Pennsylvania (no impact, more on that study here), the infamous Duke University report (methane found in water wells [more on that here], but GAO rightly noted the researchers’ conclusion that there was “no evidence” of fracturing fluid in their samples), and findings from the Ground Water Protection Council (no contamination examples in 16,000 wells).

In other words: another governmental report, another nail in the coffin for the claim that hydraulic fracturing has contaminated groundwater.

Another topic GAO examined was the issue of seismicity. As we know the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Research Council have studied that topic and determined there is no link between major earthquakes and hydraulic fracturing. Thus, unsurprisingly, here’s what GAO found:

To recap, the Government Accountability Office has examined the studies and investigations conducted to date and determined that (1) the risk of water contamination from hydraulic fracturing fluids migrating from depth is not only extremely low, but state regulators and other experts have even said there’s no evidence of that ever happening; (2) the amount of rock separating shale formations from drinking water supplies is often thousands of feet, and the fractures created during hydraulic fracturing are not large enough to connect them; and (3) hydraulic fracturing is not causing major earthquakes.

Confirming the facts may not make great headlines, but the truth is always worth mentioning.

Setting the Record Straight on HF in Illinois
With an unemployment rate (9.1 percent) well above the national average, and a government in Springfield suffering from major deficits (the "worst in the nation" according to the state's auditor), Illinoisans are hungry for economic growth. And thanks to the New Albany shale in the southern portion of the state, companies have been investing heavily in the Land of Lincoln, a trend that most of us want to continue. But for a marginal few, the need to spread fear and misinformation about proven technologies like hydraulic fracturing is unfortunately a higher priority.

Kyna
Field Director, Illinois

 

With an unemployment rate (9.1 percent) well above the national average, and a government in Springfield suffering from major deficits (the “worst in the nation” according to the state’s auditor), Illinoisans are hungry for economic growth. And thanks to the New Albany shale in the southern portion of the state, companies have been investing heavily in the Land of Lincoln, a trend that most of us want to continue. But for a marginal few, the need to spread fear and misinformation about proven technologies like hydraulic fracturing is unfortunately a higher priority.

Today, EID helped set the record straight with a column in the Jacksonville Journal-Courier — from clearing up misconceptions about hydraulic fracturing to highlighting the enormous economic potential that safe shale development holds. For those of you outside Illinois: no, we’re not talking about Jacksonville, Florida. We’re talking about a city in west central Illinois that just happens to have the oldest continuously circulated newspaper in the state.

Here are some excerpts from the column:

You can read the entire piece at the Journal-Courier, but a subscription is required.

How Earthworks Missed the Mark on State Regulation
Last week, Earthworks released a report that attempted to show lax state regulation of oil and gas development. The purpose was clear: build a case for more federal regulation, and by extension delay approval for additional production – if not ban it outright. Unfortunately for Earthworks, anyone with an Internet connection has access to information that proves Earthworks’ goal was not to shine on a light on a problem, but rather to repeat its old talking points in a new way.

Steve
Spokesman

 

Last week, Earthworks released a report that attempted to show lax state regulation of oil and gas development. The purpose was clear: build a case for more federal regulation, and by extension delay approval for additional production – if not ban it outright. Unfortunately for Earthworks, anyone with an Internet connection has access to information that proves Earthworks’ goal was not to shine on a light on a problem, but rather to repeat its old talking points in a new way.

That objective was hardly buried or hidden in the document, either. On the second page of the report, Earthworks says, “this work could not have been undertaken without the generous support of The Heinz Endowments.” For those unfamiliar with Heinz, they – along with the Park Foundation – have been one of the chief financial backers of efforts to stop natural gas development. To put this in poker terms, Earthworks revealed its hand before the betting even began.

What’s more amazing, though, is the sheer lack of understanding of the oil and natural gas industry that Earthworks put on display for everyone who read their report. From mischaracterizing state regulatory systems to failing to account for the fact that well pads often have multiple producing wells, Earthworks’ latest report stands high as a monument to mediocrity in the world of anti-drilling activism.

Below you’ll find a list of some of the biggest problems with Earthworks’ report. Feel free to add any other discrepancies or problems in the comments section at the end of the post.

–

PROBLEM 1: Manipulates and misstates data to achieve predetermined result.

FACT: A single inspection of a particular well pad can include multiple wells, and an honest look at the appropriate numbers tells a different story than the narrative Earthworks wants us to believe.

PROBLEM 2: Claims state regulatory bodies are ill-equipped and “unprepared” for future or even existing development.

FACT: Experts have confirmed that state regulatory bodies are well-managed and have the tools necessary to do their jobs – and do them right.

PROBLEM 3: Pushes for legal system defined by guilty until proven innocent.

FACT: Evidence doesn’t support accusations made by opponents, and the presumption of innocence has been a hallmark of the American legal system for more than 100 years.

PROBLEM 4: Claims spills and violations are increasing.

FACT: Spills in Colorado are decreasing, while violations in Ohio and Pennsylvania are on the decline.

PROBLEM 5: Wants to punish oil and gas development for government deficits.

FACT: Rules and regulations are designed to prevent problems, not merely to increase government funding. Additionally, oil and gas development is already a major source of public revenue.

–

So, in summation, the Earthworks “report” was essentially a rehash of common talking points used by critics of oil and gas development, many if not all of which have been widely debunked. Given that lack of seriousness, it’s unsurprising that the report arrived at conclusions contradicted by easily accessible data.

Did Earthworks think those who read the report would be unable to find that information, or were they merely hoping that readers wouldn’t?

The report is riddled with transparently baseless accusations, and its central recommendation that those accusations be considered valid by decree is absurd by any legal standard. Given these facts, perhaps the bigger question is how so many news outlets allowed themselves to be used as a promotional vehicle for Earthworks’ activism, all without giving the report the kind of critical analysis – or even cursory review – that one would expect.

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

Steve
Spokesman

 

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

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

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

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

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

What They’re Saying: Shale Fueling Job Growth Across the Nation
As the U.S. works to create jobs for the 8.3 percent of Americans still unemployed, the development of America’s shale reserves is creating opportunities from the well pad to the law firm. And with natural gas development occurring in over 30 states across the nation, the possibilities are limitless. As USA Today highlighted this week: “of all the places that America's new jobs are, the emerging energy business, directly or indirectly, might be responsible for more of them than almost anything else.”

Dana
Staff Geologist

 

As the 2012 presidential candidates prepare for their first official face-off, the question of how the next Commander in Chief will recharge America’s economy is at the forefront of America’s mind. Luckily for both candidates, there is one industry charging full speed ahead – American energy.

As USA Today highlighted this week: “of all the places that America’s new jobs are, the emerging energy business, directly or indirectly, might be responsible for more of them than almost anything else.”

From USA Today:

“Since 2002, the exploration of natural gas deposits embedded in shale, followed by oil drilling that began in earnest late in the decade, has created more than 1 million jobs, says Moody’s Analytics economist Chris Lafakis. That’s out of 2.7 million the whole country created. ‘It’s really huge,’ Lafakis says. ‘And the jobs pay very well.’

“Jobs directly in the oil and gas extraction business pay an average of just under $150,000 a year, Lafakis says — almost exactly three times the national average.”

“…Just counting positions directly in the energy industry, the shale boom has accounted for as many as 33,000 new U.S. jobs this year, according to Bright Labs, a San Francisco start-up whose website provides job-hunt data and tips.

“More than 3,500 are in metropolitan Houston, Bright says. But the job expansion stretches through cities of all sizes. Oklahoma City’s 400 jobs are near the top of the list, Bright says. Denver, Pittsburgh, and Williston, N.D. — all near newly exploitable oil and gas deposits — are also seeing big changes from shale for shale-related jobs.”

“…In Pennsylvania, where officials say shale added 18,000 new energy industry jobs between 2008 and last year, another 5,000 jobs were added for freight trucking, and 500 more were  created to build roads, according to a state-sponsored study this summer.”

As the U.S. works to create jobs for the 8.3 percent of Americans still unemployed, the development of America’s shale reserves is creating opportunities from the well pad to the law firm. And with natural gas development occurring in over 30 states across the nation, the possibilities are limitless.

Red or Blue — swing or decided — here’s what they’re saying across the states about the real numbers surrounding shale development:

California: Southern Monterey County land to be leased for oil development. “We really could have the kind of economic renaissance that has occurred in other states that are developing their shale resources, like Pennsylvania,” said Dave Quast, California director of Energy in Depth, a group that’s pushing back against public concerns over fracking.  (Santa Cruz Sentinel, 9/28/2012)

California:  Shale development in California Could Fuel Economic Boom. “Underneath the Central Coast which some people estimate could contain as much as 15 billion barrels of oil,” says Dave Quast with energy industry advocacy group Energy In Depth, “so there is potential for more development even more then what we have, we’re the fourth largest energy producing state.” Quast says there are popular misconceptions that hydraulic fracturing is a threat to public health and the environment. “There’s this myth that this is something that is new and somehow controversial”, Quast says, “this is a well proven technique that has been used safely for more than 60 years for wells that were fractured back in the 1940′s.” (KCOY TV, 10/1/2012)

Ohio: Drilling creates slew of work. Dan Alfaro, a spokesman for industry advocate Energy In Depth, said competition for workers is a sign of a strong economy, and that has been missing in this state. “The Ohio job market has been competitive, but for all of the wrong reasons, as opportunities have been scarce,” he said. “The development of the Utica Shale is changing that.” (Mansfield News Journal, 9/30/2012)

Ohio: As more law firms turn attention to shale boom, most say there’s enough work to go around. The emerging shale industry in Ohio — projected to bring billions of dollars of investment to the state over the next few years — has been a cash carrot enticing businesses with the promise of new jobs, developments and infrastructure improvement. (Crains Cleveland Business, 10/2/2012)

Ohio: Shale a $10B boost. The shale boom will explode the Ohio economy by adding $10 billion to it by 2014, Linda Woggon, executive vice president of the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and executive director of the Ohio Shale Coalition, said. (Warren Tribune Chronicle, 9/30/12)

Louisiana: Chemical industry on a rebound. Today, gas is roughly $3 per MMBTUs, while oil is about $90 per barrel – about a 30-to-1 ratio. “That makes Louisiana incredibly competitive,” he said. Borné said there is a lot of activity in the chemical industry, which has added 1,000 jobs a year for the last three years. He said Methanex is going to dismantle a methanol plant in Chile and move it to Geismar and is considering another facility in Geismar. (Associated Press, 9/29/2012)

Pennsylvania: We Shale Overcome. “Mariner East is a critical step in beginning to realize the vision outlined in the Delaware County Industrial Development Authority’s study on repurposing the Marcus Hook industrial site,” said County Council boss Tom McGarrigle.” State Sen. Dominic Pileggi, R-9, of nearby Chester, zeroed in on the importance of this deal to Marcus Hook. “It’s great to see new investments in historic industrial sites. This project shows what’s possible when companies take the long view. It also opens the door to other potential investments in Marcus Hook. (Delaware County Daily Times, Editorial, 9/30/2012)

West Virginia: The Future Of Jobs In Kanawha Valley. The Kanawha Valley and surrounding areas could see a large amount of job opportunities opening up in the next few years all thanks to the Marcellus Shale.  (WCHS Radio, 9/29/2012)

Michigan: Hydraulic fracturing will provide new energy, jobs for region. Barry County and Michigan can certainly benefit from the direct new jobs and income that may result from the growing energy industry. Michigan-based businesses and residents may also benefit from gaining access to locally-sourced energy, allowing potential new investments through energy savings. (Michigan Live, LTE, 9/17/2012)

Texas: Shale plays create significant job opportunities. Shale gas is a portion of that, with Texas plays in Barnett in the north-central region, Haynesville/Bossier to the east and Eagle Ford to the south. “It’s only been recently that technology exists to get the gas out of the ground cheaply,” said Richard Meserole, vice president and general manager at Fluor in Sugar Land. (Houston Chronicle, 9/13/2012)

North Dakota: Oil boom bright spot in Midwest economy. Little or no economic growth is likely this year in most of the nine Midwest and Plains states covered by a survey of business leaders, but the booming oil business will continue to drive growth in North Dakota and Oklahoma, according to the report released Monday. … North Dakota’s state economic index hit 61.6 in September, and Oklahoma’s registered 56.6 thanks to the oil boom. (Post Bulletin, 10/2/2012)

Local Ban Effort Runs Afoul of Michigan Law
A false notion that Michigan communities can simultaneously ignore both science and state law to ban hydraulic fracturing seems to have taken root in certain parts of Michigan, including the part I call home. I live near West Bloomfield, Oakland County, where local officials recently enacted a six month moratorium resolution on oil and natural gas development and hydraulic fracturing within the Township while they study whether they can set aside the state and unilaterally regulate an industry that Michigan law says they can’t.

Erik
Field Director, Michigan

 

A false notion that Michigan communities can simultaneously ignore both science and state law to ban hydraulic fracturing seems to have taken root in certain parts of Michigan, including the part I call home.  I live near West Bloomfield, Oakland County, where local officials recently enacted a six month moratorium resolution on oil and natural gas development and hydraulic fracturing within the Township while they study whether they can set aside the state and unilaterally regulate an industry that Michigan law says they can’t.  The story, reported here, is a sad one: illustrating how little the law seems to mean in some quarters, especially when a cause espoused by a small group of anti-gas activists is at stake.

According to news reports, West Bloomfield was told by its Township Attorney that the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act poses a serious obstacle to activists’ attempt to put energy development on ice in the town – because “it limits the township’s power to prevent companies from drilling for oil or gas, operating wells and exploring or extracting the resources in many circumstances.”  He’s right:  Here’s the relevant language from the act (emphasis added):

(1)       A zoning ordinance is subject to the electric transmission line certification act, 1995 PA 30, MCL 460.561 to 460.575.

(2)       A county or township shall not regulate or control the drilling, completion, or operation of oil or gas wells or other wells drilled for oil or gas exploration purposes and shall not have jurisdiction with reference to the issuance of permits for the location, drilling, completion, operation, or abandonment of such wells.

(3)       An ordinance shall not prevent the extraction, by mining, of valuable natural resources from any property unless very serious consequences would result from the extraction of those natural resources. Natural resources shall be considered valuable for the purposes of this section if a person, by extracting the natural resources, can receive revenue and reasonably expect to operate at a profit.

(4)       A person challenging a zoning decision under subsection (3) has the initial burden of showing that there are valuable natural resources located on the relevant property, that there is a need for the natural resources by the person or in the market served by the person, and that no very serious consequences would result from the extraction, by mining, of the natural resources.

(5)       In determining under this section whether very serious consequences would result from the extraction, by mining, of natural resources, the standards set forth in Silva v Ada Township, 416 Mich 153 (1982), shall be applied and all of the following factors may be considered, if applicable:

(a)          The relationship of extraction and associated activities with existing land uses.

(b)          The impact on existing land uses in the vicinity of the property.

(c)          The impact on property values in the vicinity of the property and along the proposed hauling route serving the property, based on credible evidence.

(d)          The impact on pedestrian and traffic safety in the vicinity of the property and along the proposed hauling route serving the property.

(e)          The impact on other identifiable health, safety, and welfare interests in the local unit of government.

(f)          The overall public interest in the extraction of the specific natural resources on the property.

(6)       Subsections (3) to (5) do not limit a local unit of government’s reasonable regulation of hours of operation, blasting hours, noise levels, dust control measures, and traffic, not preempted by part 632 of the natural resources and environmental protection act, 1994 PA 451, MCL 324.63201 to 324.63223. However, such regulation shall be reasonable in accommodating customary mining operations.

(7)       This act does not limit state regulatory authority under other statutes or rules.

I quote the entire text of Section 205 because it provides the essential context that is often lacking when natural gas opponents discuss these issues.  Notice the first paragraph deals with power transmission lines; the second addresses oil and gas wells; and the third regulates extraction, by mining, of valuable natural resources.  They are three separate activities and subsections (4) through (6) expand upon sub-section (3), making it quite clear they do not apply to oil and gas activities.

Notwithstanding all that, some anti-shale folks in West Bloomfield believe that an exception can be made to the law if the process of development can be shown to have “very serious consequences” to the area – confirming once again that these efforts by activists are more about messaging than substance.

A drilling rig at work in White Lake Township, Oakland County, Michigan (Photo by Erik Bauss)

Oil and gas opponents want to pretend that energy development is a subset of natural resources extraction.  Nonetheless, there are several things indicating otherwise.  First, the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, referenced in the Zoning Enabling Act language above, does define mining as follows:

“Mining” means the excavation or removal of more than 10,000 tons of earth material a year or disturbing more than 1 acre of land a year in the regular operation of a business for the purpose of extracting a nonferrous metallic mineral or minerals…

There’s not much doubt this excludes oil and gas wells.

Secondly, that same legislation says, in Part 632:

A local unit of government may enact, maintain, and enforce ordinances, regulations, or resolutions affecting mining operations if the ordinances, regulations, or resolutions do not duplicate, contradict, or conflict with this part. In addition, a local unit of government may enact, maintain, and enforce ordinances, regulations, or resolutions regulating the hours at which mining operations may take place and routes used by vehicles in connection with mining operations. However, such ordinances, regulations, or resolutions shall be reasonable in accommodating customary nonferrous metallic mineral mining operations.

Notice, this language is, once again, very specific and applies only to “mining” as defined above.  There is no wiggle room here that allows West Bloomfield, or any other county or township, to legitimately claim authority under it to regulate oil and gas activity.  But, here’s what the Township says in its resolution (emphasis added):

WHEREAS the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act provides for some limitations on the Township’s ability to regulate the exploration and extraction of natural resources within the Township.

WHEREAS time to fully explore the potential irreparable harm to the natural resources and environment in the Township is required to consider, draft and adopt effective regulation of natural resource extraction within the Township is required, now therefore:

BE IT RESOLVED that effective September 1,2012 for a period of six (6) months, through February 28, 2013, a moratorium is hereby established on the consideration, review or action by all Township entities, officials, employees and/or agents on applications, proposals, requests, permits, approvals, zoning compliance or certificates regarding drilling operations in the Township that might be proposed or presented to the Township, and that during the moratorium period, no drilling operation shall be allowed in the Township.

Notice the Township asserts, against all evidence of the plain meaning of the statute; a) oil and gas development can be treated as “natural resource extraction” under the law, b) the statute only places “some limitations” on regulation and c) the township can decide whether oil and gas operations may take place or not.  Any reasonable reading of the Zoning Enabling Act provides exactly the opposite with respect to all three matters.  Moreover, a relatively recent case decided by the Michigan Supreme Court (Kyser vs. Kasson Township), where the justices severely limited the application of a rule giving mining special protections, specifically said the following with respect to oil and gas (emphasis added):

That same provision specifically limits  a county or township from regulating or controlling “the drilling, completion, or operation of oil or gas wells or other wells drilled for oil or gas exploration purposes,” and also limits them from exercising jurisdiction over “the issuance of permits for the location, drilling,  completion, operation, or  abandonment of such wells.”  MCL 125.3205(2).  Notably, there are no similar  provisions that limit or exempt the exercise of local zoning power over other natural resources, such as gravel.

Thus, the ZEA is a comprehensive law that empowers localities to zone, sets forth  in detail the development of zoning plans within a community, and specifically limits the  zoning power in particular circumstances.  The Legislature clearly intended for localities to regulate land uses, including the extraction of natural resources other than oil and gas.

The only way the meaning of these words could be any clearer is if they were chiseled onto stone tablets. The only thing muddled is the interpretation given by a township doing a whole lot of wishful thinking and giving itself power it doesn’t have.

A state marker that says it all about the contributions of natural gas.

 

Saving Precious Land Thanks to Natural Gas
Last week I sent a letter to the New York Times following their publication of an op-ed by Sean Lennon. It’s unfortunate that they wouldn’t run my letter – especially given our experience as real organic farmers and how that experience contrasts the assertions made by Mr. Lennon.

 Kate Watson
Schoharie County, N.Y. Landowner

 

Last week I sent a letter to the New York Times following their publication of an op-ed by Sean Lennon. It’s unfortunate that they wouldn’t run my letter – especially given our experience as real organic farmers and how that experience contrasts the assertions made by Mr. Lennon.  With that, my letter is below.

Saving Precious Land Thanks to Natural Gas, in response to: “Destroying Precious Land for Gas”

Sean Lennon recalls a cow he milked when he was young, then attempts to speak on behalf of all organic farmers to declare natural gas development will render the land unlivable.

What Sean describes isn’t true. I am an actual, organic farmer in upstate New York, and while Sean has milked one cow, I have milked dozens. The hobby he enjoyed briefly supports my livelihood.

Natural gas production doesn’t conflict with organic farming. A natural gas well takes up six acres of land, which sees activity for a few weeks. This modest requirement helps keep in production hundreds of acres that might otherwise be lost due to high taxes and costs.

My husband and I love our land as only farmers can, and we know farmers aren’t going to compromise their land for a fast profit. It’s time to move past the rhetoric and take advantage of this opportunity together.

*UPDATE* The Facts Behind Erie’s ‘Bucket Brigade’
Last week, Erie officials reached an agreement allowing two companies to move forward with oil and natural gas development in the town—ensuring the safe production of the state’s abundant natural resources while protecting the beauty, health and safety of the surrounding environment and communities. As a Denver Post editorial highlights, town officials should be commended for their action.

UPDATE (9/4/2012, 12:27 pm ET): Last week, Erie officials reached an agreement allowing two companies to move forward with oil and natural gas development in the town—ensuring the safe production of the state’s abundant natural resources while protecting the beauty, health and safety of the surrounding environment and communities.  As a Denver Post editorial from over the weekend highlights, town officials should be commended for their actions. To wit:

“Rather than buckle to pressure from the anti-drilling crowd, the town of Erie last week reached agreements intended to allow two companies to proceed with drilling and protect public health and safety. While some residents asked trustees to extend a drilling moratorium, town officials instead took a thoughtful step forward on the issue. For that they should be commended. …We favor a set of statewide regulations that give certainty to industry and provide appropriate environmental safeguards. Let’s hope that the COGCC task force provides something along those lines later this month.” (Denver Post, 9/2/12)

Despite the unsubstantiated efforts of anti-drilling groups like Erie Rising, the town has taken a huge step forward to promote energy development in the state while upholding strict regulatory and environmental standards, all of which are based on scientific facts and decades of experience, not pre-scripted talking points.

—Original post,  August 27, 2012—

Courtney Loper
Field Director, Mountain States

 

Originally published by Colorado Energy News

Six months ago, a small group of local activists had a big impact on the debate over oil and gas development in Erie, Colo. The group, called Erie Rising, claimed the town had dangerously poor air quality – worse than Houston and Los Angeles – and blamed it all on the energy industry. It was a shocking revelation.

The Erie Board of Trustees almost immediately called for a moratorium on local permitting for new oil and gas wells, and Erie Rising became an overnight sensation with national environmental activist groups and Hollywood actors like Mark Ruffalo.

There was just one problem: those claims weren’t true. In the weeks that followed, Erie town officials commissioned two expert air quality studies, and both found there was no danger. Not only that: environmental data from the Obama administration showed the Denver metropolitan area had much better air quality than Houston, Los Angeles and about 30 other major U.S. cities. In other words, Erie Rising’s ringleaders had scared their neighbors and elected officials without cause.

Since then, Erie town officials and oil and gas developers have spent months working through their differences, choosing to negotiate an agreement rather than argue over the legality of the moratorium. Now, there’s a compromise which will come before the board tomorrow, Aug. 28. It includes legally enforceable commitments from oil and gas companies to adopt tougher emission controls than are required by Colorado’s nation-leading environmental regulations.

It’s a compromise supported by Erie Town Administrator A.J. Krieger, who told the board during an Aug. 14 meeting that oil and gas companies have negotiated in “good faith” and town officials “have done everything that we can do.” But sadly, at the same board meeting, representatives from Erie Rising attacked the compromise. Even worse, they claimed once again that Erie’s air is dangerously polluted, without providing a shred of evidence or data to back up their allegations.

So why should Erie’s citizens and elected officials believe them this time around? According to Erie Rising, it’s because they have brought in San Francisco-based Global Community Monitor to collect their own air samples and produce their own emissions data, using a so-called “bucket brigade.” Those samples, collected in buckets lined with plastic bags, are supposed to provide the Board of Trustees with credible information about the air quality in Erie, especially near the town’s schools.

As usual, Erie Rising isn’t being straight with the board or Erie citizens. GCM is not an independent, objective or credible source. It’s an anti-industry activist group that specializes in producing bad test results that advance political, not scientific, goals. “The Bucket Brigade is not a scientific experiment,” GCM executive director Denny Larson wrote in a 2006 handbook for environmental activists. “Our focus is on organizing. We use science, but only in the service of organizing.”

In fact, GCM was rebuked just last year for making alarmist air quality claims in another Colorado town. Based on a single “bucket” sample lasting less than three minutes, GCM claimed in July 2011 that students at Sunnyside Elementary School in Durango were being exposed to unsafe levels of cancer-causing chemicals.

Only two months earlier, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reached the opposite conclusion – that Sunnyside’s students are safe – as part of a national air-quality research project involving months of testing at 63 schools in 22 states. When the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment examined GCM’s results, it found a long list of “serious technical deficiencies,” including the possibility that the chemicals detected actually came from the plastic bags used to collect the air samples.

But even so, once the news media picked up GCM’s claims about Sunnyside Elementary, frightened parents started talking about pulling their children out of school. That spurred Durango School District 9-R to pay for its own follow-up study, which also debunked GCM’s findings and confirmed EPA’s original conclusion; again, that Sunnyside’s students were and are safe.

GCM’s leaders never apologized for the needless fear and anxiety they caused the parents, children and teachers of Sunnyside Elementary, and they didn’t display a hint of embarrassment after their work was discredited by local, state and federal officials. Instead, they just went quiet for a while and showed up in Erie last month, ready to do the same thing all over again.

Whatever decision the Board of Trustees makes on Aug. 28, it should be based on the facts. Just don’t expect those facts to come from Erie Rising, GCM or the other national activist groups they’ve flown into town.

Courtney Loper is the Denver-based field director of Energy In Depth, a research and education campaign of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA)

EID Retools NRDC “Fact” Sheet on HF, Adds Actual Facts
A recently released document from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) -- which occupies offices in a variety of locales, including Los Angeles and San Francisco -- suggests there are major gaps in regulatory oversight of hydraulic fracturing. The claims received painfully little media attention, probably because absent from the "fact" sheet were... well, actual facts.

Dave Quast
Field Director, California

A recently released document from the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) — which occupies offices in a variety of locales, including Los Angeles and San Francisco — suggests there are major gaps in regulatory oversight of hydraulic fracturing. The claims received painfully little media attention, probably because absent from the “fact” sheet were… well, actual facts. From ignoring existing regulations to making baseless claims that are directly contradicted by scientists and regulators, the NRDC document was in desperate need of some serious editing.

So, to paraphrase Tim Allen, we rewired it.

You can find the updated document by clicking here, but it’s worth mentioning three of NRDC’s more egregious errors up front.

Error 1: Opposing hydraulic fracturing “until effective safeguards are in place.”

Error 2: Misstating risks of drinking water contamination.

Error 3: Calling for best practices that already exist.

There are many, many more examples in the updated fact sheet, so be sure to check it out.

EID Debunk of NRDC Fact Sheet on Hydraulic Fracturing

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

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

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

–

August 24, 2012

 

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

Dear Ms. Nevins,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Lee O. Fuller
Executive Director
Energy In Depth

Enclosures (2)

—Original post, August 22, 2012—

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

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

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

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

–

August 21, 2012

 

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

Recommendations for Gasland 2

Dear Mr. Fox:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Lee O. Fuller
Executive Director
Energy In Depth

Credit Card Pitchman Shouldn’t Quit His Day Job
Alec Baldwin – yes, that Alec Baldwin – recently took to the Huffington Post to explain what he deems to be “The Truth” about hydraulic fracturing. There was only one problem: Mr. Baldwin’s claims, like most of his movies and his persona as Jack Donaghy in “30 Rock,” are not exactly based on or in reality.

Alec Baldwin – yes, that Alec Baldwin – recently took to the Huffington Post to explain what he deems to be “The Truth” about hydraulic fracturing. There was only one problem: Mr. Baldwin’s claims, like most of his movies and his persona as Jack Donaghy in “30 Rock,” are not exactly based on or in reality.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in his decision to uncritically reprint what Gasland star Josh Fox emailed him to say – which unfortunately didn’t include any mention of what state regulators have said about hydraulic fracturing, or what U.S. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson has said on multiple occasions. Heck, even President Obama – for whom Mr. Baldwin has a strong political affinity – has given high praise to developing natural gas from shale.

Nonetheless, we decided to highlight and debunk (yet again) the items Josh Fox suggested he repeat:

BALDWIN: “This 2009 piece from ProPublica that refers to a Garfield County, Colorado, study that contradicts certain gas industry assertions about methane in drinking water.”

FACT: The first summary conclusion listed in that study (which can be found here) states quite clearly: “Impacts from petroleum activity are not currently present at levels that exceed regulatory limits.” Why is this line important? Because it is indicative of what opponents routinely try to hide from the public: Namely, that the presence of a particular substance does not necessarily indicate a threat.

As any expert or regulator would acknowledge, it’s the exposure or concentration that determines whether something is toxic or unsafe. For just one example, hydrochloric acid would burn someone’s skin if applied directly, yet it’s one of the most common chemicals added to swimming pools – and we’re pretty sure Alec Baldwin is doing fine.

BALDWIN: “This 2011 report from Scientific American that describes significant aquifer contamination from fracking fluids in Wyoming.”

FACT: The report listed here is actually a reference to EPA’s testing in Pavillion, Wyoming, the same testing that produced a shoddy “draft report” for which peer review had to be suspended so EPA could re-test its wells, a decision made after experts identified significant flaws with EPA’s sampling procedures. And just weeks after releasing that draft report, EPA’s Region 8 administrator Jim Martin told a Congressional panel:

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

So, even if the EPA had somehow linked contamination to hydraulic fracturing (which it didn’t, but Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Fox want us to believe it did), extrapolating its findings to other parts of the country would be inappropriate – precisely what Mr. Baldwin was attempting to do by mentioning it in his column!

Also, as a point of fact, this “report” was actually just a cross-posting of an article on ProPublica. Anyone who reads through the entire piece would see this italicized disclaimer at the bottom: “From ProPublica.org (find the original story here); reprinted with permission.” Mr. Baldwin apparently didn’t want to use the same source twice, so he pretended that another source (which has a more official sounding name, Scientific American) reported those details.

BALDWIN: “A 2011 New York Times article that refers to the potential “first crack in the armor” of Rex Tillerson’s claims about fracking-related contamination.”

FACT: The Times’ piece was at one point heralded by opponents of hydraulic fracturing as a sort of silver bullet, as it supposedly provided an example of the process contaminating ground water. To reach this conclusion, the New York Times teamed up with the Environmental Working Group to highlight a well drilled in Jackson Co., W.V., in 1982 that was linked to water contamination. But the West Virginia-based laboratory commissioned to investigate the well said that it “did not conclude that hydraulic fracturing caused the contamination…” Even EWG admitted “it is possible that another stage of the drilling process [other than hydraulic fracturing] caused the problem.”

It’s also worth noting that the report of the incident was written by an EPA contractor in the 1980s, several years after the alleged incident occurred. Why is that important? Just a few months ago, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson stated publicly: “In no case have we made a definitive determination that [hydraulic fracturing] has caused chemicals to enter groundwater.” If the EPA’s report actually said what Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Fox think it says, then why would Lisa Jackson state that her agency has never made such a conclusion? Perhaps that’s why the example is barely mentioned anymore – except by those like Mr. Baldwin who are ideologically committed to The Cause.

BALDWIN: “This article from Food and Water Watch in April of 2012.”

FACT: First of all, it’s interesting that Mr. Baldwin would italicize “Food and Water Watch” as if it’s a news outlet. F&WW is an activist organization, funded by the Park Foundation, and wholly committed not to safe natural gas development, but to an outright ban on hydraulic fracturing.

Second, and more importantly, the “article” referenced is document where FWW claims that developing natural gas from shale isn’t really creating that many jobs, and the economic growth associated with development is a fantasy. While it’s odd that an organization would attack hard-working men and women in a particular industry by pretending they don’t simply exist, it’s also completely false. A report from IHS-CERA noted that, in 2010, natural gas development from shale supported one million jobs throughout the economy. In the Barnett Shale in north Texas, natural gas development has generated nearly $6 billion in tax receipts for the state. In 2011, the Eagle Ford Shale in south Texas supported 47,000 jobs and generated more than $3 billion in salaries and benefits to Texas workers and their families. Realtors admit that shale development is strengthening the housing market, and state data from Pennsylvania shows that Marcellus Shale development supports more than 238,000 jobs across the Commonwealth.

BALDWIN: “And this article from a March, 2012 issue of Rolling Stone.”

FACT: This is the same Rolling Stone article that not only regurgitated debunked talking points from opponents, but also used others’ content without citing them. The author, Jeff Goodell, even misattributed quotes from “experts” in order to advance a convenient narrative.

But the most significant problem with the Rolling Stone piece was its willingness to ignore or even deliberately contradict clear and well-understood scientific facts. Goodell claimed a 2011 study from researchers at Duke University provided “the first clear evidence that [hydraulic fracturing] was contaminating drinking water” – even though the researchers stated clearly that “we found no evidence for contamination of the shallow wells near active drilling sites from deep brines and/or fracturing fluids” (emphasis added).

Goodell even went so far as to claim, based on a New York Times story, that operators were “dumping millions of gallons” of radioactive wastewater into rivers and streams, “largely without regulatory oversight.” But former Pennsylvania DEP secretary John Hanger said that “testing of drinking water at the tap and in stream totally debunked the main radiation narrative of the New York Times article.” Hanger later wrote that there is “no radionuclide pollution of drinking water in Pennsylvania. Zero. None…But that truth will never catch up to the lie cleverly spread and repeated.” (You can read Hanger’s full dismantling of the Rolling Stone article here.) Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell (D) suggested the purpose of the original New York Times piece was nothing more than to “gratuitously frighten Pennsylvanians,” and on the facts it was “a mighty swing and a miss.”

BALDWIN: I’ve got more if you want it.

EID: Please, humor us!

–

Mr. Baldwin’s article was not intended to form a scientific basis for future study, or even to use available science to prove a point. To his credit, Mr. Baldwin actually admitted as much, stating: “I am quite certain that not many minds will be changed here.” Instead, the article was – like so much written by activists who oppose hydraulic fracturing – designed to spread fear and foment doubt in the public’s mind about what most would consider settled science. Creating that kind of uncertainty doesn’t require a factual or even a scientific basis; it only requires appeals to emotion, some targeted headlines, and a manufactured assumption of guilt for the industry.

In short, what Mr. Baldwin presented in his short column is nothing new, and the information he presented has been and remains debunked. That Mr. Baldwin, as a Hollywood actor, has a major megaphone to repeat those claims does not make them true. But, repeating those claims does have the unfortunate effect of shifting the public debate away from facts and science – exactly the opposite of what you’d expect of someone claiming to state “the truth” about anything.

But then again, if your goal is to undermine the clear safety record of hydraulic fracturing, facts and science must be absent by necessity, because relying on them would contradict your preconceived narrative.

And by the way: Isn’t there a photographer somewhere Mr. Baldwin can be assaulting rather than writing ridiculous columns like this?

Debunking DeSmog
If your goal is to shut down oil and gas development, but your arguments have been consistently debunked and rebutted by scientific facts and empirical evidence, there are two paths you can take: The first is to acknowledge that your goals are unsupported by the facts, and move on to another issue about which you feel passionate. The second path is to pretend that science and facts actually don’t matter, and that evidence contradicting what you desperately want to believe is actually somehow a personal attack.

If your goal is to shut down oil and gas development, but your arguments have been consistently debunked and rebutted by scientific facts and empirical evidence, there are two paths you can take: The first is to acknowledge that your goals are unsupported by the facts, and move on to another issue about which you feel passionate. The second, more aggressive path is to pretend that science and facts actually don’t matter (as activists in Michigan recently admitted), and that evidence contradicting what you desperately want to believe is somehow a personal attack.

Unfortunately for their credibility, opponents all too often take the latter path. This was on full display in a recent piece for the Huffington Post by Brendan DeMelle, managing editor of DeSmogBlog. Mr. DeMelle’s thesis is that news reports attacking the responsible development of oil and natural gas from shale are not only 100 percent grounded in fact, but that suggesting any flaws in that reporting is nothing more than ad hominem. In other words, critical thinking and questioning the accuracy of what’s printed in the news are simply unacceptable.

Most folks would strongly disagree with that notion. But we also have to remember that virtually every accusation made against hydraulic fracturing – from water contamination claims to air emissions to public health – has been swatted down by the facts. Waking up every day and having your talking points debunked would no doubt be exhausting, and the only way to deny the truth is to establish a different set of rules by which your claims can be judged – something other than science and verifiable evidence.

Here is a sampling of just some of Mr. DeMelle’s claims, but this time with a little more context:

DeMelle: “Reporters who write for publications ranging from Rolling Stone to Reuters to the New York Times have had their professional bona fides called into question after unearthing documents and facts that challenge claims that fracked shale gas is cheap, abundant, and clean.”

EID: Notice the rhetorical skill here. Mr. DeMelle is suggesting that folks at the New York Times and Rolling Stone are only guilty of reporting facts, and thus any criticism of these publications must by extension be a rejection of those facts.

In any event, let’s take a look at some of the “facts” that Mr. DeMelle is blindly defending.

The New York Times series (“Drilling Down”) was actually riddled with factual errors. Among them was the erroneous claim that coal mine operators disposing their wastewater into injection wells are bound by federal rules, but waste water from natural gas development is not. The reality is that both processes are regulated by the U.S. EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Times also claimed drillers in Pennsylvania were allowed to dump “mystery liquids” into public waterways, which is also false. Under the Clean Water Act (by which producers are bound, contrary to what the New York Times suggested) operators aren’t allowed to dump a single drop of wastewater into surface waters. As for the water that is treated and released, here’s what former Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection secretary John Hanger said: “Every drop of tap water that was publicly treated is required to meet the safe drinking water standard.”

Criticism of the New York Times for its reporting on this issue is actually far and wide, including most notably from the Times’ own public editor, Arthur Brisbane, on multiple occasions. Among the reasons for the paper’s flawed reporting (as pointed out by Mr. Brisbane) was its use of an intern at the Energy Information Administration (EIA) as both an “energy analyst” and an “official” in the same article.

Recall also that Rolling Stone cited the infamous study from Robert Howarth at Cornell University suggesting shale gas is worse than coal for global warming – a claim that’s been rebutted by the U.S. Department of Energy, universities across the country, Howarth’s own colleagues, and even a study funded by the Sierra Club. Rolling Stone also stated as fact that hydraulic fracturing caused the infamous flaming faucet in Gasland, a claim so divorced from reality that even Colorado regulators stated publicly that it was “not related to oil and gas activity.” And Rolling Stone also claimed last year’s study from researchers at Duke University represented the “first clear evidence that [hydraulic fracturing] was contaminating water” – even though the study says explicitly the opposite: “Based on our data (Table 2), we found no evidence for contamination of the shallow wells near active drilling sites from deep brines and/or fracturing fluids” (emphasis added).

This all begs a question: does Mr. DeMelle believe reporters have sole possession of the truth by virtue of their being reporters, or does the public have a responsibility to do its own critical thinking about what reporters may try to present as the truth?

–

DeMelle: “Quite often, rather than responding to the issues raised in a responsible fashion, industry PR shops have questioned the motives and qualifications of journalists who investigate the problems with shale gas development, and especially those who delve into the industry’s economic prospects. The attacks against reporters are noteworthy in part because they are so personal.”

EID: The term “glass houses” comes to mind here; how many times have activist groups and other anti-development organizations attacked the qualifications of University professors, state regulators, or even White House appointed councils for supposedly being in the pocket of “Big Oil”? Whenever research does not align with what opponents want to believe, they simply dismiss it as “industry funded” or “inadequate” – even when those facts are presented by none other than the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Opponents even smeared New York’s state geologist after he told the truth about Marcellus Shale development.

Moreover, opponents of natural gas development have no problem attacking journalists with whom they disagree. For example, a recent Associated Press article exposing the shoddy science used by anti-shale groups was received with predictable anger by those same groups. Josh Fox said of the story: “From the outset, the premise of this article was biased.” Sharon Wilson, a well-known activist in north Texas who also works for Earthworks, wrote: “I’m just going to say this out loud: Whose water is this AP reporter carrying?”

Somehow, those comments (which represent only a small sample of a broader response) didn’t make it into Mr. DeMelle’s scientific analysis. How convenient.

As for accusations of personal attacks, Mr. DeMelle’s website DeSmogBlog is not exactly fit to cast the first stone. Consider just this small sample of items written by folks at that blog:

–

DeMelle: “One of the first people to raise questions about shale gas’s potential was Arthur Berman, a former Amoco geologist who, at the time, was a long-time contributing editor for an industry magazine called World Oil.”

EID: Those who follow EID know that we’ve talked about Mr. Berman quite a bit. We often disagree with him, but we’ve also noted the collegiality and professionalism he exhibits. That said, what Mr. DeMelle failed to mention about Mr. Berman is that he also sits on the board of directors for the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas. For those unfamiliar, that organization bills itself as “a network of scientists, affiliated with institutions and universities, having an interest in determining the date and impact of the peak and decline of the world’s production of oil and gas, due to resource constraints.” (emphasis added)

Is anyone surprised that someone who sits on the board of an organization committed to finding declining rates of oil and natural gas production is suggesting that – drum roll, please – natural gas will soon be in decline?

–

DeMelle: “Jim Cramer, the show’s host, also questioned Berman’s and the Times’ credibility, saying: ‘If we’re being duped by the nat gas industry, as this article suggests, then how come Exxon Mobil spent 31 billion to buy nat gas giant XTO? Were they fooled, too?’”

EID: Mr. DeMelle apparently doesn’t understand the difference between “questioning a person’s credibility” and “disagreeing with a person.” Anyone who isn’t working backward from the conclusion that journalists and other experts are victims of a grand conspiracy could recognize that Jim Cramer – though always outspoken – was not challenging Berman’s intellectual capacity. He was merely presenting an example of why Berman’s thesis was probably wrong.

If it’s convenient for Mr. DeMelle to pretend that this is a verbal assault on a journalist, then so be it. But offering an opinion in the public space also means you’re engaging in a public debate – that is, a discussion of differing viewpoints. Inherent in that is the presence of disagreement (it’s a debate, after all).

–

DeMelle: “It’s worth noting that Art Berman’s analysis is looking highly prescient these days. Official government estimates for shale gas have been slashed significantly.” (DeMelle, 8/2/2012)

EID: Irony of ironies: On the same day that Mr. DeMelle’s post appeared in Huffington Post, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) released its latest summary of America’s proved reserves of oil and natural gas for 2010. Here’s what EIA concluded: “Proved reserves of both oil and natural gas in 2010 rose by the highest amounts ever recorded in the 35 years EIA has been publishing proved reserves estimates.” EIA went on to say that natural gas proved reserves increased for the twelfth consecutive year.

Moreover, since Mr. DeMelle clearly believes Art Berman is a credible source, then why didn’t he include Mr. Berman’s outing of Rolling Stone author Jeff Goodell for falsely attributing statements to Mr. Berman? Is that also an “ad hominem” response, since it points out a critical flaw in reporting?

In any event, folks from DeSmogBlog might want to be wary about discussing energy markets and investments. Here’s an excerpt from a DeSmogBlog post dated April 2009:

Like carbon reduction plans, ramping up to renewable energy costs a lot in the beginning, but the costs decline as technology advances. In the U.S. this threshold effect is already beginning to reduce the costs of solar and wind. In fact, thin-film solar company Solyndra, which recently won a loan guarantee from the U.S. Department of Energy under the 2005 Energy Policy Act (but only after a nearly four-year hiatus, and with the help of a $6-billion allocation from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act), expects to hit grid parity with coal in 2-3 years.

–

DeMelle: “Ultimately, industry proponents may find that these sorts of unsubstantiated allegations of animus are subject to the law of diminishing returns. The field is increasingly crowded with reporters and columnists who have had their professional credentials questioned, had their coverage labeled a ‘hit piece,’ or been accused of waging a ‘war’ against shale gas. And the investigative reporting that prompts howls from the shale gas industry increasingly earns respect and accolades from fellow journalists.”

EID: Does winning awards automatically establish accuracy? Josh Fox’s movie Gasland was riddled with errors, yet it won awards and was even nominated for an Oscar. The Society of Environmental Journalists, meanwhile, is giving a reporter who is suing the same industry that she’s covering an award for “outstanding in-depth reporting.”

The point here is that an award is less important than the accuracy of the news itself, and when the news frequently misstates the facts or omits important information (either deliberately or carelessly), the fact that it may earn “respect” from like-minded colleagues doesn’t change the facts – or lack thereof.

—

What Mr. DeMelle wants is an admission of guilt by the oil and gas industry about everything ever alleged against it, even if the problems don’t actually exist or the claims are more nuanced than what opponents like Mr. DeMelle want us to believe. And if the industry dare use novel things like “facts” and “science” to reveal the truth, then they’re apparently guilty of using personal attacks to advance an agenda. It’s an attempt to create a heads-I-win, tails-you-lose public debate that would establish credibility for opponents and guilt for the industry, both by arbitrary decree.

In short, Mr. DeMelle’s post is not a call for an informed public debate about complex issues; it’s an attempt to insulate opponents’ claims about oil and gas development from any scrutiny, and to stop publishing evidence that contradicts established dogmas. Ironically, that’s also a prescription for ending investigative journalism – exactly what Mr. DeMelle thought he was defending.

Debunked: Chesapeake Bay Fdn. “methane leak” video based on invalid analysis
Following an investigation by the Associated Press highlighting several high-profile examples of oil and gas opponents misrepresenting science as part of their campaign against hydraulic fracturing, a short new video released today by EID confirms that a video and letter issued by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation late last year in which the group attacks natural gas development is, according to independent scientists, based on a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

Chris Tucker
Team Lead

Following an investigation by the Associated Press highlighting several high-profile examples of oil and gas opponents misrepresenting science as part of their campaign against hydraulic fracturing, a short new video released today by Energy In Depth (EID) confirms that a video and letter issued by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) late last year in which the group attacks natural gas development is, according to independent scientists, based on a complete misrepresentation of the facts.

Last November, CBF issued a press release and video file purporting to show large volumes of methane and other hydrocarbons escaping undetected from natural gas wellsites and compressor stations across Pennsylvania, Maryland and West Virginia – methane CBF says was discovered through the use of infrared camera and confirmed as such by anti-shale activist Robert Howarth, also a professor at Cornell. But according to Dr. Ram Hashmonay, who is credited with co-inventing modern radial plume mapping technology, what Prof. Howarth asserts is leaking methane in the video is actually just heat and exhaust from combustion sources: the same stuff an infrared camera would pick up from the tailpipe of a car.

“It might have taken a couple months to compile this response, but it only took a couple seconds to figure out that what CBF was showing in that video had nothing to do with methane,” said Lee Fuller, EID’s executive director. “Unfortunately, it appears that the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, which otherwise has a pretty good reputation, may have been misled by Howarth, who has seen his own papers on natural gas and GHGs harshly criticized by government scientists, independent analysts, environmental groups, and even his own colleagues at Cornell.”

In the CBF video, Prof. Howarth is shown providing his analysis of FLIR camera footage gathered from 15 wellsites last summer by David Sawyer, a Mass.-based infrared videographer paid by CBF. To hear Howarth tell it, oil and gas operators choose to surreptitiously “vent” large volumes of methane (the same stuff they’re trying to sell) straight into the atmosphere because they’re fearful that alternate means of maintaining safe pressure, such as flaring, would “disturb people.” According to Howarth (0:30 of the video):

When the pressure gets too high, they have to let it go. And yeah, there it is. That’s a lot of [methane] gas flowing out of that one. They have the capability of flaring it, that is: burning it and turning it to carbon dioxide instead of just venting it like this. And from a global climate change perspective, that’s a lot better – because methane is such a potent greenhouse gas. But they don’t like to do it because it draws public attention; it makes a lot of noise, it disturbs people. So they like to just have this venting, which, as you can see, without your fancy FLIR camera, you wouldn’t know they were doing anything at all ther

But as Dr. Hashmonay explains, had the plumes in the CBF video actually been comprised of methane or other hydrocarbons, they would have remained intact and visible long after billowing from the source. Instead, the CBF plumes dissipate into the air almost immediately upon leaving the stack, a clear indication of an exhaust-product from a combustion source. According to Dr. Hashmonay: “I did not see clear clips here that show [anything] that indicates any substantial hydrocarbon leaving any of these sites. … They’re not indicative of any hydrocarbon leaks.”

As part of its research, EID traveled to Ithaca, N.Y. to shoot FLIR camera video of Cornell University’s power plant, a facility that emits plenty of heat, but, best we can tell, very little or no fugitive methane. As expected, the emissions seen coming from the Cornell facility in the EID video are strikingly similar to the ones that CBF presented in its video, which Howarth mistakenly asserts are composed of hydrocarbons. The EID video also includes infrared camera footage of a propane grill and cigarette lighter, which, when shot with FLIR, clearly demonstrate the difference between a plume of unburned hydrocarbons versus a plume of standard combustion exhaust, which is primarily composed of carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor.

For its part, a little more than a month after first releasing its video, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation re-wrote its original press release in response to a stream of negative comments. The purpose of the update, according to CBF, was to “make it clear that the [FLIR] images likely include methane and/or other hydrocarbon gases, and that some of the images could include diesel engine emissions” – as if that had been CBF’s position all along (or Howarth’s). In an article published earlier today in the Baltimore Sun, a CBF spokesman declined to “respond in detail” to Dr. Hashmonay’s analysis.

The revelation today of CBF’s erroneous methane video comes on the heels of an explosive Associated Press report late last month detailing several other cases in which professional opponents of oil and natural gas either misused or misrepresented science to advance political ends. In one case, Gasland director Josh Fox asserted that the occurrence of breast cancer in the Dallas/Fort Worth had risen as a result of shale development. In fact, cancer rates in the area have not risen — as confirmed by both the Texas Cancer Registry and the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

Last year, EID guest bloggers Sue Mickley, a Yale-trained public health professional, and Uni Blake, a respected, N.Y.-based toxicologist, published a detailed health profile analysis focused on several of the most heavily drilled counties in North Texas. The pair found that health indicators in the study area actually improved over the past decade, even as the average age of the region’s population increased.

Nationwide: No Change to Our Policies on Oil and Gas
Despite mistaken assertions and commentary made over the last several weeks, Nationwide has not issued any new guidelines nor taken any new positions regarding hydraulic fracturing or oil and gas development.

Eric Hardgrove
Media Director, Nationwide Mutual Insurance

Despite assertions made over the last several weeks, Nationwide has not issued any new guidelines nor taken any new positions regarding fracking.

With the increase in hydraulic fracking, particularly in the Midwest and Northeast, Nationwide evaluated our position (as we routinely do with any of our coverages) and decided not to make any changes in our long-standing position on exclusions related to drilling operations.  An internal communication sharing an update on this review was drafted, without this broader context, and distributed to agents.  This agent bulletin was then posted on Facebook and taken out of context. This post made it appear as if Nationwide had made an announcement, when in reality we simply decided to maintain an underwriting position we and most other carriers have held for years.

Nationwide has not changed its guidelines in regard to coverage of, or damage resulting from, oil and natural gas extraction activities, including hydrofracking. In addition, Nationwide will not be cancelling or non-renewing existing policies based solely upon the presence of gas leases, gas wells, or hydrofracking on the property.

Nationwide’s underwriting guidelines do not disqualify homeowners or farm policy coverage for homes or farm operations based solely on the presence of a gas lease in force on the property, the presence of gas drilling, or plans for gas drilling in the future.

Nationwide’s policy or treatment of this issue is common practice within the insurance industry, as traditional homeowners or farm owners insurance policies generally do not include coverage specific to the unique processes and activities of the oil/gas development process.

In the end, this “story” isn’t about one insurer. Rather, it’s about reiterating what is common insurance industry practice that traditional homeowners or farm owners policies generally do not anticipate or insure against the specific activities associated with oil and gas exploration.

Truthland Goes to Washington
With Congress’s August recess (ehem, “district work period”) only a week or so away, the last few remaining days of session are always incredibly busy around the Capitol – and this week was certainly no exception. Thankfully, though, thanks to the help and support of U.S. Reps. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) and Dan Boren (D-Okla.) – co-chairs of the Natural Gas Caucus -- EID was able to secure a spot on an otherwise packed congressional agenda to screen “Truthland” at the Capitol Visitors Center on Wednesday.

John Krohn
Communications Director

With Congress’s August recess (ehem, “district work period”) only a week or so away, the last few remaining days of session are always incredibly busy around the Capitol – and this week was certainly no exception. Thankfully, though, thanks to the help and support of U.S. Reps. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) and Dan Boren (D-Okla.) – co-chairs of the Natural Gas Caucus — EID was able to secure a spot on an otherwise packed congressional agenda to screen “Truthland” at the Capitol Visitors Center on Wednesday.

Shelly herself came down for the day, and so did several well-known experts whom she interviewed in the film. And wouldn’t you know it? The event itself almost didn’t happen: initially because of some early resistance from the staff of U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a co-sponsor of the anti-FRAC Act; and on the day of, the CVC apparently scheduled us in a room that doesn’t even exist. However, thanks to one of Rep. Murphy’s top staffers, this setback was surmounted as well and the co-chairs and EID worked frantically to inform the media and congressional staff of the correct location.

As for the event itself: couldn’t have gone better.  More than 40 Capitol Hill staffers joined Shelly and crew for the screening, filling the room we were (eventually) assigned to capacity.  Among the attendees were legislative staff from member offices representing Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas, New York, Colorado and Oklahoma — as well as committee staff from the Senate EPW committee, among many others.

Introductions from Reps. Boren and Murphy kicked off the screening.  In their remarks, the Caucus co-chairs highlighted the importance  of natural gas to the U.S. economy and the need to have an honest and fact-based discussion about where our country’s energy actually comes from – and what it could make possible for everyday Americans moving forward. Rep. Boren said that most his colleagues in Congress don’t know an awful lot about natural gas — and that most of what they do know, unfortunately, appears to have been shaped by a certain documentary that ran on HBO. Congressman Murphy hit similar themes in his remarks, excerpts of which are included below.

Once the film wrapped up, the expert panel made its way to the stage. These experts included Dr. Terry Engelder, Penn State professor of geosciences; Gary Hanson, Director of the Red River Watershed Institute; and Scott Roberts, former Pennsylvania DEP official — all appeared in “Truthland” (find their bios here).  Shelly was also on hand to introduce the film and provide attendees with perspectives she gained during her voyage.

The Capitol Hill staff who attended the screening took advantage of having the combined expertise of these scientists, regulators and engineers in the same room – and asked plenty of questions. And good questions too, like: how is natural gas development regulated? (as a joint partnership between states and EPA.) What’s the difference between hydraulic fracturing of 20 years ago and hydraulic fracturing of today? (no real mechanical differences at all.) Are there any other applications for hydraulic fracturing? (yes, lots: including geothermal development). Plus a whole lot more.

When all was said and done, despite initial delays and a few logistical challenges, the Washington, D.C. screening of “Truthland” went down as a successful event – and hopefully, an educational one as well.  While the panelists have returned home, and the staffers have since returned to work, the issues discussed will, with any luck, help guide thoughtful decisions in the weeks and months to come.

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »