Home » Posts tagged "oil"

oil

New Report: HF Does Not Pose Credible Health Risk
A new, comprehensive report from Gradient examines the risk of hydraulic fracturing impacting human health. Even by taking a conservative approach that by design overestimates risk, the report concludes that hydraulic fracturing fluids “are not expected to pose an adverse risk to human health” and that, in the event of a spill, natural processes would dilute fluids to “below levels of human health concerns.”

steve_everleySteve
Team Lead

 

A new, comprehensive report from Gradient examines two potential exposure pathways for hydraulic fracturing fluids to impact human health: upward migration from the shale formation itself, and surface incidents such as spills or other releases. Even by taking a conservative approach (which by design overestimates risk) the report concludes that hydraulic fracturing fluids “are not expected to pose an adverse risk to human health” and that, in the event of a spill, natural processes would dilute fluids to “below levels of human health concerns.”

The upshot? All of those scary stories we’ve heard about hydraulic fracturing supposedly threatening public health – and the alleged reason behind New York Governor Andrew Cuomo delaying approval of shale development – are not based on a credible examination of risk.

Let’s take a closer look at each of the potential pathways for health impacts, as examined by Gradient.

Upward Fluid Migration

We’ve all seen that image that so-called “green” groups use to describe hydraulic fracturing, the one where the fractures and chemicals are migrating upward from the shale formation and into groundwater (it’s sourced back to the discredited Gasland movie page). In this bizarre interpretation of reality, the fluids injected at depth are not confined to the formation, and the thousands of feet (and literally billions of tons) of impermeable rock above the shale zone – which have kept oil and gas deposits sealed at depth for millions of years – somehow provide pathways for chemicals to migrate against gravity and into groundwater.

On that claim, Gradient has what can only be described as a devastating refutation:

“[I]t is implausible that the fluids pumped into the target formation would migrate from the target formation through overlying bedrock to reach shallow aquifers.”

Put differently: Folks suggesting that hydraulic fracturing threatens water aquifers are literally arguing the “implausible.”

Need more concrete language? Gradient delivers:

“[T]here is no scientific basis for significant upward migration of HF fluid or brine from tight target formations in sedimentary basins.”

Got that? “No scientific basis.” Keep that in mind whenever you hear opponents try to claim the mantle of “science” in suggesting the hydraulic fracturing process will pollute drinking water.

The report adds that even if upward migration were somehow to occur, the dilution of fluids and additives would be enormous, and by the time anything ever reached drinking water supplies – remember, such migration would have to go through thousands of feet of various rock formations – the concentrations would be “well below health-based standards.”

Risks from Surface Releases

It’s obviously reassuring to know that the hydraulic fracturing process is safe – even if most of us already knew that, thanks to consistent affirmation from state regulatory agencies. But what happens if there’s a surface release on the wellpad? What if the waste water – the handling and transport of which is tightly regulated – spills onto the ground or roadway? What’s the risk to underground supplies of drinking water?

In short: insignificant. Here’s why.

Gradient used data from flowback samples (as well as produced water) from the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania and West Virginia to form the basis for its risk assessment. The report assumed zero containment measures, and that, in the event of a spill, 100 percent of the fluid would leach into groundwater. Due to a variety of geological factors, this is essentially impossible – but it was used to create an upper bound of risk for such an incident.

Those same geological factors, however, cannot be ignored in terms of assessing how spilled fluids would eventually migrate to a water aquifer. Here’s Gradient’s conclusion:

“Human health risks associated with potential surface spills of fluids containing HF constituents are expected to be insignificant with respect to both impacts to USDWs [underground sources of drinking water] and impacts to surface waters due to dilution mechanisms which are expected to reduce concentrations in potable aquifers and surface waters to levels below health-based drinking water concentrations in the event of surface spills.” (emphasis added)

So even if, somehow, all of the fluid from a spill were to reach drinking water, the natural dilution mechanisms between the spill site and point of contact with the aquifer would shrink the health-risk to below established thresholds.

To be sure, this doesn’t mean that development poses zero risks. All types of energy development involve certain risks. But the focus should not be on whether there are risks, but whether those risks can be managed — and whether those risks are large enough to warrant banning the processes involved.

In the case of shale development – and hydraulic fracturing specifically – the verdict is clear: the risks from such activity are exceedingly low, and pushing for bans or additional restrictions based on inflated fears of risks is simply not a fact-based position.

Climate Central Report Highlights Decline in Methane Emissions
This week, a climate research organization, Climate Central, released a report, “Natural Gas and Climate Change” which comes to a somewhat obvious conclusion: we need more data on methane emissions. But if hydraulic fracturing opponents were hoping for a report that would support their dubious claim that methane emissions from natural gas are “massive,” they will be sorely disappointed.

Katie-Brown-EIDKatie
Researcher

 

This week, a climate research organization, Climate Central, released a report, “Natural Gas and Climate Change” which comes to a somewhat obvious conclusion: we need more data on methane emissions. But if hydraulic fracturing opponents were hoping for a report that would support their dubious claim that methane emissions from natural gas are “massive,” they will be sorely disappointed. Indeed, the report mostly kept activist advocacy at an arm’s length and focused on real-world facts.  As the report states:

“The EPA’s 2012 annual greenhouse gas emissions inventory estimate [of methane leakage] was 2.2 percent. Its 2013 inventory estimate made a large adjustment that reduced the estimate to 1.5 percent. The degree of methane leakage is uncertain, but it is likely to be reduced in the future since it also represents lost profits for gas companies.” (emphasis added)

So, even Climate Central is acknowledging that methane emissions are on a downward trajectory. (To be fair, Climate Central also mentions other studies on methane “leaks,” many of which have been thoroughly debunked.) The key thrust of its report, however, is to evaluate whether or not the use of natural gas would provide a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions sufficient to meet particular targets. From the report:

“The EPA recently estimated methane leaks in the natural gas system at 1.5 percent.   A 1.5 percent leak rate would achieve an immediate 50 percent reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, at the individual power plant level.  However, EPA’s estimate contains significant uncertainly, and like all estimates available in the peer-reviewed literature, lacks sufficient real-world measurements to guide decision-making at the national level.  Climate Central found that the ongoing shift from coal to gas in power generation in the U.S. is unlikely to provide the 50 percent reduction in GHG emissions typically attributed to it over the next three to four decades, unless gas leakage is maintained at the lowest estimated rates (1 to 1.5 percent) and the coal replacement rate is maintained at recent high levels (greater than 5 percent per year).” (emphasis added)

So, Climate Central acknowledges EPA’s estimate of 1.5 percent, and that the leakage rate is “likely to be reduced in the future” as well – and yet they presume a lack of GHG benefit “unless” the leakage rate is maintained at or below the level they acknowledged. Sounds like things are already on track!

Yes, there are problems with EPA’s estimates, but the reality is that EPA’s emissions data are overestimates. The uncertainty is not whether the leakage rate is actually higher, but rather how much lower it is in practice.

EPA’s 1.5 percent estimate is actually far too high because it is based on assumptions that grossly misinterpret actual industry practice.  One of the biggest problems with EPA’s estimate is that it assumes companies that are not required to capture methane during well completions are simply venting that methane into the air. It also assumes that flaring, a process that burns off the methane before it is released, isn’t really happening unless the authorities explicitly mandate it.  Both of these assumptions are simply wrong, and they produce estimates that are by no means reflective of industry operations.

Interestingly, the American Gas Association also released a report today that evaluates EPA’s revisions to its methane estimates, observing that “the long-term trend for methane emissions from natural gas systems is downward.”  The report states that “absolute methane emissions have declined 10 percent [since 1990], even as production increased 32 percent. In 2007 emissions hit their all-time peak. Since then, emissions have fallen 14 percent as natural gas production climbed 15 percent.” It also points out that EPA air regulations coming down the pike (the ones justified by the agency’s own inflated emissions estimates) will require companies to capture methane at the wellhead by 2015, which the Climate Central report also mentions:

“Starting in 2015, all hydraulically fractured wells will be required to use ‘green completion’ technologies to capture the methane. The EPA estimates that methane leakage is reduced by 95 percent with a green completion compared with venting of the methane.”

Climate Central begins its report citing EPA’s greatly-reduced emissions estimates, then states that emissions will continue to decrease, and finally claims that forthcoming EPA regulations will reduce methane emissions by 95 percent beginning in 2015.

Regardless of how it hedges its claims amidst an aura of “uncertainty,” the Climate Central report acknowledges that, based on EPA data, methane emissions are going down, and will continue to do so.

Anti-Shale Activists Trying to Upset Democratic Process
On Tuesday of this week (May 21), lawmakers in Springfield will be considering a historic compromise on hydraulic fracturing, which will pave the way for responsible development in Illinois and establish some of the strongest regulations in the country. Yet, despite an unprecedented level of support, a small yet vocal minority of ideological activists continues to think that the rules are inadequate and have somehow been “rushed.”

kyna (2)Kyna
Midwest Field Director

 

On Tuesday of this week (May 21), lawmakers in Springfield, Ill., will be considering a historic compromise on hydraulic fracturing, which will pave the way for responsible development in Illinois and establish some of the strongest regulations in the country. This legislation – filed as Amendment 1 to SB 1715, and which was the product of more than a year of discussions, compromise, and in-depth reviews of science and facts – was designed to address concerns specific to Illinois, and it enjoys support from an impressive coalition: environmental groups (including the Sierra Club, the NRDC, and the Illinois Environmental Council), labor (including the AFL-CIO), the business community, the oil and gas industry, and agriculture groups, among many others.

Yet, despite this unprecedented level of support, a small yet vocal minority of ideological activists continues to think that the rules are inadequate and have somehow been “rushed.” They’re planning to meet at the Capitol in Springfield on Tuesday, during which time they’ll hold a press conference and likely try to make as much noise as possible. The headliner will be Sandra Steingraber, a well-known activist who has likened hydraulic fracturing to a “tornado on the horizon” and disgracefully advanced the alarmist narrative that fracking causes cancer – even though actual scientists disagree.

The goal? Make a ruckus and prevent the Illinois legislature from passing the agreed-upon regulatory bill.

To be sure, we’ve examined in depth the claims that Illinois activists have made about hydraulic fracturing, and – lo and behold – they’ve been thoroughly debunked. But because ideologues don’t typically bother with self-reflection or legitimate research, these same groups continue to repeat their talking points, as if scientific and regulatory consensus mean nothing.

More alarming, however, is that the debate here in Illinois over hydraulic fracturing has taken place in a variety of forms. There have been public hearings and forums. We’ve read countless letters to the editor and op-eds. News stories and editorials from every major newspaper have tackled topics ranging from environmental issues to economic benefits. Lawmakers in Springfield have been occupied for months on end examining data, scientific reports, and studies from across the country regarding hydraulic fracturing and shale development. Social media and blogs are overrun with points and counterpoints about potential impacts, good and bad.

This is the essence of compromise, something that our legislature seems unable to do with almost anything else. It’s long, it’s arduous, it’s frustrating, and yes, it often results in outcomes that some people are not 100 percent satisfied with. The agreed-upon regulatory bill is no exception. Each constituency within the large and diverse group of supporters has stated that it’s not a perfect bill, and that there are things they wish were different. But they also recognize that the benefits of development are too big to ignore (as an example, look at North Dakota’s 3.2 percent unemployment rate), and ensuring safety is a superior goal to just sticking our heads in the sand, denying jobs to Illinois citizens, and preventing a responsible path forward.

What opponents are trying to do is frankly a fundamental disruption of democracy. The public debate has played out in a variety of channels throughout the past year, and a large and diverse majority of Illinois interests have united to support a path forward for shale development. The legislation is based on science, and it has been carefully crafted to address the needs and concerns of folks across our state. Those facts, among others, demonstrate why the legislation enjoys enormous bipartisan support.

Simply put: Just because anti-fracking activists don’t like the results of the democratic process should not give them license to upend it.

Responsible shale development in Illinois would create tens of thousands of jobs for a state suffering from an unemployment rate exceeding nine percent. It would encourage investment in a state with the worst bond rating in the country, and would generate new tax revenue that could address an out of control budget deficit and fund vital public services. At a time when businesses are fleeing our state, shale development would lead to an influx of much-needed new investment.

It’s bad enough that anti-fracking activists oppose new economic growth for Illinois. The fact that they’re willing to hamstring a historic compromise to do so is just shameful.

IEA Report: Shale Puts America Back in Control
This week, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released a report stating that North American shale and oil sands development is “reaching all recesses of the global oil market” and, most importantly, displacing OPEC supplies. As the report continuously echoes, North America is altering the entire global energy equation and enabling the United States’ highest level of energy security in two decades, all while boosting our economy, creating jobs, and providing a resurgence in domestic manufacturing.

Meagan-BakerMeagan
Researcher

This week, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released a report stating that North American shale and oil sands development is “reaching all recesses of the global oil market” and, most importantly, displacing OPEC supplies.  As the report continuously echoes, North America is altering the entire global energy equation and enabling the United States’ highest level of energy security in two decades, all while boosting our economy, creating jobs, and providing a resurgence in domestic manufacturing.

According to IEA’s report, North America will provide 40 percent of new global oil supplies in 2018, while OPEC supplies will decrease to only 30 percent — a development, as Bloomberg describes, that is sending “shockwaves” throughout the global oil trade.

More from the report:

“Incremental North American supply clearly played a critical role in offsetting record supply disruptions in 2012, and is likewise forecast to help offset decline rates elsewhere through the forecast period.”

“…The forecast of non-OPEC supply growth has been adjusted upwards, with North America now forecast to grow by 3.9 mb/d from 2012 to 2018, accounting for more than half of the increase”.

And as the report emphasized, this isn’t occurring in a vacuum. The development of American shale resources is creating a “chain reaction” in the global transportation, processing and storage industry – actions that may escalate as other countries try to replicate the American oil boom. As Bjarne Schieldrop, chief commodity analyst at SEB AB, describes it, this development is “a godsend solution for a market where emerging market demand is continuing to increase, while supply in the Middle East and North Africa won’t increase that much”.  He may just be right.

That the global balance of power in energy is being shifted toward North America is, without question, a significant development. For decades, the United States has been conditioned to think of energy in terms of scarcity. “We’re running out of oil,” or “we need to import natural gas.” Thanks in large part to shale, we’re suddenly staring at surpluses of oil and natural gas, enough to make us not only more secure, but also able to spur new economic growth through increased domestic usage – and even exports.

Even more impressive: As America’s – indeed, the entire world’s – energy supply story is revolutionized by the development of our vast shale reserves, that development is also helping to accelerate an industrial renaissance in the United States, which we’ve discussed on several occasions.

Increased energy security. A stronger economy with more jobs. A revitalized manufacturing sector. Can there be any legitimate doubt that shale development in the United States has been an enormously positive story?

Bending the Natural Gas Polling Curve Down
A recent story in NPR's State Impact focused on the results of one poorly phrased and misleading question out of several in a poll that ended up showing broad public support for natural gas development. One question suggested citizens of both Michigan and Pennsylvania desired moratoria on hydraulic fracturing, but other survey results contrasted sharply with this conclusion.

kyna (2) TomKyna, EID Midwest Field Director
Tom, EID Marcellus Campaign Manager

 

A recent story in NPR’s State Impact focused on the results of one poorly phrased and misleading question out of several in  a poll that ended up showing broad public support for natural gas development.  One question suggested citizens of both Michigan and Pennsylvania desired moratoria on hydraulic fracturing, but other survey results contrasted sharply with this conclusion.  

When polling results don’t fit the template, some media sources try bending the polling curve to suit their storyline.  When the poll itself is also designed to deliver a particular result, we get headlines like this one from State Impact :

“Poll Shows Support for a Drilling Moratorium in Pennsylvania”

The poll in question was one conducted by the National Surveys on Energy and Environment (NSEE), and was entitled Public Opinion on Fracking: Perspectives from Michigan and Pennsylvania.

State Impact’s headline, unfortunately, reflects the answer to a single (poorly phrased) question among a total of more than two dozen – and an equally poor understanding of how phrasing can alter the results.  (More on that later.)

Nonetheless, given the actual results throughout the poll, a far more accurate headline – and one that actually describes the overarching results – would have been:

“Poll Shows Residents Strongly Support Shale Development”

NSEE doesn’t offer a copy of its survey instrument, so we don’t know exactly what prefaced the questions asked in this phone survey. But we do know that the results were, by anyone’s judgment, extremely favorable toward natural gas development.  Consider this finding among Pennsylvania residents, who were asked whether natural gas development “will provide more benefits or problems”:

Poll1

Pennsylvania residents, by nearly a two to one ratio, said there were more benefits than problems from the natural gas development they had experienced so far.  The results were nearly identical for those Michigan residents surveyed, and this is only the beginning of the good news from the poll.

Astoundingly, some 82 percent of Michigan residents said natural gas development was either somewhat important or very important to the overall condition of their state economy.

Poll2

As for overall public support, the numbers are again revealing. By a nine point margin, more Pennsylvanians support shale gas than oppose it, and a clear majority of Michiganders supports development.

Screen Shot 2013-05-15 at 9.43.01 PM

The poll also confirmed what so many in the media keep claiming to be an “industry position” is, in reality, the position of the general public. Consider, too, this question:

“When it comes to regulating where drilling sites can be located, which level of government do you think should have the primary control, if any? Do you think the federal government, state government, or local government should have primary control for regulating where drilling sites can be located, or should this decision be made solely by private land owners without any government influence?”

The results, depicted below, indicate that in both Michigan and Pennsylvania, state regulation is preferred over either federal control or “home rule” by local government.

Screen Shot 2013-05-15 at 9.45.31 PM

It’s worth repeating: Pennsylvanians and Michiganders both say they prefer state regulation over any other. Only about a quarter of respondents suggesting local regulation is appropriate.  Michigan residents, in fact, preferred no regulation over local control — perhaps a wise decision given the ludicrous nature of some local regulations adopted in New York.

The reason is simple: States are, unquestionably, the best equipped to regulate oil and gas development. They have the most expertise, the longest history in regulating the industry, and they have proven themselves fit at separating fact from fiction when it comes to issues that arise. You can read more about all of this by clicking here.

Another interesting finding from the survey was that some 26 percent of respondents said any tax revenue from natural gas development should first go to reducing local property taxes.  That’s good news, especially when you consider that Pennsylvania’s Act 13 put over $110 million in the hands of local government last year.

Moratorium?

So, if the survey shows all this support for natural gas development and not so much opposition, how is it that State Impact put out that headline suggesting everyone was ready to halt development and impose a moratorium?  Well, as with any poll, it’s all in the way the questions are phrased.  Here is the question regarding a moratorium:

“Some states have imposed a ‘moratorium’ on hydraulic fracturing until there is a fuller understanding of the possible risks. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that Michigan/Pennsylvania should establish a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, or not?”

The wording of the question plants the false idea that there are risks that are not fully understood.  Given six decades of experience and over one million wells hydraulically fractured, this is a little like warning an accountant of the “risks” of working with pencils. It also violates a best practice of survey methodology; namely, avoiding “loaded, leading, emotional, or evocative language as it can bias responses.”

The poll includes no mention of how many times hydraulic fracturing has been used, and certainly no discussion of what a moratorium would actually do. Do the respondents realize that shale development, which they strongly support, could be entirely undermined by imposing a moratorium? Were they informed about how investment decisions in oil and gas are complex, and cannot – indeed will not – be made amidst constant whims and vacillations of lawmakers? Was it explained to the respondents that a “temporary pause” on drilling would destroy jobs and drive out investment?

It appears the ones in charge of formulating these questions believe shale development can be turned on and off like a light switch. One has to wonder if they think electricity is produced in the same manner.

Incredibly, the pollster, Barry Rabe, had this to say about the moratorium question:

“A moratorium is not a ban… A moratorium is taking some time out and taking some time to develop a policy and process as opposed to completely prohibiting. So if there is a mixture of possible benefits and risks, support for a moratorium might be viewed as a way to view all those risks and minimize them before going forward.”

Promoting the thought that a moratorium is anything but a prohibition is as intellectually dishonest as it gets.  A moratorium would be an industry shutdown, period. The industry must continually develop wells to meet production commitments, as well as to adhere to contracts with property owners. Halting production and blocking the development of new wells, even for a short period, means that the very shale development that the respondents overwhelmingly support would actually be completely hamstrung.

Nonetheless, the poll still shows significant support for natural gas development and hydraulic fracturing. Despite years of fear mongering and promoting false talking points in the media, people realize that shale development is spurring enormous economic activity, and they understand the benefits far exceed risks. The fact that “support” for a moratorium required a misleading question intended to pull respondents in one direction is also indicative in its own right, though we wish those who reported on the poll would have given their readers the full story.

Debunking Gasland, Part II
Three years after the release of Gasland – a film panned by independent observers as “fundamentally dishonest” and a “polemic” – the main challenge for director Josh Fox in releasing Gasland Part II was manifest: Regain the public’s trust by discarding hyperbole and laying out the challenges and opportunities of shale development as they actually exist in the actual world. In short, do everything he did not do in Gasland. Unfortunately, Josh eschewed that path entirely with Gasland Part II, doubling down on the same old, tired talking points, and playing to his narrow base at the exclusion of all others.

steve_everleySteve
Team Lead

 

Three years after the release of Gasland – a film panned by independent observers as “fundamentally dishonest” and a “polemic” – the main challenge for director Josh Fox in releasing Gasland Part II was manifest: Regain the public’s trust by discarding hyperbole and laying out the challenges and opportunities of shale development as they actually exist in the actual world. In short, do everything a documentary filmmaker should do, but which he chose not to do in Gasland.

Unfortunately for those who attended the premiere of Gasland Part II this past weekend (we were there), Josh eschewed that path entirely, doubling down on the same old, tired talking points, and playing to his narrow base at the exclusion of all others. The Parker County case? It’s in there. Dimock? Probably receives more focus than anything else. Pavillion and EPA? You bet. And yes, that damned banjo of his makes an appearance or two as well.

This isn’t Gasland Part II, folks. It’s Gasland Too.

Sure, the sequel has some new cast members and a few new claims. Somehow, Fox discovers that shale is actually worse than he previously thought: Earthquakes. Methane leaks. Well failures. Hurricanes. Heck, viewers were probably waiting for swarms of locusts to appear – fracking locusts, to be sure.

And there was plenty of spectacle, too. Yoko Ono was in the audience. So was former Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), the congressman who lent his name to the infamous “FRAC Act” that Josh so desperately wants to become law. After the movie, they joined him on stage, along with the Lipskys, John Fenton, Calvin Tillman, and the rest of the “cast.”

But the emotion-filled remarks afterwards – including a plea to push for Mark Jacobson’s “100% renewables” plan as the way to stop natural gas development – were also the perfect bookend to a movement that was always based on sensationalism over substance (Jacobson’s plan is, quite simply, pure fairy tale). The call to action was more of a cry of desperation (“Please, keep us relevant!”) by a filmmaker, and indeed an entire ideology, whose time has come and gone. As an early review of the film puts it, Gasland Part II “runs longer than the earlier installment, but ultimately it has less to say.”

So, beyond the bigger picture about the waning credibility of the anti-fracking movement, what was in Gasland Part II? Where did Fox travel, and with whom did he speak? Given that issues relating to Dimock have been explained ad nauseum over the past several years, we won’t go into detail explaining why opponents’ claims about that town are untrue. If you want the real story about Dimock, please go here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Similarly, the Lipsky case in Parker County, Tex., has been in the news for years, and most of it deals with fraud on the part of local activists, who strategized for months on how to deceive the public and get the EPA involved. The EPA dropped its case, too – not because of election year politics or industry pressure (as Fox alleges), but because real scientific evidence disproved any link between natural gas development and the methane in the Lipsky water well. In fact, most of what Fox tried to spin out of the case paralleled what several media outlets previously tried to manufacture as a story line, and each one has been completely debunked. It’s unclear why Fox would rest his laurels so heavily on a case that the public has moved past, but when you’re desperate to remain relevant, you often have to grasp at straws.

However, let’s look at some of the case studies and subjects that appeared in the film, and a full discussion about why reality, once again, tells a completely different story.

—

John Fenton (Pavillion, Wyo.)

Summary: Mr. Fenton was also featured in Gasland, providing clarity from the beginning that Gasland Part II is little more than a retread of the same themes explored in the first movie. Fenton has said: “When we turn on the tap, the water reeks of hydrocarbons and chemicals,” which he blames on nearby hydraulic fracturing. The town of Pavillion itself has become a flashpoint in the debate over shale development in the United States, premised chiefly on an unreviewed, draft EPA report from December 2011 that theorized a link between hydraulic fracturing and test results from two deep monitoring wells the agency drilled. In Gasland Part II, the EPA report is presented as proof that hydraulic fracturing causes water contamination, and Fenton (along with a curse word-laden scene with Louis Meeks) is the vehicle through which Fox presents it.

The Facts: Since at least the 1960s, the U.S. Geological Survey has documented poor water quality in the Wind River Formation, over which Pavillion sits. The reasons vary from naturally-occurring compounds to pesticide and agriculture runoff. Here are a few examples:

Fenton is described in the movie as a person fighting back against the oil and gas industry, a cause he asked the viewers at the premiere to take up themselves. According to Bloomberg News, Fenton receives about $2,000 per year for each of the 24 gas wells on his property – a fact that neither Josh nor Fenton gave nary a mention.

Meanwhile, EPA’s report on water quality in Pavillion has been exposed as flawed by Wyoming state regulators, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Geological Survey. Don Simpson, a high ranking official for BLM, pointed to the possibility of “bias in the samples” from EPA’s research. In fact, Simpson says that EPA’s findings

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

Due to concerns over the EPA’s methods, the agency agreed to retest the wells, and the U.S. Geological Survey was brought in to do its own sampling. When the USGS completed its tests, the EPA prematurely declared that USGS’s findings were “generally consistent” with its own. The only problem? More than 50 of the EPA’s measurements were discredited by the findings of the USGS. In fact, the USGS effectively disqualified one of the EPA’s two monitoring wells due to low flow rates and poor construction.

These mistakes are critically important, because they show the EPA may have contaminated the very water the agency was trying to sample. For example, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality observed mineral accumulation within one of EPA’s monitoring wells, which “indicates the well casing was not constructed of stainless steel as originally reported by EPA. This has been confirmed by EPA.” Using the wrong material for well casing can introduce new compounds into groundwater, which will then register in the samples taken from that well.

A Wyoming DEQ geologist added:

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

Indeed, photos and video from the Wyoming DEQ actually show some of the mineral accumulation and drilling materials found inside the monitoring well, which contributed to the refusal by USGS to take water quality samples from it.

Then there’s the issue of the depth of the EPA’s monitoring wells themselves. Pavillion’s drinking water wells are typically less than 300 feet deep, because state officials have known for decades that drilling deeper could result in striking one of the area’s shallow hydrocarbon deposits. But EPA officials drilled two monitoring wells to almost 1,000 feet. That’s important for at least two reasons.

First, EPA’s theory absolutely hinges upon on the detection of hydrocarbons in those monitoring wells — but you would expect to find hydrocarbons in a monitoring well that was drilled below the aquifer and into a hydrocarbon reservoir. Second, the test results from the area’s shallow drinking water wells simply don’t match what the EPA says it found in the deep monitoring wells. That means the EPA’s test results from the deep monitoring wells, however flawed, don’t have any connection to the shallow wells that actually provide people with drinking water.

Unsurprisingly, when the draft Pavillion report became public in late 2011, then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said: “We have absolutely no indication right now that drinking water is at risk.” And several months later, Jackson told reporters, “In no case have we made a definitive determination that the fracking process has caused chemicals to enter groundwater.”

Furthermore, in response to the criticism of its methods, the EPA announced in January 2013 yet another delay in starting the peer-review process for the draft Pavillion report. The announcement of the eight-month postponement also noted: “This draft research report is not final … and should not be construed to represent Agency policy or views.”

Read More:

—

The Parr Family (Wise County, Tex.)

Summary: Bob Parr moved into his home in Wise County, Tex., in 2001. In 2008, Bob and Lisa Parr were married, after which Lisa and her daughter moved into Bob’s house. Shortly thereafter, the Parrs claimed to experience health impacts, including nosebleeds, nausea, headaches, and breathing difficulties. In Gasland Part II, several photos of the Parrs are shown for dramatic effect, including their daughter’s nosebleed and Lisa’s skin welts. The Parrs filed complaints with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) in 2010, which investigated and took air samples in the area. The Parrs, meanwhile, relocated to live in Bob’s office in Denton. The Parrs also filed a lawsuit against local operators, seeking punitive damages for environmental and health impacts.

The Facts: Since at least 2010, the Parrs have been working closely with Earthworks, an environmental organization known for its intense and ideologically-driven opposition to oil and gas development. Unsurprisingly, Earthworks has an entire page devoted to publicizing the Parrs’ story, and Lisa Parr was even a featured speaker at an Earthworks event. Sharon Wilson, a north Texas organizer for Earthworks (who also played a role in “educating” former EPA regional administrator Al Armendariz), flew to the U.S. EPA’s North Carolina office to present the Parrs’ story as one of four “case studies of health impacts caused by natural gas extraction in the Barnett Shale.” Wilson also paid a visit to the Parrs’ hometown (and blogged about the same company that the Parrs would later complain about) around the time the Parrs notified TCEQ of their problems.

Earthworks links to air sampling from TCEQ to support the Parrs’ case, which was completed in July 2010 (the group also referenced that test in a report submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy during a public hearing). Earthworks claims an outside environmental specialist’s tests “detected chemicals in [Lisa’s] blood and lungs that match the results of TCEQ’s air sampling.” For some reason, the Parrs’ own lawyer declined to identify the specialist who conducted the blood tests, although Earthworks identified him as William Rae from Dallas.

Of course, Earthworks did not include the full TCEQ sampling report in its write-up of the case study — just the table of measurements. Earthworks also omits any mention that TCEQ completed followup tests a few months later. It was a critical omission, because in the July 2010 results, TCEQ states the following:

“Preliminary review of the available literature indicates that short-term adverse health effects such as respiratory irritation and central nervous system depression related to these chemicals usually occur at concentrations greater than those reported. However, based on the observed adverse health effects experienced by the citizen and the regional investigator, the Toxicology Division (TD) strongly advises emission reduction from this facility.”

TCEQ went on to mention that it ordered the company “to reduce emissions” and requested a “follow-up sampling event to monitor ambient air near this facility.” Two months later, Earthworks claimed the exact opposite, alleging that TCEQ’s response was limited only to “laughably small fines” and no requirements to compensate the Parrs. A few days after Earthworks’ baseless critique, TCEQ released its followup sampling. From that TCEQ report:

“Reported concentrations of target volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were either not detected or were detected below levels of short-term health and/or welfare concern.”

To recap: A citizen complaint to TCEQ resulted in an investigation of local activity, and regulators ordered the company to reduce emissions. Two months later, all measurements were below any threshold that would trigger public health impacts.

Of course, Earthworks also cites TCEQ testing done on behalf of the Ruggiero family (who live near the Parrs) as evidence of high VOCs and other emissions in the area. More specifically, Earthworks references a January 20, 2010 test; one from February 5, 2010; and a test from March 16, 2010. Once again, Earthworks decided only to post the raw sampling data — not TCEQ’s conclusions and interpretations, which tell a completely different story.

In the January and February tests, TCEQ detected certain compounds, but added this statement (which Earthworks failed to mention):

“None of the reported concentrations would be expected to cause adverse health effects.”

For the March test, TCEQ came to an even more benign conclusion:

“Reported concentrations of target volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were either not detected or were detected below levels of short-term health and/or welfare concern.”

TCEQ also mentioned in all three tests that benzene concentrations were below health thresholds.

Read More:

—

Calvin Tillman (DISH, Tex.)

Summary: Mr. Tillman, a former mayor of DISH, Texas, played a prominent role in Gasland, and regularly tours the country to recite talking points about the supposed dangers of shale. Tillman claims that natural gas development in his community created a range of health problems for local residents, and that those impacts will affect residents in other parts of the country where development is or will be occurring. Tillman decided to get active on the issue after a series of natural gas compressor stations were built near DISH, and he most frequently cites benzene concentrations as the key problem. In Gasland Part II, Tillman’s story was retold as if it were new, and he is shown driving around his (former) community, pointing out houses of residents who are suing the natural gas industry.

The Facts: The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) – which is responsible for regulating air emissions in the state – evaluated Tillman’s claims, specifically a report from Wolf Eagle Environmental that supposedly found harmful levels of benzene concentrations in DISH. As mayor of DISH, Tillman had contracted Wolf Eagle to conduct that test.

TCEQ’s investigation, however, found that the “highest potential 1-hour maximum benzene concentration is below the health effects level,” although the agency did stress the need for additional research. The problem was that the Wolf Eagle team measured benzene over an incredibly short period of time, which led TCEQ to conclude that it “was not possible to determine if residents were exposed” to the concentrations that Tillman had claimed.

In other words, Tillman’s consultants took a snapshot measurement and suggested it was what residents were being exposed to over a long period of time. That’s just not how credible scientific air sampling and analysis works.

It’s worth noting, too, that Wolf Eagle Environmental used to go by the name Wolf Eagle Environmental Engineers and Consultants, but later shortened its name after it was revealed that the company did not actually employ a single licensed professional engineer on staff. Wolf Eagle Environmental is also the firm that, through its employee Alisa Rich, helped devise a “strategy” with Parker County, Texas activists to get the EPA involved in a now-infamous water contamination case in 2010 – a strategy that involved creating a deceptive video to make regulators think a landowner’s water was on fire, which they blamed on nearby shale development.

In addition to the TCEQ’s findings, the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) later collected blood and urine samples from residents in and around the town of DISH to assess whether Tillman’s claims were accurate. DSHS concluded:

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

DSHS added that the sources of exposure were likely tobacco (those who registered elevated levels of benzene were smokers), public drinking water systems, which include disinfectant byproducts, and even household products like cleaners and lubricants. Although there were limitations to DSHS’s review (VOCs are only present in blood for a short period of time), the agency nonetheless stated that its findings “did not indicate that community-wide exposures from gas wells or compressor stations were occurring in the sample population.”

In early 2013, Tillman’s organization – ShaleTest – claimed to have found high levels of benzene in DISH once again, and cited a TCEQ report that found elevated benzene levels in Fort Worth. TCEQ, however, explained that neither reading crossed the threshold for health impacts. Tillman was once again guilty of using short-term readings to suggest a long-term exposure problem, a decision that TCEQ said was “not scientifically appropriate.”

Read More:

—

Deborah Rogers (Fort Worth, Tex.)

Summary: Ms. Rogers resides in Fort Worth, Tex., and she previously managed investments for Prudential Bache, Merrill Lynch and Smith Barney. She currently owns a business of her own (Deborah’s Farmstead). This combined experience led to a three-year appointment to the Small Business and Agricultural Advisory Council of the Federal Reserve Bank’s Eleventh District in Dallas. This experience also got her into Gasland Part II, where she discusses the industry’s plan to export natural gas.

The Facts: Gasland Part II suggests exporting a portion of America’s abundant natural gas supplies is a conspiracy: get consumers “hooked” on natural gas with rhetoric about “energy independence,” then raise prices (by selling to markets where natural gas is more expensive) to boost profits – all at the expense of hardworking Americans. But like most conspiracies, this one requires a willful suspension of disbelief, and a substantial one at that.

First of all, despite the eerie and dark tone of the film in discussing “industry’s plan” to sell natural gas to our trading partners, proposed export facilities are actually in the public domain. They’re right on the Energy Department’s website, for anyone to see. The entire export debate has taken place in the public sphere, too – largely because U.S. law requires that government approval or denial be based on the public interest. Furthermore, the Department of Energy recently held a public comment period on the exports issue, which generated over 180,000 responses. If folks were trying to keep this behind closed doors, it’s quite possibly the most poorly executed conspiracy in history.

Second, and more importantly, the “rising prices” angle is just not credible. Fox references a report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and says in the film that prices could rise “by more than 50 percent.” Of course, that was just one of many scenarios considered, and was the least likely of all of them. It assumes, for example, an export scenario that rapidly materializes (which isn’t going to happen) and a resource base dramatically less than what the United States knows it has. In fact, the Potential Gas Committee’s latest report on technically recoverable natural gas in the United States showed the highest estimate in the organization’s 48-year history. The numbers were, predictably, driven chiefly by shale gas. The EIA assessment that Fox quoted, meanwhile, was based on old data, which EIA has even updated to show even more supply and production coming online in the coming years.

That’s why analyses from Brookings and Deloitte, as well as a landmark report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy, all found that the benefits of exports would outweigh the costs, and that any price impacts would be modest. The DOE report concluded specifically that exports would deliver “net economic benefits” under all scenarios modeled. A recent study by the Bipartisan Policy Center also found a compelling case for exports, driven largely by projected price impacts that were minimal.

As it turns out, allowing companies in the United States to access markets overseas actually helps the U.S. economy. For most, that’s basic economics. In Gasland Part II, it’s the Illuminati and the Freemasons working together.

So, the conspiracy behind the conspiracy – the man behind the curtain behind the man behind the first curtain: companies in the United States want to sell products to other countries. For the sequel to Gasland, could there possibly be a more pathetically fitting conclusion?

Read More:

—

Methane ‘Leaks’ and Climate Change

Summary: Critics of natural gas development, armed primarily with research from activist professors at Cornell University, have suggested that natural gas developed from shale – due to alleged methane “leaks” – actually increases net greenhouse gas emissions. According to this theory, high leakage rates throughout the production, mid-stream distribution, and delivery systems negate the lower CO2 profile of natural gas. Cornell professor Robert Howarth is the “star witness” for this claim in Gasland Part II, going so far as to claim that shale gas is actually the “worst” form of energy in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, due to high methane leakage rates.

The Facts: The basis for virtually all claims about methane “leaks” through the development of natural gas from shale comes from a paper written in 2011 by Cornell professors Robert Howarth and Anthony Ingraffea (both of whom appear in Gasland Part II, the latter of whom is also presented as an “expert” in well casing). Within months of its release, the paper had been debunked by experts at the U.S. Department of Energy and within the academic community. This includes a paper from researchers at Carnegie Mellon University, which was commissioned by none other than the Sierra Club, an entity that opposes natural gas development. Subsequent reports by experts at MIT – including a lead author of the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC – and the Dept. of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory demonstrated that life cycle GHG emissions of natural gas developed from shale are not significantly different from those produced by so-called “conventional” natural gas development, contrary to the Howarth thesis.

Here are just a few of the statements from the expert community responding to the Howarth/Ingraffea research:

If all that weren’t devastating enough to the Howarth/Ingraffea paper, data released by the U.S. EPA in April 2013 (more specifically, the week before the premiere of Gasland Part II) confirm that methane emissions from natural gas systems actually declined as gas production rapidly expanded. Howarth and Ingraffea used methane emission data from EPA to arrive at their estimates, drawing from data that were published in 2011. But in its latest Greenhouse Gas Inventory, EPA actually revised downward its methane emissions estimates from natural gas systems. The revision was based on better data and the recognition that certain emissions-reducing technologies are far more widely used than previously thought.

As such, the basis for the “shale is worse than coal” talking point has not only been debunked by experts across the board, but it’s also premised entirely on inflated and outdated information.

The reality is that natural gas is providing net benefits in terms of greenhouse gas reductions. The United States did not sign the Kyoto Protocol, nor did it approve a government sanctioned cap-and-trade program. And yet it is the United States that is currently leading all developed nations in reducing CO2 emissions on an annual percentage basis.

The reason? There are actually several – but one of the biggest is that the U.S. power sector is using more natural gas, an increasing share of which is being developed from shale. According to IEA:

“US emissions have now fallen by 430 Mt (7.7%) since 2006, the largest reduction of all countries or regions. This development has arisen from lower oil use in the transport sector … and a substantial shift from coal to gas in the power sector.”

The U.S. Energy Information Administration agrees with IEA’s assessment. As EIA noted in April:

“U.S. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions resulting from energy use during the first quarter of 2012 were the lowest in two decades for any January-March period. Normally, CO2 emissions during the year are highest in the first quarter because of strong demand for heat produced by fossil fuels. However, CO2 emissions during January-March 2012 were low due to a combination of three factors…[including] a decline in coal-fired electricity generation, due largely to historically low natural gas prices.”

EIA also observed that total CO2 emissions from energy consumption were at their lowest level since 1992.

For this reason, some of our country’s leading officials, regulators, and academics have contested the assertion that the utilization of natural gas in power generation doesn’t provide net environmental benefits. For example:

Contrary to what opponents have claimed, the facts clearly show that increased utilization of natural gas – regardless of how it is developed – is helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Read More:

—

Hydraulic Fracturing and Earthquakes

Summary: Josh Fox (and a host of other anti-energy activists) recently leaped into a new area of criticism of hydraulic fracturing, claiming that it causes earthquakes. Predictably, Gasland Part II brings up the seismicity issue, chiefly in the context of California and the numerous known faults in the state. Fox previously adopted this talking point after seismic events that occurred in Youngstown, Ohio, in early 2012. In one interview, Fox declared “there is a clear link between earthquakes and fracking,” adding that the use of the technology in the Baldwin Hills (Calif.) oil field could “trigger a 7.4 earthquake,” a claim repeated in Gasland Part II to suggest nothing short of the apocalypse for southern California. Seismic events tied to injection wells, which were receiving wastewater from oil and gas development, have even given the media a license to link earthquakes to fracking.

The Facts: According to Bill Ellsworth, a geophysicist with the U.S. Geological Survey who authored a landmark report on seismicity and oil and gas development in 2012, the “clear link” that Fox alleges does not exist. “We find no evidence,” Ellsworth said, “that fracking is related to the occurrence of earthquakes that people are feeling.” Ellsworth later stated: “We don’t see any connection between fracking and earthquakes of any concern to society.”

The National Research Council has confirmed the USGS findings: “The process of hydraulic fracturing a well as presently implemented for shale gas recovery does not pose a high risk for inducing felt seismic events.” NRC added that “only a very small fraction of injection and extraction activities among the hundreds of thousands of energy development sites in the United States have induced seismicity at levels noticeable to the public.”

The reason for this is simple: the amount of energy needed to complete the hydraulic fracturing process is miniscule compared to what’s recorded during actual seismic events that can be felt by people.  So small, in fact, that Stanford University geophysicist Mark Zoback (himself a member of the Dept. of Energy’s shale gas advisory team) told the U.S. Senate that the seismic energy released by the hydraulic fracturing process is “about the same amount of energy as a gallon of milk falling off a kitchen counter.”

Instead, what much of the press has failed to report accurately is that the stories of “fracking-related earthquakes” are actually seismic events resulting from wastewater disposal into injection wells. The U.S. EPA is in charge of regulating these wells (those used for oil and gas are designed as “Class II”), and often grants states “primacy” for enforcement – the well-established system in federal environmental laws since they were passed in the 1970s, which reflects the crucial role of states in regulating industry activity. EPA considers injection wells to be a “safe and inexpensive option” for disposing of wastewater, be it from oil and gas development or manufacturing or any other process.

Moreover, the link between injection wells and seismicity is actually well-understood and has been acknowledged by federal officials for decades, according to the U.S. Department of the Interior. For example, a series of small earthquakes around Denver, Colo., in the 1960s were traced back to wastewater disposal from a nearby chemical plant.

The risk of such seismic events, however, is incredible low, and in fact can be easily managed by making simple changes (i.e. reducing flow rates). As proof, there are more than 150,000 Class II wells in the United States. Only about 40,000 of them are used specifically for wastewater disposal (others are used for things like enhanced oil recovery), and only a handful of those 40,000 have been linked to seismic events of any significance.

Not surprisingly, the media has often failed to contextualize these facts, opting instead to use the search engine bait of “fracking” in the headlines. When he released a major study on induced seismicity in 2012, Ellsworth (of USGS) actually criticized the media’s role in misrepresenting his work and suggesting he linked fracking to earthquakes. “I was greatly surprised,” Ellsworth told E&E News, “to see how words were being used in the press in ways that were inappropriate.” Ellsworth added: “The public has legitimate concerns for which it needs good information.”

While academic and government experts alike note that seismicity is not a major concern associated with hydraulic fracturing, that’s not the case with every energy source.  In fact, some of the very sources Josh Fox wants to implement on a wider scale have a much larger risk of causing seismic events. In 2011, Fox noted, “we’re for renewable energy …You know, I was just in Iceland, and there, it’s almost all geothermal and hydroelectric power.”

What Fox either doesn’t know, or conveniently omits, is that hydraulic fracturing is used in conjunction with geothermal power. For precisely that reason, France is now dealing with the repercussions of promoting geothermal while maintaining a ban on hydraulic fracturing.

And, whereas credible scientists have stated that hydraulic fracturing a well for natural gas recovery does not pose a major risk of creating seismic events, the same cannot be said for geothermal power. Researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory noted that the nation’s largest geothermal facility – The Geysers just north of San Francisco – was responsible for creating 30,000 seismic events in a span of less than three years – more than 300 of which were above magnitude 2, and six of which were magnitude 4.

The National Research Council also observed that The Geysers “has the most historically continuous and well documented record of seismic activity associated with any energy technology development in the world.”

We look forward to Josh’s next movie: the perils of the same geothermal power that he wants to expand.

Read More:

—

Well Failures and Casing Leaks

Summary: Opponents of shale development often cite a statistic that 60 percent of all shale wells will fail, which will result in polluted underground aquifers and damage to the environment. The claim originates from Cornell professor (and anti-natural gas activist) Anthony Ingraffea, who claims to have “industry documents” as his source. Ingraffea’s appearance in Gasland Part II was thus a foregone conclusion, and Fox spent nearly as much time running through Ingraffea’s CV as he gave to Ingraffea to repeat that talking point.

Riding on Ingraffea’s coattails, Josh Fox also cited the statistic in an op-ed last summer, as did Yoko Ono in a recent letter to the New York Times. Fox even made the talking point a key part of his short film “The Sky Is Pink,” released last summer. The actual source is a decade-old article that examined 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. The graph appears in Gasland Part II, as well.

The Facts: The problem for Ingraffea – who fashions himself an objective scientist – is that the statistic he’s waving around has absolutely nothing to do with shale development. How do we know that? The caption under the graph from which Ingraffea pulled the statistic (and which the camera in Gasland Part II does not provide viewers enough time to read) actually states the following:

“Wells with SCP by age. Statistics from the United States Mineral Management Service (MMS) show the percentage of wells with SCP for wells in the outer continental shelf (OCS) area of the Gulf of Mexico, grouped by age of the wells. These data do not include wells in state waters or land locations.” (p. 63)

Read through that again. Notice that it is referring to activity in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Notice as well that it explicitly excludes any sort of data from onshore development. Shale wells in the United States are drilled onshore, not thousands of feet deep in the Gulf of Mexico – a fact that Ingraffea, Fox, Yoko, and all the other activists apparently hope the public never discovers.

This would be like preaching about the dangers of convertible automobiles based on statistics relating only to the performance of heavy-duty trucks. It reflects a fundamental ignorance of the very industry that these activists so desperately want to malign. It’s also hilarious that Ingraffea makes this claim in Gasland Part II immediately after Fox spends several minutes describing how the professor is the world’s most renowned expert on well casing and cementing. If that were the case, wouldn’t he be able to recognize something as basic as the difference between an onshore and offshore well?

As for sustained casing pressure (SCP), it’s actually a term that refers to the buildup of pressure between casing strings in a well. It does not necessarily refer to a leaking well, or even to a well that soon will be leaking. There are a variety of technologies and processes that can address SCP if it appears, too. Ironically, SCP reduction is the whole point of the document that Ingraffea believes is some sort of smoking gun. If you read the article in its entirety, it actually highlights what’s available to the industry to prevent, minimize and even fix SCP.

Once again, Fox and his disciples have demonstrated they do not understand the basic processes they’re trying to explain; and yet, they claim we should trust them anyway.

Let’s take a closer look at the onshore well “failure” issue, though, and this time with data that are actually relevant. An August 2011 report from the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) actually examined data that is relevant to shale development. GWPC reviewed more than 34,000 onshore wells drilled and completed in 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, long before the current technology and updated state regulations that came online over the past decade.

The report also looked at more than 187,000 wells drilled and completed in Texas. The incident rate there: 0.01 percent.

So, far from shale wells suffering from a failure rate of 60 percent, data from hundreds of thousands of wells show that casing failures occur at a rate of no more than three one-hundredths of one percent. Of course, failure rates – however low they may be already – can always be made lower still. But can we at least agree that folks who rely on the “leaky shale wells” talking point should at least have a grasp of the basic facts – like, for instance, which data do and do not refer to shale wells?

Read More:

—

Lobbying and ‘Polluting Our Democracy’

Summary: The first Gasland wanted the public to believe that hydraulic fracturing was polluting drinking water. Gasland Part II suggests that the companies developing oil and natural gas from shale are also polluting our democracy through targeted lobbying and backdoor meetings with regulators. For that reason, supposedly “proven” cases of water pollution in Dimock, Pa., and Parker County, Tex., were swept under the rug by EPA, and President Obama vocally supported shale gas as merely a clever political move in an election year.

The Facts: Indeed, President Obama now touts the environmental and economic benefits of natural gas, something that Fox references as if to say “even he has turned against us!” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – which Fox had hoped would be the vehicle to shut down shale gas development – now openly says natural gas is a part of America’s “clean energy future.” A study commissioned by the Sierra Club found considerable environmental benefits from natural gas developed from shale, as compared to other energy options. Shale development has also expanded considerably since the release of Gasland.

Gasland Part II makes the audience believe that those facts are all essentially a conspiracy (notice a trend, here?), a series of back room deals and coordinated industry pressure that forced our regulators and elected leaders to abandon their responsibilities. Politics trumps science, Fox might say.

It’s a bold position to take, especially for a guy who claims membership in a group that stands accused of avoiding lobbying laws.

It’s also a fact that, even though some of the big organizations that oppose hydraulic fracturing do not include lobbying as explicit portions of their budgets, the line between explicit lobbying and what is, in effect, lobbying by another name is quite hazy.

Anti-fracking groups bring state lawmakers on “tours” of Pennsylvania to explain to them how supposedly dangerous shale development is. For a single statewide race, the League of Conservation Voters funneled $50,000 to its candidate of choice. We all know how those opposed to energy development use multiple conduits to fund their objectives, and also toss around lots of cash during campaign season. The head of the Sierra Club has even joined a broader “Democracy Initiative” in alliance with left-leaning groups to influence the public debate about a range of issues, many of which have nothing to do with the environment.

At its core, though, the “democracy denied” allegation in Gasland Part II is supported by little to no actual evidence. He interviews members of Congress who have vocally opposed oil and gas development (former Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Sen. Ben Cardin, Rep. Lois Capps, etc.), and correlates an election year to EPA’s “reversal” of decisions about water contamination in Texas and Pennsylvania. Since the evidence just isn’t there, though, Fox simply asserts it as truth. Because corporations, or something.

The real reason that shale development has expanded is not because of some nefarious plot on the part of industry leaders wearing black robes. Rather, it’s because people across the United States have recognized that there are massive environmental and economic benefits to be reaped: substantially lower air emissions, reduced reliance on imported energy, hundreds of thousands of new jobs, and a revitalization of American manufacturing. Both political parties are pushing for increased responsible natural gas production, and it’s because of the facts, not because they’ve been “captured” by Corporate America. Even Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) – certainly no shill for the oil and gas industry – has pushed back against groups who oppose domestic natural gas development. “I think environmentalists should want natural gas on the table as an option,” Markey said.

The emblematic example of Fox’s determination to see a conspiracy was his discussion of Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett’s election in 2010. Gasland Part II explains that Corbett ran on a pro-shale platform, mentions that Corbett was elected, and then continues to suggest there’s a broader back room plan that’s subverting democracy. Left unanswered: If Corbett, a Republican, ran explicitly on a pro-shale platform as Fox alleged, then wouldn’t voters take that into account? It’s not as if Pennsylvania is a bastion of right-wing Republicanism, either; the state hasn’t gone for a GOP presidential candidate in more than two decades.

What Fox sees as democracy denied is actually an example of democracy confirmed – it’s just that Fox didn’t like the results.

Read More:

Four Things to Know about the Harvard FracFocus Study
A new study from researchers at Harvard University alleges that FracFocus “fails as a regulatory compliance tool.” Those of us who are actually familiar with the issues involved in fluid disclosure know that’s not true, but it seems the media saw a narrative too enticing to question: another alleged “failure” regarding hydraulic fracturing. Had reporters done a little research, the story would have been dramatically different.

johnkrohnJD
Communications Director

 

A new study from researchers at Harvard University alleges that FracFocus “fails as a regulatory compliance tool.” Those of us who are actually familiar with the issues involved in fluid disclosure know that’s not true, but it seems the media saw a narrative too enticing to question: another alleged “failure” regarding hydraulic fracturing. Here are a few examples:

Ouch, right?

The problem is, most of these stories were essentially press releases describing publication of the study. Had the reporters done a little bit of investigation and research – like, say, what they do every damn time a study is released that finds hydraulic fracturing to be safe – their reports may have been much different. At the very least, the general public would have actually been able to weigh the claims in the study against the broader context in which it was released.

Here are four items that, for some reason, went underreported or completely unreported.

Item 1: What’s the lead author’s background?

Think back to every study that had funding or assistance from industry. Can you think of any that were reported on without that affiliation mentioned?

Now, because we’re interested in the full story, let’s look the CV of the lead author of the Harvard study, Kate Konschnik, which took a grand total of three seconds to pull up via a Google search:

“Konschnik currently serves as staff director for Sen. Whitehouse’s Oversight Subcommittee on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. For the last three years, she has worked with Sen. Whitehouse’s office on a number of nationally significant environmental policy issues, including negotiations around Senate climate bill provisions (carbon offsets, carbon capture and sequestration, and adaptation funding), defense of EPA Clean Air Act rulemaking, and oversight of the 2010 Gulf oil spill.”

Yep, that’s the same Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) who was a co-sponsor of the FRAC Act, the legislation that would put EPA in control of regulating hydraulic fracturing, including the disclosure of additives. Gee, why would someone like that oppose a fully functional tool like FracFocus, which makes EPA regulation completely unnecessary?

And yes, it’s also the same Sen. Whitehouse who has authored a carbon tax and endorsed the activities of Bill McKibben, a well-known anti-fracking activist.

Whitehouse’s name appears in zero of the above mentioned stories.

Let’s continue:

“She was also awarded an International Environmental Law Fellowship at Earthjustice, to work on sea turtle protection and the application of international law to prevent oil spills in ecologically sensitive areas of the world.”

Yes, you read that right. In addition to working for an anti-fossil fuel U.S. Senator, Ms. Konschnik completed a fellowship with Earthjustice, one of the most well-known “green” groups in the country. Here’s how Earthjustice describes hydraulic fracturing:

“Fracking is a dangerous way of getting oil and gas and a shortsighted energy strategy.”

Ms. Konschnik was also a former member of the Montgomery County (Md.) Sierra Club’s executive committee, and we all know what the Sierra Club thinks about hydraulic fracturing.

To be clear, Ms. Konschnik has every right to affiliate with whatever environmental group she wishes. But why were neither of those affiliations — of the study’s lead author, mind you — given even a single mention in any of the stories about the report?

Item 2: Researchers never even spoke with operators of FracFocus.

In the Harvard study, the authors make this claim:

“And of all the states relying on FracFocus, only Texas receives copies of the form.”

The Associated Press took that claim and ran with it:

“But the fact that reports are provided only to FracFocus, and not to state agencies, is another concern of the Harvard report. The authors said the reliance on a third-party database makes the information exempt from public information laws and could cause problems should the site ever go offline.”

Now, you would think a credible, academic attempt to understand a disclosure database would involve, at the very least, talking to the people who operate it. But apparently, at one of America’s most respected institutions, picking up a phone or sending a few emails was just too difficult:

“In an April 23 statement responding to ‘Legal Fractures,’ officials from the Groundwater Protection Council (GWPC), one agency involved in creating FracFocus, indicated they do notify states when companies file.  According to EnergyWire, in a story that ran April 24, 2013, “[i]t is then up to state officials to determine if the disclosures were filed in time and whether companies are following the rules governing trade secrets, the GWPC statement said.”  We will reach out to the GWPC to learn more about the process they outlined in their statement.” (emphasis added)

Indeed, as GWPC President Stan Belieu told Shale Daily:

“I am not aware of any state regulatory program that has been contacted by Harvard University to make inquiry of its capabilities. I do not understand how, without direct contact, this study can draw the conclusions it has.”

So, let’s get this straight: Before making a very serious accusation that there is zero notification to states when companies file their reports, the researchers at Harvard University didn’t see fit to call up the folks who actually created FracFocus and ask them? Even worse, they didn’t even bother to call many (if any) of the states and inquire about the process itself?

Once again, this fact appears in zero of the above-mentioned stories – even though the authors themselves now feel it necessary to admit their egregious mistake publicly (to their credit, by the way).

Item 3: New version of FracFocus going live in June.

If researchers are truly interested in playing a constructive role in the debate over disclosure, then they’ll likely take into account context and ongoing developments. In the case of FracFocus, updated version – dubbed “FracFocus 2.0” – boasts more user-friendly tools, including searchability by chemical and date of disclosure (among others).

That’s not irrelevant, either, considering the Harvard researchers concluded of the current FracFocus system:

“…the limited search function sharply limits the utility of having a centralized data cache.”

The 2.0 system officially launched last November, but it won’t be until June of this year that all disclosures are required to use the new format. Now, we’re not Ivy League educated or anything. But wouldn’t it make sense for a study on the utility of FracFocus, including critiques about its search features and overall user-friendliness, to wait until upgrades to the system being studied are fully implemented – especially when those upgrades are less than two months out?

A constructive dialogue on benefits and drawbacks of any sort of regulatory activity requires that the topics discussed are done so in a manner that incorporates context and genuinely seeks to fix any problems that may exist. Blasting a disclosure system that will soon be obsolete literally just before the changes are incorporated is not a constructive attempt at reform; it’s gratuitous.

As you probably guessed, none of the major stories on the Harvard study mentioned any of this.

Item 4: FracFocus enjoys praise from across the spectrum.

When Colorado passed its disclosure regulations in late 2011, the Environmental Defense Fund praised them as “a model for the nation.” The executive director of Colorado Conservation Voters said the “clear winners of the rulemaking today are the citizens of Colorado” because “all Coloradans will know what chemicals are being used in natural gas drilling in our state.” Even Earthjustice – which, as mentioned above, hates hydraulic fracturing – said it was “good rule” and “an important step forward for Colorado.” Earthjustice represented a range of other environmental groups in the regulatory negotiations, including Earthworks, the National Wildlife Federation, and the San Juan Citizens Alliance.

What was at the core of Colorado’s disclosure regulations? Yep, you guessed it: the use of FracFocus.

Meanwhile, the Obama White House’s energy and climate adviser, Heather Zichal said the following last year: “As an administration, we believe that FracFocus is an important tool that provides transparency to the American people.”

But hey, who cares about that broad support when a few researchers at Harvard released a fundamentally and transparently flawed study suggesting the opposite?

Will Gasland Sequel Be Based on Same Fallacies as the Original?
This Sunday, Gasland Part II premieres at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York City. Here we provide a round-up and refresher of how the original film was received by select media, academics, and independent experts. Will the sequel address these problems, or just double down?

steve_everleySteve
Team Lead

 

This Sunday, Gasland Part II premieres at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York City. Below, we provide a round-up and refresher of how the original film was received by select media, academics, and independent experts. Will the sequel address these problems, or just double down?

–

“Fundamentally dishonest … a deliberately false presentation for dramatic effect … [T]his movie certainly contributes to more public misunderstanding.”

–John Hanger, former Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (source)

“…one sided, flawed and personal in the Michael Moore mode.”

–New York Times (source)

“…a long, muck-raking polemic, peppered with sensationalism, emotionalism, and distortions.”

–Towanda (Pa.) Daily Review (source)

“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.”

–Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (source)

“[Fox] made errors and … spun some facts to their outer limits.”

–E&E News/New York Times (source)

“As [Josh] Fox may (or may not) be learning, using incomplete data to make sweeping observations may do his cause more harm than good.”

–Tom Wilber, former journalist and editor of Shale Gas Review (source)

“My biggest disappointment in Gasland was that, basically a guy that doesn’t understand the industry at all goes and tells a story – and it truly is a story and a lot of it is fiction and I can see people falling into it.  But, as an expert in the hydrology near the surface and deep oil and gas I have a difficult time going through the whole movie.  It really disturbs me the things he misrepresents….”

–Gary Hanson, director of the Red River Watershed Management Institute, Louisiana State University (source)

“Obviously, Gasland has a lot of pretty dramatic events. I think where I would differ with Josh is his conclusions that those problems are all related to fracking.”

–Jim Marston, Environmental Defense Fund (source)

“[I]t’s maddening to see how easy [Josh Fox] makes it for the film’s critics to attack him, and how difficult for sympathetic but objective viewers to wholly embrace him … Mr. Fox shows a general preference for vivid images … over the more mundane crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s of investigative journalism.”

–New York Times (source)

“‘Gasland’ presents a carefully crafted point of view. Not everything in the film’s narration is precisely accurate. Not all of its subjects are completely credible. Some major components of the story are missing.”

–Harrisburg (Pa.) Patriot-News (source)

“The movie [Gasland] has a critical flaw, and the flaw is that there’s a tremendous amount of innuendo in the movie.”

–Dr. Terry Engelder, Professor of Geosciences, Penn State University (source)

“One glaring error in the film is the suggestion that gas drilling led to the September fish kill at Dunkard Creek in Greene County. That was determined to have been caused by a golden algae bloom from mine drainage…”

–Washington (Pa.) Observer-Reporter (source)

“Fox’s defence for any lack of rigour was that he wanted to start a debate, rather than have the last word. But that doesn’t absolve him of the responsibility to thoroughly check his claims.”

–Financial Times (source)

“One of the clearest examples of a misleading claim comes from north Texas, where gas drilling began in the Barnett Shale about 10 years ago. Opponents of fracking say breast cancer rates have spiked exactly where intensive drilling is taking place — and nowhere else in the state. The claim is used in a letter that was sent to New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo by environmental groups and by Josh Fox … but researchers haven’t seen a spike in breast cancer rates in the area.”

–Associated Press (source)

“Sadly, the film’s baseless claims and wild exaggerations have garnered significant media attention, coaxed policymakers to pass laws and regulations detrimental to economic development and energy security and, here’s the kicker, led to it being recently nominated for an Academy Award in the feature documentary category. Given the lack of facts within the film, perhaps a nomination in the comedy direction category would be a better fit.”

–Dr. Michael J. Economides, Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Houston (source)

“With so much need for a clear evaluation of natural gas drilling, the biased and misleading ‘Gasland’ is a missed opportunity.”

–Elizabeth Stelle, Policy Analyst, Commonwealth Foundation (source)

“Whatever your political sympathies, you can’t ignore the evidence that ‘Gasland’ is pure propaganda, not a documentary.”

–The Washington Examiner (source)

“Imagine someone telling people that they are living in an area where the chances of developing breast cancer are shockingly high; picture the alarm and worry. Then imagine if that same person had made up the story — yet was getting cheers from Hollywood stars for telling it. Stop imagining: Filmmaker Josh Fox has done just that.”

–Phelim McAleer, journalist and director of FrackNation (source)

Read More:

Technology Helping to Accelerate the Shale Revolution
This past week I attended the Society of Petroleum Engineers Unconventional Resources Conference in Houston, Tex., where petroleum engineers and geoscientists from around the world discussed cutting-edge advances in shale gas resource estimation techniques and development technologies. Throughout the discussions, one thing was abundantly clear: the shale revolution is just beginning, thanks in large part to technological advancements being implemented in the nation’s oil and natural gas fields.

Scott_ClineDr. Scott Cline – PhD, Petroleum Engineering

 

This past week I attended the Society of Petroleum Engineers Unconventional Resources Conference in Houston, Tex., where petroleum engineers and geoscientists from around the world discussed cutting-edge advances in shale gas resource estimation techniques and development technologies. Throughout the discussions, one thing was abundantly clear: the shale revolution is just beginning, thanks in large part to technological advancements being implemented in the nation’s oil and natural gas fields.

This phenomenon was made abundantly clear by the Potential Gas Committee (PGC), which released its biennial technologically available natural gas resources report the same week as the conference. Taking into account new information, the updated report shows the United States now holds an all-time high of 2,384 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of technically recoverable natural gas, a 22 percent increase from just two years ago. The new estimate indicates a 110-year supply at current consumption. (EID previously reported on that development here.)

But that is only a part of the story. What’s left untold is that all estimates consider resources that are able to be extracted given the current state of technology. That leaves tremendous room for growth, as the best current technology is only able to recover, for example, less than 25 percent of natural gas entrapped in shale. This means that most of the available energy in any given shale play will be left in place if we assume zero technological advancement. But remember: It wasn’t long ago that folks were saying the exact same thing about virtually all of our shale and “tight” resources. Technological advancement is not a fait accompli, but to assume it won’t happen at all is to ignore history entirely.

So with that as background, let’s examine the effect of technology and the historical miscalculation of its importance in increasing our nation’s hydrocarbon reserves.

The figures below compare the U.S. Energy Information Agency’s (EIA) 2000 report with its 2012 outlook. EIA recognized the emergence of unconventional resources in 2000, but vastly underestimated their future effect: EIA estimated in 2000 that, by 2010, technological improvements in unconventional resources might add only about one tcf to natural gas reserves, for a total of about five tcf per year from unconventional sources.

Cline graph 1

Fast forward to EIA’s 2012 report and we see that actual 2010 production from unconventional resources was double the predicted amount, and is now projected to increase even more rapidly.

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 Release Date: June 25 http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2012).pdf

Annual Energy Outlook 2012 Release Date: June 25 http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2012).pdf

This is an important fact to keep in mind. Estimates suggesting the United States has a 100-year supply of natural gas are based on “current” technology and, more importantly, exclude the possibility of technological advancements.

How Can We Get More Resource Out of Shale?

So what is leading to the continual increases in recoveries per unit volume of rock and where are we likely headed?  This was the primary topic of the SPE conference. To understand this in greater detail one needs to understand the shale reservoir from which natural gas is being extracted.

Three-dimensional visualization of a shale-gas reservoir. The ovals represent the organic pores, the gray matrix represents the inorganic pores, the lines represent the healed natural fractures, and the division in the center represents the induced fracture. http://mpge.ou.edu/research/documents/2011%20thesis/John%20Hudson.pdf

Three-dimensional visualization of a shale-gas reservoir.

Because of the quadruple porosity system – consisting of low permeability matrix porosity coupled with organic porosity, natural fractures and induced hydraulic fractures – the flow regime from shale is complex. Without breaking the low permeability matrix into smaller blocks and connecting each of them with high permeability fractures, much of the natural gas will be stranded and unavailable for production. Horizontal wells with hydraulic fractures have been successful in solving part of the problem, but it’s only one step in a much larger extraction efficiency story. Advances in drilling, integration of petro-physical and geo-mechanical data, proppant technology and production process advances are leading to ever increasing recoveries.

Further, shale is not homogeneous, so targeting the part of the shale with the largest resource is critically important. Advances in drilling with rotary steerable assemblies, diamond crystalline bits and logging are allowing the steering of wells to target the rock with the best hydrocarbon potential and best fracture ability. Simply put, these kinds of technologies are significantly improving production per well. The latest experimental development in this regard is utilizing complex well trajectories, with multiple horizontal legs radiating from the main horizontal to increase the surface area contact with the geological resource.  This allows for a greater area to be targeted, thus allowing for increased production and a reducedneed for fracture stimulation.

http://www.slb.com/services/drilling/mwd_lwd/at_bit_measurements/ipzig.aspx?t=2

http://www.slb.com/services/drilling/mwd_lwd/at_bit_measurements/ipzig.aspx?t=2

Drilling multiple branched wells rather than a single horizontal well may also help target previously un-stimulated areas of shale rock identified by combining microseismic, 3-D seismic and flow data from individual perforation clusters.

Adding to this, research into newer proppants with even higher strength, lower weight and better transport ability coupled with new injection schemes are enabling better proppant placement. Again, to put it simply, this development mean increased production from each well, which in turn means more energy produced with less surface impact.

Advancements in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing are also responsible for a surge in U.S. oil production.  From a steady decline between 1970 and 2008, U.S. production is rising once again thanks to the combination of these two technologies.

As is the case with natural gas, considering we are only extracting less than 10 percent of the oil-in-place in shale reservoirs, there is enormous potential for increased production. In fact, some presenters at the SPE conference believed that North America could even be self-sufficient in oil, assuming wide adoption of natural gas in the U.S. trucking fleet and continued increases in oil production by our neighbors in Canada.

Workforce Challenges Loom

Despite these significant advancements, there was one overriding concern at the conference.  Namely, the challenge of finding enough people to fill all the open jobs created by the oil and gas boom. One approach in correcting this problem, however, is already being implemented in Houston, a city widely viewed as the energy capital of the United States.  Efforts are underway, for example, to provide training to high school students interested in working in the nation’s oil and gas fields.  The Houston Independent School District recently added an Energy Institute High School to provide rigorous scientific training geared to students interested in the energy field. The magnet school will partner with the Independent Petroleum Association of America, which will lend practical experience and training.

Three years ago I wrote the Coming Age of Natural Gas in which I expounded on the natural gas opportunity and soundly criticized naysayers like Niall Ferguson (Harvard University) for his “predictions of the collapse of the American Empire,” taking into account the economic progress that shale development would provide.

Fast forward to just over a month ago, when a recent Bloomberg article quoted Ferguson as saying, “The benefits of the shale gas type oil revolution are still being underestimated by most observers and I think there’s a lot more upside to come in the United States than most people anticipate.”

Ferguson is right. The age of natural gas is no longer coming; it is here and it’s expanding. In the process, it’s bringing our nation phenomenal opportunities for cleaner air, reduced carbon emissions and increased economic vitality. And it’s all made possible by that unique American spirit of innovation and hard work.

Achievements Many as FracFocus Celebrates Second Birthday
On April 11, 2013 the FracFocus system celebrated its second birthday. During its first two years of operation, the system has been lauded as a highly effective means of providing the public with information about the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. Eleven states have already elected to use the system as their means of regulatory reporting and as many as eleven others are considering its use.

Mike_NickolausMike Nickolaus
Special Projects Director, Ground Water Protection Council

 

**Cross-posted from the Ground Water Protection Council

On April 11, 2013 the FracFocus system celebrated its second birthday.  During its first two years of operation, the system has been lauded as a highly effective means of providing the public with information about the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing.  Eleven states have already elected to use the system as their means of regulatory reporting and as many as eleven others are considering its use.   Additionally, the Bureau of Land Management is considering accepting FracFocus as the means of reporting hydraulic fracturing chemical use on federal and tribal lands. There have been over 41,000 disclosures placed in the system and nearly half a million people have visited the FracFocus.org website.

FracFocus is a demonstration that the states are taking positive action to provide the public with the information needed to make informed decisions about hydraulic fracturing.

On June 1, 2013 the new FracFocus 2.0 system will become the exclusive means for submitting reports to FracFocus.  The version 2.0 is beginning to take hold and should provide users with a more accurate and easy to use system for entering records.  With the new disclosure submission system comes a new set of record search criteria that include searches by date, Chemical Abstract Service number and ingredient (chemical) name. The new system also has the capability of allowing operators to designate registered agents to enter records for them and to allow service companies to prepare records for the operators review and submission.

These features, along with a new user class for state agencies expand the capabilities of the system and provide for the widest possible use.  In the near future we hope to provide additional capabilities to state agencies so that they can import regulatory compliance data directly into their data management systems.

In addition to advances in FracFocus here in the U.S., the system is being implemented in two provinces in Canada (British Columbia and Alberta) and is being considered for use in Europe.

With our partner, the IOGCC, we look forward to working with states and all the stake holders to insure that the FracFocus system remains the most comprehensive, publicly accessible system of providing hydraulic fracturing chemical information today, and for the future.

For further information about the FracFocus system please contact Mike Nickolaus at [email protected]

Poll: Support for Hydraulic Fracturing Still Exceeds Opposition
A recent University of Texas poll asked respondents what they thought about a variety of energy issues, not the least of which was hydraulic fracturing. Interestingly, the poll actually shows how anti-energy activists are losing in their misinformation campaign against responsible shale development.

steve_everleySteve
Spokesman

 

A recent University of Texas poll asked respondents what they thought about a variety of energy issues, not the least of which was hydraulic fracturing. Interestingly, the poll actually shows how anti-energy activists are losing in their misinformation campaign against responsible shale development.

Regarding the issue of hydraulic fracturing in general, the UT poll (full cross-tabs here) found that a plurality supports its use — 45 percent support to 41 percent oppose. Since September 2012, support has actually increased by four points, while opposition has remained unchanged. In three separate polls over the past year conducted by UT, opposition has never exceeded support. Averaged out among the three polls, support exceeds opposition by six points, 45 percent to 39 percent.

In the current poll, those who said they wanted to promote hydraulic fracturing specifically on public lands also outnumbered those who want to ban it, 41 percent to 36 percent.

Sheril Kirshenbaum, director of the UT energy poll, observed that the polling shows “steady support for the expansion of domestic natural gas development.” Indeed, an amazing 62 percent of respondents support more natural gas production in the United States. That matches the findings of a recent Gallup poll, which showed that 65 percent of Americans want more emphasis placed on domestic natural gas development – including clear majorities among Republicans, Independents, and Democrats.

The UT poll also made it clear that anti-energy groups’ attempts to demonize natural gas as some sort of dirty fuel that’s not worth being produced are backfiring – big time. When asked if the benefits of domestic natural gas development outweigh the costs, 41 percent said “Yes” and only 18 percent said “No,” an amazing 23 point spread. Asked about specific benefits of natural gas, the results were even more stunning:

The upshot is that Americans overwhelmingly view natural gas development as both an economic and environmental boon to the United States.

Regulation?

Naturally, media reports have either ignored or buried the good news listed above, focusing instead on the poll’s finding that more than 60 percent of respondents support more regulation for hydraulic fracturing or stronger enforcement of existing laws (the university’s news headline emphasized a “divide on fracking”). The implication is that not enough is being done to protect the public, and that the industry is avoiding proper oversight. The reality, however, is much different – even if it’s not convenient for the media to discuss it.

The industry worked with environmental groups in Colorado and Texas to establish disclosure regulations that have been touted as the gold standard. In California, the industry is supportive of similar disclosure regulations, and it’s actually certain environmental groups – some of whom supported those provisions in Colorado – who are now strangely opposing their implementation. In Illinois, the industry teamed with labor, business groups, farm organizations, and environmentalists on legislation that would add new regulations for shale development. In Pennsylvania, the industry supported Act 13, which created a new fee that is generating hundreds of millions of dollars in new public revenues.

Notice the trend here? Despite what opponents have claimed for years, and to which too many in the media have provided a forum, the oil and gas industry does not oppose regulation. On the contrary, the industry has actively supported new regulatory measures in the states as a way to provide public assurances that responsible shale development will continue to be protective of the environment.

It is worth noting, however, that many of the same problems we identified with a Bloomberg poll last year (which found a similar percentage of respondents supportive of “more regulation”) also appear in similar form in the UT poll.

For instance, the Bloomberg poll included a question about global warming immediately before the question about “more regulation or less regulation” of hydraulic fracturing. The UT pollsters, however, asked several questions that could have “primed” the respondents to make what they perceived to be the more environmentally conscious option (i.e. more regulation or stricter enforcement). Prior to the questions on hydraulic fracturing, the UT poll asked, among other things:

To be clear, there is nothing inherently wrong in asking these questions. That’s what pollsters do, after all. But preceding a question about regulation of an activity used in oil and gas development with statements that frame the debate in terms of impacts from that development is, at the very least, a caveat worth highlighting as we interpret the meaning of the results.

Of course, that “priming” also raises another important point. Even with respondents geared toward what was clearly an environmental bent, a plurality still said it supports hydraulic fracturing. In that sense, it would be difficult to find a better example of how anti-fracking activists are losing the debate: even their “base” is abandoning them.

*UPDATE* Exporting Misinformation
Having effectively lost the scientific debate over the safety of hydraulic fracturing and the environmental benefits to be gained from expanded shale development, groups opposed to natural gas production are now setting their activist sights on a new frontier: liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.

steve_everleySteve
Spokesman

 

UPDATE (4/9/2013; 9:51am ET): The Sierra Club is now asking the U.S. Department of Energy to rethink its regulatory process for considering LNG exports. In a petition submitted yesterday, the Club repackages all of the same, misleading talking points on natural gas exports — the same ones we addressed below and here — and slapped a new date on the top, hoping both the general public and DOE will be none the wiser.

One area that caught our attention, however, was this excerpt:

In addition to this fundamental structural shift, both the source, and the effect, of increased gas consumption raise questions which were not germane in 1984. Most exported gas would be sourced from unconventional gas plays (shales, tight sands, and the like), and would be extracted with the fracking process. Imported gas, obviously, does not implicate U.S. production impacts and, in any event, those unconventional plays were not available in the 1980s. Now, though, unconventional production is expanding throughout the country, raising major environmental concerns and fomenting a vigorous ongoing public debate over its wisdom and appropriate limits upon production. As a result, the environmental impacts of such production were not germane to the DOE’s considerations in the way they are now. (p. 7-8; emphasis added)

The Sierra Club — a group whose mission is to “Explore, enjoy and protect the planet” — is essentially admitting that it doesn’t care about environmental impacts overseas, even in countries that lack basic levels of environmental regulation. One would think that a so-called “environmental” organization would be sensitive to the fact that increased global use of a clean burning fuel like natural gas means displacing dirtier forms of energy, and as a result fewer emissions — especially in countries that have rapidly expanding economies and, unfortunately, increasing levels of air pollution.

Of course, caring about other parts of the world would require the Sierra Club to engage in civil disobedience in countries without the First Amendment, so they’re content to tell the public (especially the press) that they want to protect the environment — so long as it doesn’t mean actually doing anything in 94 percent of the Earth’s land mass. That would require consistency, and we already know the Sierra Club struggles to maintain that.

—Original post, Feb. 13, 2013—

Having effectively lost the scientific debate over the safety of hydraulic fracturing and the environmental benefits to be gained from expanded shale development, groups opposed to natural gas production are now setting their activist sights on a new frontier: liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.

As quick background, the United States currently has a massive surplus of natural gas, with numerous analyses showing the country actually has enough natural gas to meeting growing domestic demand (for generations to come) and allow for new jobs (and a reduced trade deficit) through gradual exports. This means that the benefits of natural gas in the United States – lower energy bills, declining greenhouse gas emissions – could conceivably be extended to our trading partners overseas. A landmark study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy recently concluded that “LNG export has net benefits to the U.S. economy” – every last segment of it.

But most of the natural gas that could potentially be sold to trading partners would come from expanded U.S. production, most notably from shale. For that reason, groups opposed to shale development are becoming active in opposing exports. Just to give you a sense how silly this has become: groups such as the Sierra Club have actually suggested in official agency filings that the reason they oppose exports is out of a concern that selling natural gas abroad may cause an increase in price here at home.

To repeat: Sierra Club, which sees low natural gas prices as a barrier to wind and solar expansion, is apparently concerned that exports will increase prices. Confused? You should be.

Of course, there should be no confusion on one thing: the talking points really have not changed, meaning the opponents’ efforts themselves are still premised on the same baseless arguments (see EID’s previous debunk here). Among the most recent claims, according to a recent advertisement signed by a who’s who list of opposition groups, are the following:

In an added twist, the latest ad ups the ante on misinformation, suggesting that allowing exports would “clear the way for energy companies to ship more than 40% of America’s natural gas overseas.” Before we get to that, though, let’s examine each of these claims in order.

EID has detailed this in the past (even specifically in the context of exports), but it’s worth reiterating: natural gas development does not come “at the expense of our communities and public health.” Air emissions, as observed by environmental regulators from Pennsylvania to Texas, have not reached levels that would trigger public health concerns. State regulators from across the country have stated that they have never once observed a case where hydraulic fracturing contaminated drinking water supplies. And we all know the threat of earthquakes – a common talking point – is overblown, thanks to analysis from the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Research Council.

As for the “billions of dollars” that these groups think will only flow to natural gas companies, a recent investigation by the Associated Press found that private landowners, including family farmers, are “reaping billions of dollars in royalties each year” thanks to natural gas development. According to the National Association of Royalty Owners, total royalty payments were about $21 billion in 2010.

Regarding greenhouse gases, CO2 emissions in the United States are at a 20-year low today thanks to the increased use of natural gas, which of course has been made possible by expanded shale development. As John Hanger, former secretary of the Pa. Department of Environmental Protection, has observed, “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.”

The EPA’s latest report on GHGs also found that, thanks in large part to utilities using more natural gas, overall emissions in the United States declined three percent from 2010 to 2011. More specifically, methane emissions from oil and gas development were 66 percent lower than what EPA had previously estimated.

The argument that natural gas is “dirty” and runs counter to the expansion of “clean” energy is also equally divorced from reality. Due to its GHG and air quality benefits, the renewable energy industry itself has stressed the importance of natural gas. A couple of notable examples from key trade associations representing renewables in the United States:

Meanwhile, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) has also stated that natural gas – specifically natural gas from shale – can complement the growth of renewables. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has observed that “natural gas has an important role to play in complementing low-carbon energy solutions by providing the flexibility needed to support a growing renewables component in power generation.”

As President Obama – whom many of the groups making these claims endorsed in the 2012 presidential election – put it so eloquently in his recent State of the Union address, “the natural gas boom has led to cleaner power and greater energy independence.”

Finally, the argument that the United States is going to export 40 percent of its natural gas supplies as LNG is pure invention.

Consider: the global market for LNG is currently roughly 35 billion cubic feet (BCF) per day. Even if we wanted to ship huge volumes of natural gas abroad, here’s a question for you: Exactly where would we send it? Unlike selling additional tennis shoes to, say, Australia, expanding your sales market for natural gas abroad requires the construction of regasification facilities that collectively will require capital investments of literally hundreds of billions of dollars to make possible.

Oh, and one more thing: The United States isn’t the only country in the world competing for export market share. So even if the world market were to expand to 60 BCF a day by 2025 (which is just one of the numbers being thrown out there right now), we’re still talking about a relatively small market over which dozens of countries will aggressively compete.

In other words, the groups suggesting we’ll export 40 percent of our natural gas supplies overseas in big, splashy New York Times ads are hoping you don’t know 1) how small the world LNG market actually is and 2) that the United States isn’t the only country that will be playing in it.

It’s certainly not news that groups like the Sierra Club, PSEHE, Earthworks, and Food & Water Watch – along with Josh Fox, his mother, and the Incredible Hulk – are trying to convince the public to ignore the facts regarding U.S. natural gas development. It is interesting, however, that they’ve expanded their activism into the realm of exports – which, if this latest ad is any indication, appears to suffer from the same lack of evidence, science, and general awareness of reality that has heretofore been the calling-card of their campaign.

*UPDATE* “100% Renewables” for N.Y. Plan Meets Reality; Reality Wins
A new paper from scientists at Stanford, Cornell, and the University of California at Davis suggests the state of New York could generate all of its energy from three sources: wind, water, and solar. This also includes a large scale shift to hydrogen fuel cells (produced by “excess” renewable power generation) to allow for even New York’s transportation to run on renewable energy sources. But before you say, “That doesn’t sound possible,” don’t worry – other credible voices have already suggested as much.

steve_everleySteve
Spokesman

 

UPDATE (4/8/2013; 4:18pm ET): How much would this fairy tale plan for New York cost, even if it weren’t hindered by novel concepts like physics and reality? A whopping $382 billion by 2030, according to calculations done by Bloomberg. It would also require an amount of land equivalent to 13 percent of New York State’s total area, which is an interesting plan to endorse by folks who are opposing responsible shale development partially on the basis that it would overtake New York’s majestic landscape!

As Bloomberg further observes:

The findings cast doubt on the ability of the state to eliminate oil, natural gas and coal from its energy supply. The Cornell proposal would require onshore wind turbines covering an area 3.3 times the size of New York City’s five boroughs.

“It’s too ambitious by 2030 to replace all the state’s power with renewables, although big progress could be made,” Angus McCrone, a senior analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance in London, said today. The projections, he said, look “unrealistic” for individual technologies. (emphasis added)

At least it was a fun thought experiment while it lasted, though, right?

—Original post, March 14, 2013—

A new paper from scientists at Stanford, Cornell, and the University of California at Davis suggests the state of New York could generate all of its energy from three sources: wind, water, and solar. This also includes a large scale shift to hydrogen fuel cells (produced by “excess” renewable power generation) to allow for even New York’s transportation to run on renewable energy sources.

But before you say, “That doesn’t sound possible,” don’t worry – other credible voices have already suggested as much. Andy Revkin of the New York Times said the paper’s analysis “works best as a thought experiment” (ouch), given what he deems “monumental hurdles – economic political, regulatory and technical – that would hinder such a shift” away from energy sources like oil and natural gas (among others).

Roger Pielke, Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado and a senior fellow at The Breakthrough Institute (a progressive think tank), says that the authors’ claims of having a technically and economically feasible plan is “dubious empirically,” adding that “people are not going to be reordering society along the lines called for here [in the paper].” It appears Dr. Pielke’s central concern is with the authors’ assumption that, under the plan outlined, energy consumption in New York will actually decrease by 37 percent (!) by 2030, even as the population grows by 2.15 percent. For reasons that should already be obvious, Dr. Pielke called the plan a “fantasy” and the product of “magic thinking.”

Also of note: the list of authors includes none other than Cornell activists Robert Howarth and Anthony Ingraffea, whose own research on natural gas development has been debunked categorically throughout the academic community, including on multiple occasions by the U.S. Department of Energy. The Howarth/Ingraffea “findings” nonetheless serve as a linchpin to this latest study’s conclusions, which of course should raise serious red flags itself.

The lead author, Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford University, has become something of an impresario of the anti-fracking speaking circuit, and is touted by vocal anti-shale activist (and occasional B-list actor) Mark Ruffalo as “America’s real Bruce Banner.” Two years ago, Dr. Jacobson also decided it would be a worthwhile use of his time to hold a strategy session with Josh Fox and Mark Ruffalo, according to the Huffington Post:

In February, 2011, Jacobson, Fox, Krapels, and Ruffalo brainstormed by phone. A consensus developed quickly — the team agreed that if Jacobson could refine his research to address the specific characteristics of New York State’s natural resources and energy potential, his groundbreaking work could provide the alternative energy plan Ruffalo was determined to identify for his adopted state.

Of course, Ruffalo has played a scientist in the movies before, and Fox has been known to make a few movies of his own, so this collaboration seems entirely reasonable to us.

Let’s be real for just a second: this paper really doesn’t have a whole lot to do with renewables, which, truth be told, continue to see their installation numbers increase owing to the abundance and availability of dispatchable, baseload natural gas. The paper’s entire focus (just look at who its authors are!) is aimed at manufacturing a new talking point in opposition to the development of natural gas from shale in the state. But motivations aside, how good is the actual paper? Below, we take a closer look

Bad Science to Justify Ban on Natural Gas

The plan outlined by Jacobson et. al., requires a complete phase out of natural gas, based primarily on research from Cornell professors Howarth and Ingraffea. From the paper:

“Although natural gas emits less carbon dioxide per unit electric power than coal, two factors cause natural gas to increase global warming relative to coal: higher methane emissions and less sulfur dioxide emissions per unit energy than coal.” (p. 7)

The authors also cite research from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the same research that has been debunked and even cautiously marginalized by the Environmental Defense Fund. We’ve outlined many times before why the methane leak accusation is not grounded in credible science (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), but the main takeaway is this: Most research shows a leakage rate of one to two percent, and the EPA’s latest data suggests methane emissions could be 66 percent lower than what the agency had previously estimated (EPA’s best guess for leakage, based on its earlier data, was a little over two percent). We also know that natural gas is reducing carbon emissions and cutting air pollution in the United States.

Thus, opposing natural gas on the basis that it is worsening climate change and harming air quality is not a factual argument; it’s a talking point, and a very bad one at that.

Not content to rely solely on discredited theories about emissions, the authors also claim that “the use of electricity for heating and electric motors is more efficient than is fuel combustion for the same applications,” citing a previous study authored by … themselves.

But heating cost data from the Energy Information Administration show the average fuel price per million Btus for electricity is $34.57, whereas the average price per million Btus for natural gas is $6.01. That makes natural gas more than 80 percent cheaper than electricity.

And according to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, even an electric water heater that appears to have an efficiency rating of 50 percent higher than a comparable natural gas heater will actually use “much more source energy,” because it takes three times as much energy to deliver a unit of electricity instead of gas.

So natural gas is substantially cheaper and more efficient from a total energy use standpoint, yet the authors of this study want to pretend that electricity is “more efficient”? Since calling for more electric heating also means increasing energy use significantly, how can the authors expect total energy demand to decrease by more than one-third?

Retrofitting or Replacing Everything in New York City

You know all those skyscrapers, bridges and scenic walkways in New York City? The plan would require that nearly all of them be either (a) bulldozed or (b) entirely retrofitted from top to bottom. Mark Delucchi of UC-Davis (one of the co-authors) told the New York Times: “Instead of upgrading, maintaining, and replacing deteriorating existing infrastructure, invest in new infrastructure.”

Are we really to believe the local population will cheerfully allow legions of (taxpayer-funded) construction crews to enter Manhattan, tie up traffic in every direction, and displace millions of people while buildings are retrofitted, revamped, or outright razed? For Pete’s sake: Mayor Bloomberg is facing a big enough backlash from his new plan to ban big sodas!

And you know all those natural gas pipelines that crisscross throughout the city, providing heat to families and businesses? They’re going to have to be decommissioned, dug up, and either replaced or removed altogether. If the skyscraper replace-and-retrofit plan wasn’t already going to turn the city into a big enough construction zone, the pipeline work certainly would.

Plus, it’s worth noting: New York City has stated that “80 percent of the buildings that will exist in 2050 are already here today,” which means any suggestion that the buildings in that city (much less the entire state) can be easily replaced is an argument against social, political, and technological realities.

Renewables Seen Through Rose-Colored Glasses

We all love renewables, and no one wants to stand in the way of technological progress. According to the renewable energy industry itself, shale gas is not only a perfect partner for renewables, it’s also facilitating rapid growth of wind and solar – the same technologies that groups like the Sierra Club and NRDC have invested so much of their time and other people’s money promoting.

But we also love facts, and pretending that you can fit a square peg into a round hole just doesn’t measure up. Unfortunately, that’s what the authors of this latest report are trying to do.

For example, the authors state: “Offshore wind, wave and tidal are in water, and so do not require new land.” The claim that offshore wind turbines “do not require new land” may technically be true from a pure, direct-use, look-only-at-onshore-acreage standpoint. Just don’t tell it to the Kennedys, who seem to have an outsized ability to influence energy discussions in New York. The bigger point is that just because a huge offshore wind turbine isn’t built on land doesn’t mean it has zero impact. Nor is this just aesthetic; building out infrastructure to support the offshore turbines (when they produce energy, that energy has to be sent somewhere) means onshore land disturbance.

There’s also the issue of economic impacts. Aside from the direct, taxpayer-borne cost, an economy-wide shift away from affordable energy sources like oil and natural gas means a lot of hardworking men and women will lose their jobs. In New York specifically, a lot of families upstate have been struggling for a long time because the Governor can’t make up his mind on whether to allow responsible shale development, so one could only imagine the backlash to a declaration banning not only natural gas, but also oil, nuclear, and coal.

The authors claim, however, that renewable power actually creates more jobs than conventional fuels, so the net impact will actually be positive in terms of jobs:

“Even if the current electric utility industry plus mining jobs were lost due to a conversion with the present plan, they would be more than made up by with the 58,000 permanent jobs resulting from the present plan.” (p. 37)

As evidence, the authors cite research showing oil and natural gas create 3.7 jobs for every million dollars spent on those resources, but wind and solar create 9.8 and 9.8 jobs, respectively. When you consider how much more expensive wind and solar are, the math would appear to support the authors, especially if you were to produce (theoretically) the same amount of energy from renewables as projected to be generated by oil and natural gas.

But that also raises a serious and more fundamental problem for the report, as it essentially offers an efficiency argument in favor of natural gas over renewables.

For example, let’s look at electricity production. According to the EIA, the total system levelized cost for a conventional, combined cycle natural gas plant is $66.10 per megawatt-hour. For wind, that price is $96, and for solar it’s more than $150. When you add in the capacity factors (87 percent for natural gas, 33 percent and 25 percent for wind and solar, respectively), you’ll see that spending $1 million on natural gas is going to produce a lot more energy than wind and solar. It also means natural gas is more productive from an energy-produced-per-hours-worked basis.

In other words, the authors are essentially admitting that wind and solar require a much larger portion of the labor force just to produce the same amount of energy – and that energy is also substantially more expensive! In fact, since the authors predict New York’s energy production will decline by more than one-third, the plan they’re advocating actually calls for using greater and greater shares of the available labor force to produce less and less energy.

Kevin Bullis from MIT’s Technology Review, while acknowledging that the theory warrants more study, also offers some words of caution about calls for an immediate, full-scale shift to renewables:

“Another key question about costs has to do with financing. When we’re talking about renewable energy, we’re talking essentially about paying for all of the power we’ll use over the lifetime of a solar panel upfront. The cost savings from efficiency measures also require an upfront investment. The cost and availability of financing will have a big impact on the cost per kilowatt hour of renewable energy, or whether battery-powered vehicles pay for themselves in fuel savings.

“And a big unknown is just how much it will cost to integrate huge amounts of intermittent renewable sources of energy to create reliable power. The New York study gestures to this problem, but the methods proposed are untested on a large scale, and the challenge will vary considerably depend on renewable resources in a given region. In some parts of the world, doldrums set in for entire seasons, making wind power a terrible option.”

Conclusion

As Andy Revkin observed, the study is interesting as a “thought experiment.” So is smoking pot, and watching videos like this. But real world facts contradict the authors’ assertions on too many occasions to think that this plan is a viable and legitimate course to take, for New York or anyone else. The fact that the authors had to use some of the worst research available on natural gas emissions – ignoring the climate and air quality benefits that natural gas is delivering and will continue to deliver in the process – to justify their arguments is perhaps the most revealing part of the whole study.

Shale Development in Michigan Confirms Safety of Hydraulic Fracturing
Open spaces are best preserved when landowners, including the state itself, are able to generate economic rent to pay the holding costs associated with that land. In Michigan, the Antrim Shale experience demonstrates, perhaps better than any other, the positive impact that the partnership between the natural gas industry and landowners has on water quality and overall land preservation.

erik_EID_JPEG

Erik
Field Director, Michigan

 

“Located in the northern lower peninsula of Michigan, the Au Sable is known for its high water quality, scenery, recreational opportunities, cold-water fishery, and historic and cultural significance. It may just be the finest brown trout fly-fishing east of the Rockies.”

That line appears as a description of the Au Sable River on the website for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, speaking to the condition of this river that drains much of Michigan’s Antrim Shale region.  The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality notes “since the 1960s, more than 12,000 wells have been hydraulically fractured [in the state]. Most of these are Antrim Shale Formation gas wells in the northern Lower Peninsula.”

This relationship is no accident.  Open spaces are only preserved when landowners, including the state itself, are able to generate economic rent to pay the holding costs associated with that land.  Natural gas development from the Antrim Shale, made possible by hydraulic fracturing, allows landowners to keep land as open space because of the income generated from activities occurring primarily beneath the surface; beneath the open space.  The alternative is more development on the surface, with all the associated added impacts.  The Antrim Shale experience demonstrates, perhaps better than any other, the positive impact that the partnership between the natural gas industry and landowners has on water quality.

Antrim Shale natural gas production is found in the northern-third of the Lower Peninsula, primarily in Antrim, Kalkaska, Crawford, Oscoda, Otsego and Montmorency Counties.  Major parts of the last four are located within the Au Sable River watershed, depicted below.

 

Au Sable

 

The Au Sable River is designated as a “blue ribbon fishery.”  Yet, it’s also been the location of incredible amounts of natural gas development over a period of decades, including the headwaters of the Au Sable River.  A full-scale version of map for the entire county (which may be expanded for better readability) may be found here.

In the map below, each large square is a square mile (640 acres) and each small square is a 40-acre unit.  Indeed, the entire headwaters area of the Au Sable River in Otsego County is peppered with natural gas wells, although few of the visitors to the area ever notice them.  There are an estimated 3,500-4,000 producing wells in the Au Sable River basin, according to DNR, and it is considered fully developed.

 

MichMap

 

There are roughly 500-600 wells depicted on this map, or roughly 6-7 wells per square mile on average for both developed and undeveloped areas.  These vertical wells were generally developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, before advances in horizontal drilling technology made it economic to utilize it in the Antrim Shale.

The development of the Antrim Shale began with 40 acre units (one well per 40 acres) but was increased to 80 acre units as more efficient drainage occurred due to advances in hydraulic fracturing.  The utilization of modern horizontal (lateral) drilling methods has reduced the number of wells needed to efficiently produce from a given area to one well per 640 acres, or, more accurately, a development unit size of 640 acres.

In some cases, such the State Excelsior 3-25 well in Kalkaska County, a unit size of 1,280 acres is utilized. The State Excelsior 3-25 well has an approximately 10,400-foot (nearly 2 miles long) horizontal wellbore that efficiently produces from this large unit. Essentially, the longer the horizontal portion of a well – the lateral leg – the better, as greater access to the producing formation reduces the number of wells needed to efficiently recover the oil and/or natural gas from the area. Not only that, but now numerous horizontal wells can be placed on the same well pad, even further reducing overall impacts.

The use of horizontal drilling and multi-well pads addresses the very issue opponents of Antrim development were concerned about several years ago – ‘fragmentation’ of natural habitat by well pads and their related activities!

There’s something else different about these Antrim wells, however, that’s worth mentioning.  The typical well is about 2,000 feet deep, sometimes less. The water table can be very close to the surface, extending to a depth of perhaps only 600-700 feet, meaning there is often less than 1,000 feet of rock separating the hydraulic fracturing operation and the water table.

Keep this map in mind as you consider these evaluations of the Au Sable watershed water quality (emphasis added):

“Water quality in the Au Sable River is generally good, owing primarily to the limited amount of development within the basin.”

Source:  Au Sable River Assessment, 2001

“Groundwater quality is generally excellent throughout the watershed, although a number of localized areas have been adversely affected by past and present human activities.”

Source:  Au Sable River Assessment, 2001

“Highly stable water flows of very high quality water may be the single most significant trait of the Au Sable River. The coarse sand-gravel composition of the watershed allows rapid infiltration of water and tends to level precipitation into a steady groundwater contribution to stream flow…In addition to a stable flow, the water quality of the Au Sable River system is very high when compared to other rivers in the state. Using the standardized Water Quality Index, the Au Sable River at its mouth is shown to average 85.9…Figure I shows this average compares very favorably with other rivers in Michigan.”

Source:  Au Sable Natural River Plan, 1987 (Updated 2002)

“Those involved with the development of the Au Sable Watershed Management Plan recognize the resource is of very high quality, the stakeholders are many and varied and development pressure within the watershed will continue to increase.”

Source:  Upper Au Sable River Watershed Management Plan, 2008

“The Au Sable River is an awesome fishery. Trophy brown trout, ‘screamin’ rainbows, dainty brook trout, and acrobatic steelhead are caught in good numbers each year. Hatches are extremely prolific and will challenge those of the Delaware River in New York State. Anglers come to this river for more then just its great angling as it is also a beautiful and serene river. The Michigan woods is home to a diversity of wildlife from hawks and eagles to deer and bear.”

Source:  Flyfishingconnection.com

There are four final things worth observing here:

Opponents will claim it’s much different now, but – as usual – they’re mistaken.  The only thing “new” is the increased use of horizontal drilling, which significantly increases hydrocarbon capture efficiency and effectiveness. That, in turn, means even less surface disturbance. In fact, horizontal wells being utilized today yield 3.2 times more natural gas per unit than vertical wells, and they generate less wastewater per cubic foot of gas produced than so-called conventional wells.

That means more natural gas produced with less surface impact and less water use. A nice combination, for sure.

Horizontal drilling combined with hydraulic fracturing is safe, and the history of responsible development from the Antrim Shale here in Michigan proves it.

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

Steve
Spokesman

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Original post, February 7, 2013—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

California Gov. Jerry Brown Rejects Activists’ ‘Ideological Bandwagon’
When someone with Governor Brown's long record on renewable energy and environmental regulation speaks favorably about domestic oil and gas production, it shows just how extreme the anti-hydraulic fracturing activists really are.

lomaxSimon
Research Director

For several months now, ideologically motivated environmental activists have been waging a scare campaign in California aimed at pressuring state lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown to ban hydraulic fracturing. The activists are targeting this technology because it could be used to produce oil from California’s Monterey Shale, which according to a new study from the University of Southern California, could create as many as 2.8 million jobs and generate almost $25 billion in new annual tax revenues by the end of the decade.

So is the fear campaign working? Not on Gov. Brown, apparently. Here’s how Reuters covered some remarks from Gov. Brown at a March 13 press conference:

California governor Brown says state needs to look at “fracking”

California Governor Jerry Brown, a prominent environmentalist, said on Wednesday the state should consider the use of “fracking” technology to develop its massive shale oil reserves and reduce reliance on imported oil. …

“We want to get the greenhouse gas emissions down, but we also want to keep our economy going. That’s that balance that’s required,” he said at an event to announce the approval of three new renewable energy projects. …

Some groups have called for an outright ban on the practice in California, and state lawmakers have introduced a flurry of bills that seek to regulate the industry.

Brown said any decisions on fracking would be based on science and common sense, and on a process that “listens to people but also wants to take advantage of the great opportunities we have.”

“The fossil fuel deposits in California are incredible, the potential is extraordinary,” he said. “But between now and development lies a lot of questions that need to be answered.”

But when you listen to the State of California’s recording of the press conference, the news is much worse for the activists, and much better for those interested in a rational, fact-based discussion about the role of domestic oil and gas production in meeting the nation’s future energy needs.

(The full press conference can be accessed here, and a shorter, edited audio clip of Gov. Brown’s remarks on hydraulic fracturing can found here.)

Gov. Brown first got a question about his position on hydraulic fracturing in California and whether he supports “new regulations on that practice.” California’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources has proposed updated rules that would allow the continued use of hydraulic fracturing, but with tougher oversight and disclosure requirements. Here’s Gov. Brown’s answer:

“I support our Division of Oil and Gas. They are excellent people and I look for them to navigate the issues as we go forward. The fossil fuel deposits in California are incredible. The potential is extraordinary. But between now and development lies a lot of questions that need to be answered, and I feel confident that the people are in place in my administration to handle the issues as they come up. And they’ll be decided based on science, based on common sense, and based on a deliberative process that listens to people, but also wants to take advantage of the great opportunities we have in this state.”

Later, Brown was asked by a reporter to “reconcile your desire to fight climate change [and] your enthusiasm for renewable energy with what seems to be support for fracking in California and an expansion of it.” The reporter noted that some people who voted for Brown “would like to see an outright ban on fracking in California.” Here’s an edited transcript of Brown’s answer:

“Do you know how much oil is imported to keep our cars going? … [When people in California] can get around without using any gasoline, that’s the time for no more oil drilling. Maybe. Because they’ll be many other people still driving. We’re importing oil from many places. It means you’ve got to bring it in by ship or by truck or by pipeline – by something.

So taking care of our own problems is a good thing. So if we need to have everybody driving around, as we do … we’ve got to get some oil. Now, do you want to get the oil from Venezuela [or from] 100 miles away?  …  By the way, oil off the City of Long Beach has put hundreds of millions of dollars into building necessary facilities at our Cal State University. Very important. In the Kern Basin, lots of oil resource. So we want to get the greenhouse gas emissions down, but we also want to keep our economy going. And that’s that balance that’s required. …

We have 30 million vehicles in California. That’s a lot of oil. So I think we have room to supply our need even as we reduce oil consumption. We should be reducing it much faster than we are, and hopefully we can get some national policies to do that, but that still doesn’t mean that in the meantime there isn’t oil under the ground in California that can’t be made very useful.”

In his closing remarks, Brown mentioned hydraulic fracturing once more in a broader answer about energy and environmental issues:

“Whether it’s fracking, or whether it’s a low-carbon fuel standard, or anything else, we keep our eyes open and we’re not jumping on any ideological bandwagons.”

When someone with Governor Brown’s long record on renewable energy and environmental regulation speaks favorably about domestic oil and gas production, it shows just how extreme the anti-hydraulic fracturing activists really are. These activists occupy the fringes of the energy policy debate in this country, and to answer Gov. Brown’s question, they really would prefer that we get more oil from countries like Venezuela.

Hypocrisy, Thy Name is Sierra Club
With the near-daily news stories explaining the air quality and climate benefits of natural gas, the Sierra Club’s opposition to natural gas undermines its stated goal of protecting the environment. In response, the Sierra Club has come up with a bold and fascinating strategy: Say whatever the heck they want, regardless of whether it contradicts their statements elsewhere.

steve_everleySteve
Spokesman

 

What’s the Sierra Club’s position on the development and use of natural gas from shale? Depends on whom you ask…within the actual organization.

By now, of course, we’re all well aware of the Sierra Club’s newly staked-out position in opposition to natural gas, notwithstanding the fact that the Club used to support it. With its “Beyond Natural Gas” campaign, the Sierra Club now proclaims (without even a shred of irony) that natural gas is “environmentally damaging and harms public health.” Empirical evidence – and even studies commissioned by none other than the Sierra Club itself — shows the opposite is true (for more, see here, here, and here), but no one ever accused the Sierra Club of being constrained by novelties such as consistency, accuracy, or metaphysics.

The shift toward ideological opposition to an energy source they once pragmatically supported was in some ways predictable. The Club couldn’t sit on the sidelines as American oil and natural gas production soared to record highs due to the development of shale and other tight resources, and the subsequent rise in activism around the word “fracking” posed too great a fundraising opportunity for them to ignore.

But that rapid 180-degree turn on natural gas has also put the Sierra Club in an uncomfortable position. With the near-daily news stories explaining the air quality and climate benefits of natural gas, the Sierra Club’s opposition to natural gas undermines its stated goal of protecting the environment. In response, the Sierra Club has come up with a bold and fascinating strategy: Say whatever the heck they want, regardless of whether it contradicts their statements elsewhere.

Don’t believe us? Here are but a couple of examples from around the country.

Tennessee

The Sierra Club’s official position on natural gas (and, by extension, hydraulic fracturing) is this:

“If drillers can’t extract natural gas without destroying landscapes and endangering the health of families, then we should not drill for natural gas.”

The obvious takeaway is that the Sierra Club believes current natural gas extraction is harming the environment, and thus we need additional study to determine if we can do it safely. Otherwise, why wouldn’t the Club simply declare, unequivocally, that natural gas drilling is inherently unsafe and must be banned?

(For the sake of argument, let’s ignore the fact that state and federal regulators have been nearly unanimous in saying natural gas development is safe.)

Enter the University of Tennessee, which announced recently that it would be studying hydraulic fracturing and its impacts on the environment. From the Knoxville News Sentinel:

“The University of Tennessee is undertaking a fracking research project, with plans to partner with an industry company to drill a well on land owned by the university across Morgan and Scott counties in the Cumberland Forest. The university will study how water, ecosystems, air quality are affected by the drilling, and what best practices should be used.”

The study would be managed by UT’s Institute of Agriculture, and would clearly yield important answers to the general public’s questions and concerns. As reported by The Tennessean:

“We feel like, based on the news that everyone has been receiving relative to natural gas use and natural gas extraction, that there are a lot of unanswered questions out there,” said Bill Brown, dean of UT AgResearch.

“We feel like the University of Tennessee is in a position to be able to provide answers.”

So a prestigious university is ready to address the question head-on about whether natural gas development – particularly hydraulic fracturing – can be done safely in Tennessee. Let’s see where the Sierra Club stands on studying the process:

The Sierra Club also opposes the proposal.

“UT was given this property to advance our knowledge of techniques to heal the land, not to exploit it for mineral resources utilizing a process that is known to threaten water quality,” the Sierra Club’s Scott Banbury said in a prepared statement.

Amazing – though perhaps not unsurprising: The Sierra Club wants assurances that hydraulic fracturing can be done safely, but opposes efforts to actually study and develop the processes that can provide those assurances. For those keeping score at home: that’s not a principled stand for the environment. It’s a cynical attempt to manufacture a particular outcome (no drilling) without having to be forced into arguing that that’s actually what you’re trying to do. It’s craven.

Wisconsin

One of the key arguments the Sierra Club makes against shale is that natural gas is a threat to public health, due primarily to air emissions. As stated on the Sierra Club’s Beyond Natural Gas webpage:

“Natural gas production is environmentally damaging and harms public health.”

Apparently, the Sierra Club hopes the public is too distracted by stuff like this (we admit, it’s cute) to recognize that natural gas actually provides significant health benefits (see this report by The Breakthrough Institute for more details). The Club also believes the public is too stupid to follow what representatives from the Sierra Club actually tell the press about natural gas. Like this story from Wisconsin:

The state reached an agreement with the Sierra Club that requires it to evaluate all of its heating and cooling plants at UW campuses, correctional and health facilities for compliance with clean-air standards, said Jennifer Feyerherm, of the club’s Beyond Coal Campaign. Already, Feyerherm said, the Charter plant and the Capitol Heating Plant in Downtown Madison converted from coal to natural gas as a result of the agreement.

The boiler replacements at Waupun and Winnebago “should’ve been done years ago,” she said.

The Building Commission approved $15.6 million to replace three, 64-year-old coal-burning boilers at the Waupun Central Generating Plant, which provides steam to the Waupun, Dodge, and John C. Burke correctional institutions and a private creamery.

The commission also approved $8.6 million for the plant at the Winnebago mental health center north of Oshkosh. The project will replace three coal-fired boilers, two of them 63 years old and the other 49 years old.

Because of the upgrades, Feyerherm said, “The emissions and human health impacts should be greatly reduced.” (emphasis added)

Now let’s juxtapose the above story, in which the Sierra Club supports a shift to natural gas, with this story from National Journal last summer:

“As we push to retire coal plants, we’re going to work to make sure we’re not simultaneously switching to natural-gas infrastructure,” Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune told National Journal in an interview on Wednesday. “And we’re going to be preventing new gas plants from being built wherever we can.”

To recap: The Sierra Club says natural gas “harms public health,” but also that emissions and negative health impacts will be “greatly reduced” from using natural gas. And even as they publicly support a switch to natural gas, they want everyone to know that they will NOT be supporting a switch to more natural gas.

To be fair, the Sierra Club probably wouldn’t have been able to score a media hit on this news in Wisconsin had it not blatantly contradicted itself on natural gas. And after all, that’s really what’s important here, right?

Conclusion

For other organizations, issuing contradictory statements about the safety and health benefits of natural gas would result in self-reflection and a major course correction to facilitate consistency. For the Sierra Club, it’s just another day at the office.

IPAA and EID Explain to Feds Why LNG Exports Make Sense
As part of the federal government’s review process for approving exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), the U.S. Department of Energy has solicited two rounds of comments regarding its recent macroeconomic study on the economic benefits of allowing such exports. During the initial round, environmental groups raised a series of concerns regarding alleged impacts, focusing chiefly – wait for it – on hydraulic fracturing. Luckily, the talking points submitted to DOE have been employed unsuccessfully so many times by now that refuting them wasn’t the toughest thing in the world to do.

hs_jeffE_redoneJeff
Executive Vice-President

 

As part of the federal government’s review process for approving exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), the U.S. Department of Energy has solicited two rounds of comments regarding its recent macroeconomic study on the economic benefits of allowing such exports. During the initial round, environmental groups raised a series of concerns regarding alleged impacts of allowing LNG exports, focusing chiefly – wait for it – on hydraulic fracturing.

Of course, in order to liquefy natural gas, first you have to produce it, and we know folks at the Sierra Club absolutely cannot stand the thought of that. So, they naturally tried to pollute the entire DOE review process with misinformation about shale development in general and hydraulic fracturing in particular, apparently unable to conjure up a credible case that actually seeks to address the real issue at hand (um, exports).

Luckily, the talking points submitted to DOE have been employed unsuccessfully so many times by now that refuting them wasn’t the toughest thing in the world to do. Below are a few examples of the kinds of claims that activist groups made in their comments to DOE, as well as a version of the response that IPAA and EID provided. Be sure to check out the full comments on IPAA’s webpage.

–

CLAIM: The Sierra Club argues that LNG exports would increase air pollution, and thus harm public health for residents living near gas wells.

FACT: The Sierra Club’s source was a study from the Colorado School of Public Health, a study that was so flawed from the very beginning that it was decommissioned by officials in the county where the data were collected. The study inflated the duration of industry operations by as much as 900 percent (and thus inflated the air emissions associated with those operations); used data known to be out of date; and its data on benzene emissions were taken from a monitoring station closer to a major interstate highway than the control sample.

What’s more is that, according to assessments by Texas and Pennsylvania regulators, air emissions from shale development do not reach levels that would be harmful to public health.

CLAIM: The Delaware Riverkeeper Network says shale development “presents an unparalleled level of harm to drinking water,” and the Sierra Club references casing failure rates as an example of a major risk.

FACT: Looking at actual data, casing failure rates are actually quite low. In more than 34,000 wells drilled in Ohio over a 25 year period, the failure rate was less than one-tenth of one percent – 0.03 percent to be exact. In Texas, the failure rate was even less: 0.01 percent. Federal and state regulators, meanwhile, have repeatedly stated that hydraulic fracturing does not pose a serious risk of contaminating drinking water supplies.

CLAIM: The Sierra Club references EPA’s report on water quality in Pavillion, Wyo., to suggest that expanded shale development is too dangerous.

FACT: Assessments by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Bureau of Land Management raise considerable doubts about the EPA’s methodology in Pavillion. The USGS, for example, conducted its own sampling, the results of which differed from EPA’s tests in at least 50 instances. USGS also effectively disqualified one of EPA’s two monitoring wells for being poorly constructed. The Bureau of Land Management said EPA’s techniques could have introduced “bias” into the samples, and that the data collected by EPA “should not be prematurely used as a line of evidence” supporting the claim that the EPA made; namely, that oil and gas activity caused chemical migration into groundwater.

On a more fundamental, even the EPA said its draft findings regarding Pavillion’s water quality “should not be assumed to apply to fracturing in other geologic settings” – which is exactly what the Sierra Club is trying to do!

–

Read the full comments here.

For Natural Gas in the Northeast, First You Need the Pipe
Northeastern states are suffering from a “natural gas trap,” The New York Times reported last week -- one in which residents are forced to weather not only the winter chills, but also the wildly unpredictable market for natural gas supplies. Electricity prices are rising, and to The Times, the blame for that rests squarely on the region’s “extreme reliance on natural gas.” But if we dig a little deeper into the Times’ report, we find a pretty important fact: the need for additional infrastructure, including “the inadequacy of existing pipelines,” is actually the biggest problem.

steve_everleySteve
Spokesman

 

Northeastern states are suffering from a “natural gas trap,” The New York Times reported last week — one in which residents are forced to weather not only the winter chills, but also the wildly unpredictable market for natural gas supplies. Electricity prices are rising, and to The Times, the blame for that rests squarely on the region’s “extreme reliance on natural gas.”

Of course, we know low natural gas prices have allowed folks across the country to spend less of their hard earned money (billions of dollars, in fact) on heating and electricity. Heck, even President Obama, in his recent State of the Union address, said that we’re producing abundant supplies of clean natural gas, and “nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it.”

Why is the Northeast so different, then?

If we dig a little deeper into the Times’ report, we find a pretty important fact: the need for additional infrastructure, including “the inadequacy of existing pipelines,” is actually the bigger problem. The much bigger problem.

It sounds so darn simple, but it’s worth explaining: To get natural gas to market, we have to build pipelines. And in order to build those pipelines, companies must gain approval from several different regulatory authorities. The most notable of these is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which requires a very public process that solicits comments from all interested parties. During these comment periods, the commission considers a range of issues, including potential environmental impacts.

It’s also worth noting that the industry is proposing – right now – to build pipelines with literally billions of cubic feet per day of new natural gas capacity. Some of these have gained FERC approval, but others have fallen victim to delays, which in turn postpone construction of the infrastructure necessary to deliver natural gas to consumers.

What causes these delays is really a variety of factors, ranging from all-too-common bureaucracy and institutional stasis within regulatory agencies, to the always challenging task of raising the capital required to finance the projects. But pipeline companies are also met with opposition, typically led by well-funded environmental groups, to literally every project they propose.

Often times, this opposition goes beyond simple NIMBYism and manifests itself in courtrooms, with groups like Earthjustice bringing lawsuits on behalf of a coterie of activists to stop construction. Part of the FERC approval process also includes public comment periods, during which environmental groups flood submission boxes with form letters and assertions of future impacts, regardless of whether those theoretical damages are even plausible.

Indeed, the same groups that have led the charge to stop shale development are also trying to block the pipelines necessary to get that fuel to Northeast families. Their reasoning? If they can’t stop companies from producing natural gas, maybe they can at least prevent them from actually selling it to consumers who want to buy it.

For example, the Northeast Supply Link, proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Co., would bring natural gas to Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey. It has a capacity of 250 million cubic feet (MMCF) per day. But in 2011, as reported by a local newspaper, the Sierra Club did its level best to stop the project:

“Many area residents in attendance as well as a representative from the Sierra Club’s New Jersey Chapter said they are skeptical that there is sufficient demand for natural gas, especially in a weak economy, to warrant construction of the proposed pipeline.” (emphasis added)

Although the project was eventually approved by FERC, this example is instructive. A major environmental organization suggested there was not sufficient natural gas demand in the region to warrant construction of a pipeline. But we know demand has been increasing in the Northeast; in fact, increasing demand is what prompted the latest New York Times report. Right?

Here are some more:

“Kristina Turechek of Oneonta, N.Y., told the panel approval would consign portions of America to a ‘third-world nation’ and turn the nation backward. Other opponents yelled, cursed or called for the arrest of gas industry executives.”

These are, of course, only a snapshot of projects and the efforts to oppose their construction. Once in operation (if they are not tangled up in lawsuits), these pipelines alone would increase the region’s capacity by nearly 2.9 billion cubic feet (BCF) per day. To put that in perspective, in 2009, the two large natural gas distribution companies that serve New York City delivered a combined average of about 1.3 BCF per day to the city’s customers.

FERC also maintains a list of major pipelines awaiting approval, and demand is large enough in the Northeast that companies are constantly making new plans to grow regional infrastructure.

This is not to say that environmental groups are necessarily the biggest contributor to the region’s energy woes. To be sure, a diverse energy mix is important, much like the wisdom we gained from our parents that we should not “put all of our eggs in one basket.” The Times report indicates that the same mentality should be adopted by the Northeast.

Nor is it the case that utilities are uninterested in having a diversity of supply, either. Remember, New York has been delaying a decision about whether to allow responsible shale development for four years. A report for New York City, meanwhile, found that “Marcellus Shale gas production will have a significant effect on pipeline flows across the United States and in the Northeast.” Delaying shale development, by extension, places even more unnecessary constraints on the supplies of energy that consumers demand.

Who’s also leading the fight against diverse energy supplies? The same folks who have avoided culpability in delaying, opposing, or even blocking progress throughout the region.

To wit: Riverkeeper, an environmental organization in New York, wrote in the New York Times in 2010 that the state should shut down the Indian Point nuclear plant and replace it with a natural gas-fired plant. Ironically, Riverkeeper is also leading the charge to oppose responsible natural gas development in New York, and has even dispatched people across the country to try to undermine the safety record of hydraulic fracturing. As you probably could have guessed, Riverkeeper has also voiced opposition to natural gas pipelines.

Nationwide, natural gas and nuclear power generate approximately 50 percent of our electricity. But with environmental groups trying to take both of those off the table (along with coal, which generates the bulk of the remaining electricity), how can we possibly expect to meet growing energy demand?

Regardless of the source of the delay, areas such as the Northeast that need new pipelines are not getting them. That’s not because natural gas is a flawed energy option, and it’s certainly not due to a lack of interest in building pipelines. Companies are continuing to explore options for additional capacity – all the while dealing with irrational activist opposition. And given the fluctuating regulatory framework in New York, the barrier of uncertainty also casts an enormous shadow over future investment.

To understand the effect, we need to understand the causes. Unfortunately, The Times chose not to examine the latter, even though that story is clearly worth telling.

*UPDATE* Illinois Lawmakers: Let’s Move Forward with HF
Today, two downstate lawmakers introduced legislation into the House that would regulate high volume hydraulic fracturing in Illinois, the product of literally months of negotiations between industry, labor and business organizations, environmental groups, and numerous other stakeholders.

kyna (2)Kyna
Field Director, Illinois

 

UPDATE (Feb. 22, 2013; 8:21 am ET): Illinois Governor Pat Quinn (D) has released a statement praising the legislation as a measure that will ensure protection of the environment and bring thousands of new jobs to Illinois. His full statement is below:

“Today’s proposal is good news for Southern Illinois and our entire state’s economy. This legislation has the potential to bring thousands of jobs to Southern Illinois, while also ensuring that Illinois has the nation’s strongest environmental protections.

“I am committed to creating jobs and economic growth in every part of Illinois, and always making sure our water and natural resources are protected for future generations.

“I want to thank everyone who’s been working hard in good faith on this issue. While there is more work to be done, this proposal moves us forward.”

—Original post, February 21, 2013—

Today, two downstate lawmakers introduced legislation into the House that would regulate high volume hydraulic fracturing in Illinois, the product of literally months of negotiations between industry, labor and business organizations, environmental groups, and numerous other stakeholders.

The bill (HB2615) which would create the “Illinois Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act,” establishes new standards for things like water quality, fluid disclosure, air emissions and well construction. The legislation enjoys support from the industry, but also from groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, which had previously supported a two-year moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in the state.

It’s worth noting, however, that the bill is not perfect by any means, as it includes significant new requirements for hydraulic fracturing that could serve as a barrier to future operations. The industry’s proposal would have created a strong but fair regulatory program in the state, matching the benchmarks set by environmental groups on what would be necessary to ensure public safety, including for critical issues like fluid disclosure, baseline water testing, public notifications and well pressure tests, among others. The legislation released today, however, went above and beyond those recommendations.

Imperfect as it is, the alternative to today’s IHFRA bill would be far more destructive: a moratorium. The moratorium bill SB1418 in the state senate would impose a two-year ban on hydraulic fracturing, which essentially amounts to a two-year time out on new investment in a state suffering from an 8.7 percent unemployment rate and the worst bond rating in the country. As we’ve described before, misinformation and activist talking points form the entire basis for a moratorium, highlighting the fundamental flaw with imposing such additional economic hardship on hardworking Illinois families.

Of course, today’s news also shows how out of touch groups opposed to hydraulic fracturing truly are.

Folks like SAFE and Food & Water Watch, among others, have desperately tried to convince the public that hydraulic fracturing is inherently dangerous and must be banned entirely. They argue no amount of regulation could ever guarantee safety, and that the only “responsible” decision is to prevent hydraulic fracturing from ever occurring again.

This sort of head-in-the-sand argument is not only disproven by safe operations in other states, where tight regulations guarantee protection of both the public and the natural environment, but also by the sheer diversity of the coalition now supporting a path forward in Illinois. Ideological opponents of hydraulic fracturing, meanwhile, have chosen to operate outside the mainstream, and have thus been marginalized by their own actions and statements. Even President Obama, in his recent State of the Union address, stressed the need to expand domestic energy production, including oil and natural gas.

Although today’s bill is still a long way from becoming law, and much can change as the legislative process unfolds, it is certainly reassuring that Illinois lawmakers are making the truly responsible choice of casting aside the hyperbole and talking points, and making a genuine effort to allow shale development to move forward.

Utah Air Quality Has a Lot to Do with the Weather
A recent air quality study – conducted by NOAA, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Utah State University, and other university researchers with input by the U.S. EPA, BLM, the counties, and Western Energy Alliance – examined what’s known as “winter ozone” in the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah. The study was designed, among other things, to help researchers better understand atmospheric chemistry in the region and key sources of air emissions, data that would in turn inform future discussions about mitigation strategies.

loper-1Courtney
Field Director, Mountain States

 

A recent air quality study – conducted by NOAA, the Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Utah State University, and other university researchers with input by the U.S. EPA, BLM, the counties, and Western Energy Alliance – examined what’s known as “winter ozone” in the Uinta Basin of northeastern Utah. The study was designed, among other things, to help researchers better understand atmospheric chemistry in the region and key sources of air emissions, data that would in turn inform future discussions about mitigation strategies.

Oil and natural gas development is the largest industry in the Uinta Basin, and operators and service companies have been actively reducing emissions through voluntary agreements with BLM and other regulators. As part of that commitment, Western Energy Alliance and Uinta Basin operators are contributing substantial funds for this study and the follow-on study through 2013 in order to obtain a better scientific understanding of winter ozone formation, and to determine the most effective emissions reductions strategies. Without that fundamental scientific understanding, regulators could be in a situation of imposing requirements that kill jobs while doing little to nothing to address winter ozone – or could even make the situation worse.

What the study found with respect to the weather is a perfect example of why that approach is necessary. As the paper notes:

“…winter ozone formation requires (1) snow cover to increase available sunlight that drives ozone – forming photochemical reactions and (2) strong temperature inversions to decrease atmospheric mixing and allow ozone and its precursors to accumulate in a shallow layer of the atmosphere near the ground.” (p. 1)

In 2012, certain weather conditions – temperature inversions with sufficient snow – were not in place, and although oil and gas production actually rose, ozone levels were well below the levels at which EPA considers there to be any health impact. In fact, median ozone concentrations during the 2012 winter were 28-46 ppb, well below the federal health standard. As the study further observes:

“Unlike the previous two winters, ozone concentrations during UBOS 2011-12 were well below the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), peaking at an eight-hour average of 63 ppb, and snow cover and multi-day temperature inversions were virtually absent.” (p. 1)

During the two previous winters, meanwhile, measured ozone values were roughly twice what they were in 2012.

How to explain that? Well, during the 2009-2010 winter, there were 94 days with snow depth exceeding 50mm, and there were 81 such days in 2010-2011. There were zero such days during the 2011-2012 winter. Indeed, as the study stated explicitly: “Snow cover is a necessary condition for formation of winter ozone episodes.”

Encapsulating all of this information, the study concluded:

“Ozone precursor emissions inventories showing differences in the 2009-10, 2010-11, and 2011-12 winter seasons currently are not available. However, drilling and production data from the Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining (Utah DOGM, 2012) suggest that activity in the Uintah Basin increased between 2009 and 2012 (Figure 4).  Furthermore, no significant new emission control measures were introduced during this period. It is unlikely, therefore, that overall emissions would have decreased so significantly as to account for the lower ozone observed in 2011-12 compared to 2010-11.” (p. 12; emphasis added)

The upshot? Yes, oil and natural gas development is a major industry in the Uinta Basin, and the study mentions that a good portion of the observed emissions came as a result of it. But it’s also clear that what occurs naturally – snow cover, changes in atmospheric conditions, and even wind severity – is necessary for ozone formation in the region to occur.

That’s not to say that the industry is going to stop looking for ways to reduce its emissions; quite the contrary. But it does highlight why an official with Utah’s Air Quality Administration, for example, said regulators are not going to impose any new rules at this time, as more study needs to be completed. Jumping to conclusions, or taking a “shotgun approach” as the Uintah County commissioner put it, is clearly the wrong prescription for solving the ozone problem in the Basin.

And yet, despite all of the information contained in the actual report, including but not limited to everything explained above, the headlines that popped up this week sought to tell a very different story. To wit:

Only the Deseret News in Salt Lake City saw fit to explore and explain what the researchers actually concluded, running a story under the header: “Uintah Basin ozone study points to weather as driving factor.”

It seems most news outlets, like ozone formation in the Basin, are driven heavily by prevailing winds.

*UPDATE* On Flaring and North Dakota
By now, you’ve probably read some of the recent stories about two things that the vast majority of Americans will never see in person: 1) North Dakota, and 2) flaring at the wellhead. But what is actually happening out there in the Peace Garden State -- aside from the virtual full employment and state budget surpluses that tight oil development from the Bakken continues to deliver? EID takes a look at the facts.

Steve
Spokesman

 

UPDATE (2/15/2013, 11:27am ET): During a sparsely covered House hearing earlier this week, Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Tex.) asked U.S. EIA Administrator Adam Sieminski about flaring in North Dakota, as well as any potential related concerns in the Eagle Ford shale in south Texas. Veasey wondered if there were “any technology on the horizon” that would allow us to reduce flaring in places like Texas, North Dakota, and even Alaska.

Here is Sieminski’s response (his remarks begin at the 1:01:05 mark in the archived webcast):

“Although there’s a significant amount of flaring taking place in the Bakken formation right now, I think the latest statistics from North Dakota suggest that it’s actually coming down. It had been as high as 35 or 36 percent of the gas. It’s now down slightly below 30 percent. This is usually indicative of infrastructure build-out needed in a new area.

“The gas is associated with the oil production in North Dakota. I suspect that over time, the pipeline networks will be built out in North Dakota and those numbers will come down even further. Although it seems like a lot of gas, when you just look at the percentage in North Dakota, the amount in North Dakota is less than one-third of one percent. So less than one-third of one percent of total U.S. gas production. And so it’s actually a very small number.

“You’re correct, sir, in that there actually has been some flaring in the Eagle Ford, essentially for the same reason. Eagle Ford is in a part of Texas that’s actually not heavily populated, it doesn’t have the same pipeline infrastructure that you see in other parts of Texas. It’ll just take a little bit of time, and companies are working on that.

“On the technology side, there has been an effort to look into small LNG liquefaction facilities that might be put in place in some of these remote areas where you could turn that natural gas that’s being flared into a liquid, which would be easier to transport. So I think there is a lot of thinking going on in the industry, and although those satellite pictures showing the sky at night and the amount of light being given off in some of these new producing areas seem startling, it is I think relatively small proportion. It’s fairly normal in the course of development in new areas.

“Very quickly, in Alaska, there is a lot of gas that comes up in Alaska with the oil, but it’s re-injected back into the formation. So there’s very little flaring taking place in Alaska.” (emphasis added)

—Original post, February 5, 2013—

By now, you’ve probably read some of the recent stories about two things that the vast majority of Americans will never see in person: 1) North Dakota (which is too bad; it’s a beautiful place with great people), and 2) flaring at the wellhead.

Flaring is a tightly controlled, closely regulated process — one that’s used both as a safety mechanism to regulate and control pressure levels, and as means of converting methane gas into CO2, especially in those cases where there’s not enough natural gas to produce in commercial quantities from the well. Of course, in a perfect world, you wouldn’t need to flare any natural gas – you’d direct every bit of it into a pipeline, and then send it out for sale. But transport infrastructure takes time to build, and it’s tough to build a pipeline out to a wellsite if you don’t even know if there’s enough natural gas out there to produce.

Most of the big national stories on the flaring phenomenon haven’t really focused on any of that stuff, though. Much more intriguing to them is that some flaring sequences can apparently be seen from space. National Public Radio – apparently puzzled that any lights were present in that part of the country at all – links flaring to everything from air pollution to rising tempers. A feature piece for New York Times Magazine also mentions flaring in North Dakota – just before the author describes the state as a place “where winters are brutal and culture is thin.” (Geez, New York — tell us how you really feel about the Midwest…)

So then, notwithstanding NYT’s dim and completely misguided view of North Dakota’s cultural scene: what is actually happening out there in the Peace Garden State? You know, aside from the virtual full employment and state budget surpluses that tight oil development from the Bakken continues to deliver? Below, EID takes a closer look at the facts.

Regulations and Infrastructure

As with any process related to oil and gas, the first (and almost always false) assumption put forth is that flaring is unregulated. How else to explain those bright lights that NASA has photographed from space? How could the state allow that?

Well, in reality, the entire system is heavily regulated and closely monitored, and a sober explanation of the facts should prove useful – even for us temper-prone and uncultured flat-staters.

As noted by the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources (DMR), the oil and gas division of the state’s Industrial Commission “implements and enforces rules and regulations to limit the production of oil produced from wells that are not yet connected to a gas-gathering system.” After a well is completed, a period of time must be allowed to assess flow rates and stabilize production, and the state limits the total amount of oil that can be produced during that process. This helps operators and regulators determine what, if any, added infrastructure will be needed. During this period, when gas is produced as a byproduct, it is flared off.

The alternative would be to either vent the gas or force a serious incident to occur. The state could also theoretically require costly new pipelines to be built before a well is even proven, but as mentioned, not every well drilled will produce commercial quantities of hydrocarbons. There’s also a fundamental economic problem: Why would any company underwrite millions of dollars in pipeline infrastructure without knowing that it will have a product to deliver to consumers?

Now, you might be saying, “That makes sense. But what about all these wells in the Bakken that are clearly proven?” The DMR has some reassuring words about that, too:

“Now that the size of the natural gas resource is proven, operators in the state are rapidly planning and building the gathering pipelines and processing plants as well as access pipelines to the large interstate pipelines that cross the state.”

In other words, before the infrastructure can be put in place, operators need to prove their wells will produce enough product to justify the expense. Remember, it was just a few years ago when North Dakota barely ranked in the top 10 of oil-producing states (it’s now ranked second, behind only Texas). Now that it’s known there are sufficient quantities of gas and its associated liquids, the industry has been investing billions of dollars in new pipeline and processing infrastructure.

Here’s how North Dakota’s governor, attorney general, and agriculture commissioner described it to members of the U.S. Congress a little over a year ago:

“Industry also plans to invest over $3 billion in natural gas gathering and processing infrastructure in 2011, 2012, and 2013. As this investment is made and gas gathering infrastructure is built, policy can be expected to focus even more toward preventing waste in the natural gas arena. By year end 2012, natural gas processing capacity is expected to increase 389% from 2006. North Dakota’s natural gas processing plants will have the capacity to process one billion cubic feet of natural gas per day.”

In his 2013 State of the State Address, Governor Dalrymple provided an update on the progress:

“Our production of natural gas has also more than doubled from two years ago. We have encouraged the gathering of natural gas and have also doubled processing capacity since the end of 2010. By 2014 we expect to have capacity to process 1.36 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. We are also promoting the use of natural gas at the well site instead of diesel fuel, and today we are seeing a leveling off of the percentage of natural gas that is being flared.”

However, even with these facts – clear regulations in place, growing investment in pipelines and other infrastructure – there’s still plenty more to the story.

Energy Context

Two other questions people ask about flaring are: “If we’re burning off all of that gas, aren’t we wasting a lot of energy? And what’s flaring mean in terms of air emissions?” Let’s address the first question…well, first.

The Financial Times recently reported on flaring and provided this nugget of information:

“More than 1,000 wells were connected to the gas-gathering system in 2012, but that has not been enough to cut the proportion of the state’s gas being flared, which has remained stuck at about 30 per cent.”

Flaring 30 percent of all gas produced sounds high, but it leaves out an important fact: the overwhelming majority of energy produced from North Dakota wells comes out in the form of oil or other liquids. Let’s look at flared gas as a percentage of the total energy produced in North Dakota, as highlighted by the state’s governor, attorney general, and agriculture commissioner:

Shale development in general – and hydraulic fracturing in particular – is typically discussed in the context of natural gas. That’s to be expected, especially when you consider all of the economic and environmental benefits that increased supplies of affordable natural gas have provided the United States. But in North Dakota, the story is clearly a bit different, and it’s important to recognize the amount of energy being harnessed and utilized by operators in the state, especially compared to the amount that’s being flared – which, as explained earlier, is clearly preferable to most of the alternatives.

As for environmental impacts, last summer the World Bank described flaring as a “warning sign” in terms of air emissions, and that the global increase in flared gas was “due largely to increased hydrocarbon production in Russia and shale oil and gas operations in the US state of North Dakota.”

That could be cause for alarm, but again, context is helpful.

First of all, despite the World Bank’s rush to judgment in its mentioning of North Dakota alongside Russia in terms of global flaring, just a few paragraphs later the Bank states that “Russia still tops the world’s flaring countries, followed by Nigeria, Iran and Iraq.” The United States – as a whole, not just North Dakota – is fifth.

Additionally, global flaring accounts for about 360 million tons of GHGs, according to the World Bank. In 2010, General Electric estimated that global flaring accounted for about 400 million tons of CO2 equivalent GHGs, equal to approximately two percent of global CO2 emissions from energy sources.

So, after we do a little arithmetic, we find the U.S. share of global flaring is actually incredibly low. The World Bank estimates global flaring at 140 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas, while the United States flared 7.1 bcm. That means the United States accounts for about five percent of all flaring worldwide – even though we’re now the largest natural gas producer in the world and are projected to overtake Saudi Arabia in oil production by the end of this decade.

As for North Dakota specifically, in 2011 the state produced approximately 156 billion cubic feet (bcf) of natural gas, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration notes that in May 2011, 29 percent of that gas was flared, or 45.2 billion cubic feet. Converting back to cubic meters, that’s approximately 1.28 bcm, or 18 percent of the total amount of gas flared in the United States. We’ll let you decide whether that’s good or bad, especially considering the fact that North Dakota is the second largest oil producing state in the country.

What does this mean in terms of emissions? Recall that the World Bank found 140 bcm of flared gas equated to 360 million tons of GHGs. Based on that ratio, GE’s estimates, and some additional basic math, flaring in North Dakota accounts for just 0.017 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions – less than two one-hundredths of one percent.

Conclusion

It’s not surprising that North Dakota’s new role as a major oil supplier to the U.S. energy portfolio is receiving the spotlight, nor is it unexpected that some folks would begin questioning a practice they don’t fully comprehend. The fact that we’re talking about a state that most NYT employees would have trouble finding on a map only adds to the confusion and sense of hyperventilation.

Examined in a vacuum, flaring in North Dakota might be seen as an escalating environmental problem – a “prairie fire” with no extinguisher in sight. Of course, the reality is quite the opposite. With billions of dollars being invested in new infrastructure and clear regulations on the books, it’s clear that continued development of the Bakken Shale will not only yield additional economic and energy security benefits, but also advance along an increasingly efficient and responsible path.

The ‘Promised Land’ Problem for Activists
The real losers in the “Promised Land” debacle are the environmental activists who pinned their hopes on a Hollywood movie to make the case against hydraulic fracturing. By promoting a work of fiction as “real life,” the activists proved just how little they care about the facts. They gambled that nobody would notice their dishonesty if “Promised Land” was a runaway success. But when the movie failed, the activists lost their bet, and their credibility along with it.

Simon
Research Director

 

**NOTE: This piece originally ran on January 31, 2013, at Colorado Energy News.**

“Promised Land,” the anti-drilling movie starring Matt Damon, has officially backfired on environmental activists. They hoped the film would take the box office by storm, win an Oscar, and persuade the overwhelming majority of Americans who support domestic oil and gas production to suddenly change their minds. In fact, in the days before the national release of “Promised Land,” the Associated Press reported environmental groups were “positively giddy” about how the film would boost their misinformation campaign to ban hydraulic fracturing and eliminate oil and gas development on American soil. It was even called an “epic film” by Food & Water Watch – the Washington, D.C. group that’s orchestrating most of the anti-energy activism in Colorado.

But “Promised Land” was a flop. It opened nationally in close to 1,700 theaters, but within two weeks, all but 134 theaters had dropped the movie due to low ticket sales. According to the L.A. Times, “Promised Land” cost $15 million to produce, but by late January, it grossed less than $8 million at the box office. Adding insult to financial injury, the movie got bad reviews, failed to win a single nomination during awards season, and is less popular on Facebook than RealPromisedLand.org, a website my colleagues and I practically built with duct tape and baling wire to tell the other side of the story. And even before the film was released, it was revealed “Promised Land” received financial support from the United Arab Emirates, a member of the OPEC foreign oil cartel with a clear interest in suppressing U.S. energy production.

The real losers in the “Promised Land” debacle, however, are the environmental activists who pinned their hopes on a Hollywood movie to make the case against hydraulic fracturing. By promoting a work of fiction as “real life,” the activists proved just how little they care about the facts. They gambled that nobody would notice their dishonesty if “Promised Land” was a runaway success and deceived the public into opposing a fundamentally safe technology that’s creating jobs, boosting the economy, bolstering the nation’s energy security and cutting people’s energy bills. But when the movie failed, the activists lost their bet, and their credibility along with it.

Unfortunately, this probably won’t stop activist groups from peddling their fictional talking points as they continue to try to mislead citizens, elected officials, state regulators and the news media. So, in the interests of promoting a serious discussion about oil and gas development in Colorado, here are some of the worst examples of those talking points and just some of the facts that explain why they’re wrong.

CREDO Action: “Fracking is inherently dangerous.”

That’s not true, according to President Obama’s Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar, a former Colorado senator and attorney general. “There’s a lot of hysteria that takes place now with respect to hydraulic fracking,” Salazar told Congress last year. “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.” Salazar’s comments match the conclusions of a report from the U.S. Department of Energy and the Ground Water Protection Council, which found hydraulic fracturing is “safe and effective” and a “key technology” for producing affordable energy in America.

Sierra Club: “Fracking contaminates groundwater.”

Not true. Hydraulic fracturing takes place thousands of feet below ground, in many cases more than a mile underground. According to Stanford University geophysicist Mark Zoback, an adviser to U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu, there has never been a case of fracturing fluids migrating through thousands of feet of impermeable rock into shallow drinking water wells. The process “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,” Zoback says. “Fracturing fluids have not contaminated any water supply and with that much distance to an aquifer, it is very unlikely they could.” Zoback’s view has been affirmed by U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson a number of times, and by a recent study from the U.S.Geological Survey in Louisiana’s Fayetteville Shale, which found “no groundwater contamination associated with gas production” from hydraulic fracturing. And in Colorado, Gov. John Hickenlooper has said after testing thousands of the state’s water wells, “we can’t find frack fluid in the water.”

Save Colorado from Fracking: “How can we afford to have millions of gallons of water wasted by fracking?”

Environmental activists in Colorado and other Western states have a clear strategy to manipulate the fear of drought and water shortages into fear of the oil and gas industry. But it’s a dishonest line of attack that takes the “millions of gallons of water” used in the hydraulic fracturing process completely out of context.

Colorado’s water use can be measured in trillions of gallons, and according to a joint report from three state agencies, “the amount of water currently used for hydraulic fracturing in Colorado is a small portion of the total amount of water used.” In fact, the report finds hydraulic fracturing accounts for 0.08 percent of the state’s water consumption. Compared to other sources, this is one-fifth the amount used by power plants, roughly 100 times less than municipal and industrial demand, and 1,000 times less than agriculture, the state’s biggest water user. Hydraulic fracturing’s water use is expected to rise in the next few years, but only to “slightly more than one-tenth of one percent of the total water used,” according to the report.

The activists also leave out another critical factor from their talking points – water intensity, or the amount of water consumed for every unit of energy produced. Researchers at Harvard University studied the water intensity of natural gas produced from deep shale formations with the help of hydraulic fracturing and found it was 1,000 times lower than the water intensity of renewable biofuels, such as ethanol. Why? Because the hydraulic fracturing process lasts only a matter of days, but shale gas wells keep producing energy for many years, which dramatically lowers water intensity. “The increased role of shale gas in the U.S. energy sector could result in reduced water consumption,” the Harvard study said.

In a separate paper, another team of researchers from Colorado State University and oil and gas producer Noble Energy found the water intensity of hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas was “one of the lowest” of all energy sources, and “comparable with solar energy.”

Food & Water Watch: “Air quality [on the Front Range] is 10 times worse than Houston, Texas, as a result of oil and gas drilling.”

This is completely false. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency closely monitors ground-level ozone or smog in 41 major metropolitan areas. Houston is near the bottom of the list, ranked 33rd in air quality, while the nine-county Denver area ties for second place.

That doesn’t make Denver’s air quality perfect, of course. Like any big city with large numbers of cars, trucks, power plants and industrial facilities, it has smog. But emissions from oil and gas development, which are tightly regulated under state and federal law, are not making the problem worse. “In recent years, the trend has been downward,” with average smog levels that “fluctuate within the amount of variance seen for the last several years,” according to a statewide report from the Colorado’s Air Pollution Control Division. EPA data also show similar fluctuations around Denver, with a recent decline. These smog observations were recorded during a major expansion of energy production in Colorado. For example, from 2006 to 2011, oil and natural gas production in Colorado increased by 59 percent and 36 percent respectively.

Food & Water Watch: “Fracking drives down property values.”

If this were true, then Colorado’s real estate market would have been hit harder by the 2007-2009 national collapse in housing prices, and would have recovered more slowly than other parts of the country, because oil and gas production increased dramatically during this time.

The facts tell a very different story. According to NBC News, Colorado real estate “was not badly damaged when the housing bubble broke,” and the state has the fifth-strongest housing market in the country. In the Denver metropolitan area, economic development officials say home prices “have weathered the market’s recent weakness much better than prices nationwide,” and increased by more than 11 percent last year.  Meanwhile in Weld County, which has about 19,000 oil and gas wells, the statistics tell a story that’s just as good or even a little better. In the county that has more oil and gas wells than any other county in the U.S., median home prices rose by 12 percent last year, according to IRES MLS data.

This is no surprise, of course. The real estate market does better when the economy does better, and according to Englewood-based consulting firm, IHS, the energy production tied to hydraulic fracturing makes a huge contribution to the state’s economy. It supports 77,000 jobs, adds $11 billion in economic value and generates $1.4 billion in Colorado state and local taxes each year.

Letterman Misses the Mark on HF. Again.
Last night on the "Late Show with David Letterman," the host and self-anointed expert on all things hydraulic fracturing attempted to have a factual conversation with former Vice President Al Gore about onshore oil and gas development. The subject was discussed in between jokes about how the industrial revolution will kill off the human race, Gore's support of President Obama in the 2012 election, and questions about Gore's decision to sell his television station to Al Jazeera.

Steve
Spokesman

 

Last night on the “Late Show with David Letterman,” the host and self-anointed expert on all things hydraulic fracturing attempted to have a factual conversation with former Vice President Al Gore about onshore oil and gas development (spoiler: they failed). The subject was discussed in between jokes about how the industrial revolution will kill off the human race (high brow comedy for sure!), Gore’s support of President Obama in the 2012 election, and questions about Gore’s decision to sell his television station to Al Jazeera.

Before getting into the juicy details, it’s worth mentioning that this isn’t the first time Letterman stepped on a rake trying to discuss shale development. Last summer he went on a rant about flaming water and every other claim imaginable, which EID examined with our own Top Ten list of Dave’s errors. There was also Letterman’s comical interview with Promised Land‘s John Krasinski (comical for all the wrong reasons, mind you), which included its own swing-and-a-miss conversation about hydraulic fracturing.

So, the fact that Letterman brought up the subject last night with Al Gore — a noted environmentalist — is unsurprising, although it’s still unfortunate that the “Late Show” keeps providing a forum for people to spread misinformation about a process that’s so important to American energy development.

Without further ado, here’s the most relevant excerpt, and what they got wrong.

Letterman: “Fracking, people setting fire to their tapwater. That can’t be good. We have to stop that. We’re poisoning the great aquifers that keep the, uh… and with the drought coming on.. uh, we’re nothing but screwed.”

Letterman: “Where, uh… is there safe fracking?”

Gore: “It should be very tightly regulated. There are serious questions about the way they put the concrete down in the uh, the wells. It tends to fall apart too often. There’s a real problem with the amount of water that’s required and when the water is used it comes back up poisonous. And then they dispose of it by putting it back deep in the ground.”

Letterman: “But didn’t the EPA waive requirements for certain elements that are used…?”

Gore: “It wasn’t the EPA, it was in the Bush-Cheney administration. In their first year, former Vice President Cheney got a law passed that exempted fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act.”

Letterman: “That’s right. Why..why would he do that? What’s the matter with that guy? Honest to God…”

Tenn. Volunteering Massive New Energy Supplies to U.S. Energy Portfolio
When people hear “Tennessee,” many think of Nashville – the home of the Grand Ole Opry and a mecca of live music. What very few people would associate with Tennessee, however, is oil and natural gas development. According to the EIA, the Volunteer State produced 245,000 barrels of oil in 2011– roughly the same amount of oil that New Mexico produces every day. But some news this week suggests that could all be changing.

Dana
Staff Geologist

 

When people hear “Tennessee,” many think of Nashville – the home of the Grand Ole Opry and a mecca of live music. Others look farther west, toward delicious Memphis barbecue and Graceland. And, of course, there’s a certain SEC football team in Knoxville, located next to the Great Smoky Mountains and currently, desperately, looking for someone, anyone to coach their team.

What very few people would associate with Tennessee, however, is oil and natural gas development. According to the EIA, the Volunteer State produced 245,000 barrels of oil in 2011– roughly the same amount of oil that New Mexico produces every day.

But some news this week suggests that could all be changing. A single horizontal well in the Mississippian Fort Payne limestone in Tennessee has just been completed, and the operator – Miller Energy – estimates that it could produce 200 to 225 barrels per day. Such production would represent an increase in Tennessee oil production of roughly 30 percent. And every bit of it, all from a single well.

So, does this mean Tennessee has officially joined the ranks of large shale producing states like Texas, Pennsylvania, and North Dakota? Well, no, not exactly – not yet at least. But it does suggest that the development of tight resources in Tennessee could increase in the near future, providing more economic opportunity, more tax revenue, and more jobs to a state currently suffering from a 7.6 percent unemployment rate.

Talking of future economic benefits based on the completion of a single well might seem a bit presumptive, but let’s recall recent history: For decades, the industry acknowledged the enormous potential of shale and other tight reservoirs throughout the country, but technological and economic obstacles prevented large-scale commercial activity. Once George Mitchell cracked the code in the Barnett Shale of Texas by combining hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, however, the opportunities in shale basins all across America skyrocketed.

Still, even with industry-wide best practices and the benefit of scalable technologies, each geological formation still represents its own code to be cracked, and investing the time and effort to complete the first successful well can be overwhelming. But once that’s achieved? Subsequent wells benefit from knowledge of “what works” for that specific formation, which means new wells are often easier to drill and complete. That can mean lower costs and, ultimately, an increase in production.

Of course, it’s not surprising that this potentially great sign of things to come in Tennessee was made possible by an independent company like Miller Energy. Indeed, independents are the backbone of America’s oil and natural gas industry, drilling 95 percent of all new wells in the United States and producing nearly 70 percent of the country’s oil. Not for nuthin’, but independents were also what made the “shale revolution” possible to begin with – and what will ensure it remains the phenomenon it’s become for decades for decades into the future.

So, in summation: no, the Volunteer State likely won’t surpass Texas any time soon in oil production. But it is hard to see this successful horizontal well as anything but a positive development for the state – and one that observers of this space will be watching very closely over the next 12 months.

Shale Helps United States Reach Historic Oil Production
In November 2012, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released its 2012 World Energy Outlook Report, which found that North American oil and natural gas development is redefining the global energy landscape. Now just a few weeks later, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has released its "Short-Term Energy Outlook" for January, which actually shines an even brighter light on this historic shale-driven news.

Julia
Researcher

 

In November 2012, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released its 2012 World Energy Outlook Report, which found that North American oil and natural gas development is redefining the global energy landscape. Now just a few weeks later, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) has released its “Short-Term Energy Outlook” for January, which actually shines an even brighter light on this historic shale-driven news.

According to the report, oil production increased by more than 800,000 barrels per day from last year.  As E&E News (sub req’d) highlights, this growing output from the Bakken and Eagle Ford shale plays averaged 6.4 million barrels per day over 2012.  The EIA says this is “the largest annual increase [in oil production] since the birth of the U.S. oil industry in 1859.”

And things aren’t slowing down anytime soon. The first EIA report of its kind to contain 2014 data projects U.S. crude oil output will rise to 7.3 million barrels per day in 2013 and 7.9 million barrels per day in 2014. According to EIA, this would “mark the highest annual average level of production since 1988.”

EIA’s glowing outlook is not alone. A report released in September 2012 by Goldman Sachs highlighted America’s energy revolution, which is made possible by hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling. According to Goldman, this growth “will transform the domestic and global economy over the next decade.” And it’s certainly a boost for American energy security. Numbers from IEA and research by Bank of America Merrill Lynch found the United States was by far the largest contributor to non-OPEC oil supply growth in 2011:

Just a few decades ago, the United States was in the midst of the Arab Oil Embargo, facing a ban on petroleum imports from Arab oil-producing nations and left in the throes of the 1973 energy crisis until conflict resolved in spring of 1974.  Now that story has reversed. Thanks to shale, the United States stands to double its historic production, decreasing reliance on foreign energy and increasing our own domestic energy capacity. Meanwhile, countries like Saudi Arabia are forced to scratch their heads about an outlook that no longer places them as the global oil leader.

From helping us become more energy secure to providing a major boost to our economy, the responsible development of America’s shale reserves is a vital component of our country’s energy future.

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.

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.”

*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.

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.

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

Kyna
Field Director, Illinois

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David
Field Director, Texas

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

« Older Entries