Home » Posts tagged "Pennsylvania"

Pennsylvania

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.

Report Finds Enormous Cost of HF Delays in New York
The Marcellus shale continues to bring good news to Pennsylvania: high-paying jobs, royalty payments for families, and an affordable feedstock for American manufacturers. Unfortunately, as these benefits are realized by Commonwealth towns and counties, neighboring New York has been left to watch, waiting for these same benefits – much like the natural gas underground -- to be brought to the surface. And as a new report highlights, those potential benefits are enormous.

Dana-BohanDana
Staff Geologist

 

The Marcellus shale continues to bring good news to Pennsylvania: high-paying jobs, royalty payments for families, and an affordable feedstock for American manufacturers. Unfortunately, as these benefits are realized by Commonwealth towns and counties, neighboring New York has been left to watch, waiting for these same benefits – much like the natural gas underground — to be brought to the surface. And as a new report highlights, those potential benefits are enormous.

The report from the Empire Center, a project of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, takes a look at how shale development is creating jobs and generating income in Pennsylvania counties – and how it could provide the same benefits throughout New York. That hinges, of course, on whether Governor Cuomo will lift the five-year moratorium on hydraulic fracturing.

According to the report, between 2007 and 2011, Pennsylvania counties with more than 200 Marcellus wells experienced a 19 percent rise in per-capita income. Counties with fewer wells also experienced growth; those with 20 to 200 wells had a 14 percent income rise, and those with fewer than 20 wells registered a 12 percent rise. As the report highlights, these benefits are clear and concrete.

“By our count, there are immediate and concrete benefits in hydrofracturing wells: more money in the pockets of the people, more tax revenue for the state. These data deserve close attention and consideration as New York State confronts its decision.” (p.10)

So what do these numbers mean for neighboring New Yorkers? According to the Empire Center’s data, the twenty eight New York counties above the Marcellus Shale would see a 15 percent income-growth rate over the four years following the lifting of the current moratorium – a growth rate of six percent above what they are currently experiencing. That translates to over $8 billion in extra income to upstate New York families.

To put these numbers into action, take the example of Chemung County – a county in southwestern New York with much to gain from hydraulic fracturing. In 2011, Chemung County had a per-capita income of under $36,000, about average for the Empire state’s Marcellus counties. But as the report notes:

“Under the hydrofracturing moratorium, our model projects that Chemung will see a per-capita income of over $38,000 in 2015, a 7 percent increase. Total annual income would have increased by $231 million. However, if hydrofracturing were permitted in Chemung, natural gas extraction start-up and the drilling of just 20 unconventional wells through the period would have brought per-capita income up to an estimated $39,207, an increase of over 10 percent. Well-drilling at the average Pennsylvania rate of 52.3 wells in 2011–15 would bring another full percent of income growth, to $39,540.” (p.9)

Real money in the pockets of real Americans. It’s hard to argue with that – although Governor Cuomo’s continued delays have certainly prevented that income from becoming a reality.

As with anything, the study notes you cannot weigh benefits without costs, and that any final decisions about moving forward with the practice in New York state will consider both.  But as the environmental benefits of clean-burning natural gas continue to unfold, and as technological advances make industry safer and cleaner every day, those costs are on a clear downward trajectory. Also of note: a Yale Graduate Energy Study Group looked at shale development and compared the cost of repairing potential environmental damage with the likely benefits to consumers and producers, the benefits exceeded costs by a factor of up to 400 to one.

Development of the Marcellus Shale is a net positive for consumers, counties, and the environment alike. The quicker New York can recognize those facts and move forward with responsible development, the better it will be for families in the Southern Tier, and indeed for all energy consumers throughout New York.

*UPDATE* Shale Delivers for Middle (and Middle-Class) America
In the ongoing conversation over America’s abundance of natural gas, one thing is becoming very clear: The continued development of our nation’s oil and natural gas resources is helping advance our economy where it matters most – in the pocketbooks of middle class Americans.

johnkrohnJD
Communications Director

 

UPDATE (5/03/2013; 9:43 A.M. ET):The Atlantic and Business Insider filed reports this week that make abundantly clear the profound economic impacts oil and natural gas development provides to middle class Americans. Reporting on the economic advancements in two states that couldn’t be more different – North Dakota and Pennsylvania – the reviews provided a succinct picture of how shale development is not only transforming U.S. energy prospects, but is also dramatically improving the quality of life for the nation’s blue collar workers.

The Atlantic reports the entire economic landscape has changed for many residents in the Peace Garden State:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics recently produced a breakdown of job growth during North Dakota’s oil rush, and it’s pretty remarkable. In counties where oil rigs have sprouted up to drill from the Bakken Shale Formation — a few of which are actually in Montana — employment grew by 35.9 percent from 2007 to 2011, from about 78,000 jobs to more than 105,000. But much as in Texas’s shale country, the impact on local job growth has actually been dwarfed by the impact on local income. Total wages more than doubled from $2.6 billion to $5.4 billion. Average pay jumped by more than half, from $33,040 to $50,553.

Blue-collar men suddenly finding high-paying work in the fields is a big part of the story. But jobs and paychecks have surged across industries.

While this story is compelling, it’s not unique. Business Insider also took a closer look at the economic benefits shale development has provided one formerly rural poor Pennsylvania county. According to reporters who visited the area, “lots of people [are] grateful for the infusion of commerce injected into a local economy that had stagnated.” From Business Insider:

The 35-year-old Susquehanna County, Penn. native was scraping by supplying construction contractors with cut bluestone when the gas industry arrived to his sleepy corner of Pennsylvania in 2009.

Four years later, Diaz now owns seven different companies, including a home furnishings manufacturer and a timber harvester — that bring in $50 million a year and employs 250 people.

By one count, county residents have taken in a total of $300 million in gas royalties.

Jay Agkinson, a lifelong county resident who runs Montrose’s Shell station, said morning fill-ups can sometimes resemble truck meets.

“A lot of people who never had money have money now,” he said.

In countless communities across the country, Americans are seeing their economic prospects transformed for the better thanks to the responsible development of the nation’s shale resources. That’s welcome news for thousands of blue collar Americans, many of whom have seen their incomes and opportunity stagnate and decline in recent years.

—Original post, February 20, 2013—

In the ongoing conversation over America’s abundance of natural gas, one thing is becoming very clear: The continued development of our nation’s oil and natural gas resources is helping advance our economy where it matters most – in the pocketbooks of middle class Americans.

In fact, a growing body of evidence highlights that oil and natural gas development is a key element in reaching the “North Star” that President Obama recently noted should be the goal of our nation’s economic policies; namely, a growing economy that creates good middle class jobs.

In 2011, the oil and natural gas industry provided $545 billion to the U.S. economy in the form of capital expenditures, wages and dividend payments. This supported nine percent of all new jobs that year, according to the World Economic Forum.

Such growth, in turn, is transforming entire regional economies. Take, for example, the city of Pittsburgh, Pa.  This once reveled blue-collar city was a symbol of U.S. economic strength until the collapse of U.S. steel and manufacturing in the early 1980s. Thereafter, the city struggled to right its course, with only limited success. But now wages are rising, unemployment is falling and many are attributing this growth, at least in part, to a stronger economy supported by Marcellus Shale development.

Kurt Rankin, an economist and assistant vice president at the PNC Financial Services Group, sees Marcellus development as “providing the defining force for Pittsburgh’s local economy,” according to a recent feature by E&E News. Other experts have similarly observed that shale development is boosting wealth, increasing local spending and reversing a “brain drain” that has plagued the region for years.

Rankin has good reason for his optimism, too. Houston, Tex. has seen rapid growth as major energy Companies have relocated to, or increased their presence in, the Space City due to  $120 billion worth of investments in refineries, pipelines and export terminals expected to be constructed along the Gulf Coast.

Similar expansions have been witnessed in smaller U.S. cities like Williamsport, Pa. This medium sized central Pennsylvania city, long known for hosting the Little League World Series, became the 7th fastest growing city in the United States in 2011 thanks to Marcellus Shale development.

Of course, these economic advancements haven’t just accrued in our nation’s metropolitan areas.  In fact, they are most evident in areas where a majority of middle class Americans reside: our nation’s rural and suburban communities. This was noted in a recent USA TODAY story, which found that oil and natural gas development is increasing personal income in small towns across the nation, reversing a decade’s long trend and shifting significant wealth toward areas of the country that can use the boost. Specifically, the USA TODAY analysis noted these areas saw their incomes rise by 3.8 percent, driven by spending in the nation’s oil and gas fields.

But the story doesn’t end there. A San Antonio Express-News review of economic data supported by Eagle Ford Shale development noted that income in LaSalle County, Tex., rose by 31 percent since shale development began.  In fact, the review found that counties hosting Eagle Ford development saw an average increase in per capita income of 13.62 percent between 2008 and 2011. These counties include Atascosa,Bee, DeWitt, Dimmit, Frio, Gonzales, Karnes, La Salle, Live Oak, Maverick, McMullen, Webb, Wilson, and Zavala. For comparison, Texas saw an increase in per capita income of 1.3 percent over that time.

Eagle Ford income rais chart

Eagle Ford Shale development drives personal income growth. source: http://bit.ly/Y75fxh

What’s making this rise possible is a significant increase in good paying jobs being provided by a growing domestic oil and natural gas industry.  A recent independent review found that wages for the mining, oil and natural gas sector increased by 5.8 percent between the last quarters of 2011 and 2012, an amount greater than any 12-month period since 2006. Examining employment data from two states makes this phenomenon very clear. In Pennsylvania, Marcellus Shale development is directly supporting more than 30,000 jobs in the state.  These jobs pay $89,116 per year, which exceeds the average compensation of all other Pennsylvania industries by $41,000 according to state data. According to the 2010 Census, this even exceeds the Keystone State’s average household income of $51,651.

PA Income chart

PA wages comparison. Source: http://bit.ly/WuUVtW

A similar story is taking shape in Ohio, where Utica Shale development began ramping up in 2012.  According to a recent state report, shale development is directly employing nearly 7,300 individuals who are earning an average wage of $74,000 a year. This figure exceeds the wages of all other Ohio industries by approximately $30,000.

What’s making this development even more profound is that at the same time shale development is increasing wages, it’s also decreasing expenses for most Americans. Wholesale electricity prices in the United States have dropped more than 50 percent since 2008 thanks to affordable natural gas supplies made possible by shale development.  Another review by IHS-CERA found that lower natural gas prices are saving every American household an annual average of $926. All of this, and more, led the President to recently declare in the State of the Union, “We produce more natural gas than ever before — and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it.”

So, as it turns out, the President doesn’t need to look too far to find that North Star he referenced in the State of the Union Address. From providing millions of jobs, to increasing paychecks while decreasing expenses, our ability to develop our nation’s oil and natural gas resources seems to be the compass that is pointing to a stronger middle class.

 

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:

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

Tom

Tom
Campaign Manager, EID-Marcellus

 

Cross-posted from EID-Marcellus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEP Letter Showed No Contamination from Outset

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plaintiffs Admit No Health Impacts

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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2013-03-21 at 4.59.21 PM

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

Other Facts Ignored by Some Media Outlets

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

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

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

…

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

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

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

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

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

Courthouse

Washington County Courthouse

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

Which Is It?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

johnkrohn

JD
Communications Director

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smithfield 2 Smithfield 1Smithfield 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Looking for facts on air quality in Pa.? Read the (whole) report
E&E News featured a story (subs. req’d) this week that paints an alarming picture with respect to air emissions in Pennsylvania. The article uses data from the Pa. Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and a recent study by the RAND Corporation to suggest shale development is emitting compounds linked to respiratory problems and even premature death. It’s an interesting tale. And an inaccurate one, thankfully -- disproven by the same data that’s cited in the story.

JD
Communications Director

E&E News featured a story (subs. req’d) this week that paints an alarming picture with respect to air emissions in Pennsylvania. The article uses data from the Pa. Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and a recent study by the RAND Corporation to suggest shale development is emitting compounds linked to respiratory problems and even premature death. It’s an interesting tale. And an inaccurate one, thankfully — disproven by the same data that’s cited in the story.

Truth is, according to the report, emissions from oil and gas development account for less than one percent of most emissions statewide. Also important: increased natural gas use has actually lowered emissions in the Commonwealth, including in counties where shale development is taking place. Perhaps that’s why the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reported the same story under the headline “State, private data say gas industry creates only fraction of state’s air pollution.”

Unfortunately, E&E News overlooked all of that data, focusing (exclusively) instead on making the case that even the mere presence of any compound that might be emitted during shale development must imply a causal link to health problems.  Luckily, the picture is a lot clearer when the information is presented in a more objective light — good news for a state where natural gas development ushered in over $11.2 billion in economic activity in 2010 alone and has helped support over 200,000 jobs – many of which had an annual wage that exceeds the state’s average by $41,000.

Of course, these reports don’t exactly represent the first time the issue of air quality has been studied in Pennsylvania. Previous reviews were conducted by DEP in 2011, for instance, under then Democratic governor Ed Rendell. As part of that research, DEP conducted ambient air quality testing in each corner of the state where Marcellus operations were taking place, with the agency reporting in the end that it “did not identify concentrations of any compound that would likely trigger air-related health issues associated with Marcellus Shale drilling activities.” In addition, the reviews “did not detect concentrations above the National Ambient Air Quality Standards at any of the sampling sites.”

But E&E News doesn’t cite any of that. Nor does it include any mention of a key passage from page seven of the “leaked” emissions inventory document from DEP cited in the story. Here’s what that had to say:

“Emissions from point sources have decreased since the last complete emissions inventory was developed for 2008.  The following table shows the emissions have decreased as a result of the installations of control equipment on the electric generating units as well as the conversion to natural gas.”  (emphasis added)

 How big was that decline in emissions? This chart – also ignored by E&E – is included in DEP’s report:

So, in other words, natural gas helped reduce the level of air pollutants over the past four years, including carbon monoxide (CO) by 8,400 tons, nitrogen oxide (NOx) by over 43,000 tons, particulate matter by 8,000 tons, sulfur oxides by over 511,000 tons and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) by over 4,000 tons. All of this represents a great success for Pennsylvania’s air quality – and it hinged on the increased use of natural gas in the state, which was of course made possibly by responsible shale development.

The good news doesn’t end there. A review of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s “2008 Ambient Air Quality Monitoring and Emissions Trends Reports” notes this downward trend is even deeper for VOCs and sulfur dioxide (SO2).  Specifically, the report notes that many of the counties where shale development took place – including Bradford and Washington counties – saw significant declines in emissions from 2004-2008. Over this time period, VOCs and SO2 in Bradford County decreased by 162 tons and 130 tons respectively, while Washington County saw a decrease of 11 tons and 1,340 tons.

What’s also worth noting – and again, something that is carefully avoided in any detail by E&E News – is that just last week, PA DEP announced new permitting requirements that will further reduce emissions from natural gas distribution systems and wellpads. When implemented, DEP’s tightened regulations governing compressor station emissions are expected to reduce emissions levels even further, including: an expected 90 percent reduction in NOx; an 87.5 percent reduction in CO and a 90 percent reduction in VOCs (see chart below).

So, in the end, it turns out the documents reveal a success story worth highlighting. Namely that natural gas development accounts for less than 1% of most sources of air pollution in Pennsylvania and has reduced the state’s harmful emissions by over 574,400 tons while providing significant economic benefits for residents from McKeesport to Montrose.  That’s good news for the Keystone State that’s only been made possible thanks to the safe and responsible development of the Marcellus Shale.

A Wealth Transfer We Can Get Behind
From reviving local steel mills in blue collar communities to supporting family businesses, responsible shale development is transforming and reshaping our economy for the better. And according to an analysis by USA TODAY, oil and natural gas development is also rapidly increasing personal income in small towns – reversing a decade’s long trend and shifting significant wealth toward rural areas of the country that certainly can use the boost.

JD
Communications Director

From reviving local steel mills in blue collar communities to supporting family businesses, responsible shale development is transforming and reshaping our economy for the better.  And according to an analysis by USA TODAY, oil and natural gas development is also rapidly increasing personal income in small towns – reversing a decade’s long trend and shifting significant wealth toward rural areas of the country that certainly can use the boost.

To reach this conclusion, USA TODAY examined Bureau of Economic Analysis data from 2007 to 2011. Over this period, individuals in metropolitan areas saw their income decrease, on average, by 3.5 percent. Their rural counterparts, meanwhile, saw their incomes rise by 3.8 percent – thanks in part to oil and gas development in the Southwest, Mountain States and Midcontinent.

Bill Connors, President of the Boise Metro Area Chamber of Commerce, summed up the situation nicely: “Give us a little shale, and we’ll show some pretty good income growth, too.”

The trend is especially prevalent when you take a closer look at statistics from North Dakota.  According to the review, six of the top 10 counties in the United States experiencing wage growth right now are located above the Bakken Shale, which has also helped that state achieve a nation-leading three percent unemployment rate – essentially, full-employment. In fact, jobs are so plentiful in North Dakota that fast food restaurants in towns like Williston are paying more than $15/hour and offering signing bonuses to attract new staff.

The juxtaposition between income levels in rural and metropolitan areas is especially striking.  USA TODAY found that Sutton County, Texas – a major oil producing county with a population of only about 4,000 – saw average wages and benefits double over the time period studied, with individuals receiving an average salary of $115,775 during 2011.  Only Manhattan, New York – the financial center of the United States and arguably the world – was able to eclipse this level of compensation.

If this story sounds familiar, it should.  Last year, a study by Sentier Research found that seven of the top 10 states that experienced increases in household income during the Great Recession were states where oil and natural gas development is a significant contributor to the economy.

But shale development isn’t just increasing pre-existing wages; it’s also creating millions of new jobs.  According to the World Economic Forum, the oil and natural gas industry created nearly one in 10 of all new jobs in the United States last year.  This, in turn, translates to significant positive impacts in communities where development is taking place.  In 2011, for example, Pennsylvania was home to the 7th fastest growing metropolitan area in the nation (Williamsport, PA; 7.8 percent growth) and  also two of the top ten growing counties in the United States, where employment grew by 4.3 percent (Washington County) and 4.2 percent (Butler County).

These significant benefits, combined with residents gaining increased understanding of the safe practices of America’s oil and natural gas industry, are also a big reason for the amazing level of support for increased energy development.  Need proof? Polling conducted after the recent presidential election found that a strong majority of voters, 94 percent of those surveyed, believe expanded oil and natural gas development is important for our nation’s economic and energy security.

Is there any other issue – absent a call for more hilarious cat videos on YouTube – for which Americans would voice support even approaching 94 percent?

With reports like these it’s understandable why residents in a state like New York – which is home to many struggling small towns above the Marcellus Shale – are becoming increasingly frustrated by Governor Cuomo’s repeated delays in approving shale development. Little wonder, too, why voters in that state took their frustration to the ballot box and voted against candidates calling for more delays or even outright bans. Also worth mentioning: the Empire State hosts the nation’s 10th highest unemployment rate and one of the nation’s highest property tax burdens.

So, in a nutshell, the safe development of America’s shale resources is not only helping to make the United States more economically competitive, it’s also reviving the same small businesses and communities that continue to make our nation great.  The next time activists try to block development, maybe we should ask them a simple question: Whose side are you really on?

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

Joe
Marcellus Field Director

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve
Spokesman

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Original post from April 18, 2012—

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

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

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

According to the BLS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve
Spokesman

 

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

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

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

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

–

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

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

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

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

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

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

PROBLEM 4: Claims spills and violations are increasing.

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

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

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

–

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

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

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

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

Eric Hardgrove
Media Director, Nationwide Mutual Insurance

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

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

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

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

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

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

The “Science” Behind Generating Headlines
From the draft report on water quality in Pavillion, Wyo., to a Cornell graduate student's paper on public health, opponents of oil and gas development are displaying a troubling habit of leaping to conclusions before even basic scientific review can be completed. But if your job is to generate headlines, why let science get in the way?

Last December, EPA released a draft report on water quality in tiny Pavillion, Wyo., which was immediately seized upon by opponents of natural gas development in the United States (and even around the world) as smoking-gun proof that hydraulic fracturing pollutes drinking water. Never mind that the paper hadn’t been peer reviewed, or that within a few months the EPA to backtrack and admit that its testing procedures were inadequate, suspending peer review altogether until new sampling could be completed. Just two months after the release of the draft report, EPA Region 8 administrator Jim Martin told a House panel in no uncertain terms that the agency had not established a “causal link” between hydraulic fracturing and water contamination.

Fast-forward to today. Shale opponents have now seized upon yet another “report” (from Cornell, where else?) that supposedly links poor infant health (specifically low birth weight) to natural gas production. And, once again, the paper has not yet undergone peer review — the very process that helps sort out, at least in theory, legitimate scientific conclusions from simple suppositions or even outright activism. In fact, left unmentioned by the activists cheering the release of the paper is the fact that the author, Elaine Hill, is a graduate student in applied economics and management — hardly a field that one would expect to include complex epidemiological assessments.

Andy Revkin at the New York Times – certainly no shill for the oil and gas industry! — has done a deep dive into the problem of jumping the gun on this kind of research, including the fact that opponents are now using Ms. Hill as some sort of “champion” of their cause. What Revkin uncovered, among many things, is that the activist group New Yorkers Against Fracking hired a PR firm (BerlinRosen Public Affairs) to promote the piece, and the firm sent out a pitch to the media about the paper, stating only that it was written by a “researcher at Cornell” — nothing about peer review, and nothing about the fact that the author is still a graduate student. Revkin asked BerlinRosen about why they were promoting a paper before peer review, to which the firm replied that Ms. Hill’s results raise “critical questions” that “should be discussed.”

Why is this worth noting? Because Ms. Hill herself told Mr. Revkin that her results are “preliminary” (that aspect was ignored by activists, either deliberately or inconveniently) and that she “does not want to rush it” in terms of publication. She also said it’s a “valid” point to suggest that her conclusions not be cited until peer review is complete — completely undermining the PR firm (on behalf of New Yorkers Against Fracking) that tried to do exactly the opposite.

EID did its own review of the paper earlier this week, and what follows is a list of some of the most significant concerns and items of interest:

Item I: Skewed results indicate more complexity

Based on Ms. Hill’s results, low birth weight increased by 25 percent for babies born to mothers living within 2.5 km of a well. But at 2.0 km, according to her research, the increase was 26 percent — and at 1.5 km the increase was 21 percent (p. 18). In other words, the closest sample actually had a lower rate of increase than the sample set farther away, with the middle actually recording the highest increase. If there were a “causal relationship” between natural gas development and low birth weight, as she herself claims (see Item II below), why didn’t her results show higher intensity closer to the well? After all, a “causal” relationship means “If A then B,” not “If A then maybe B.”

Item II: Working backwards from a conclusion

The author says up front that her research investigates the “causal relationship between unconventional NGD [natural gas development] and infant health in Pennsylvania” (p. 2). This is not just a strongly worded statement affirming the validity of your hypothesis before peer review (a dangerous game in and of itself), it’s also completely unscientific. When you compile the “first” assessment of anything (as she claims, see p. 4),  you are essentially by any legitimate scientific definition not establishing a “causal” link. But Ms. Hill essentially establishes that link by decree. This could be poor phrasing, but given the conclusions later in the paper that stem from that statement and indeed hinge upon it (more on that below), this seems like more than simply a semantic oversight. (Interestingly, Ms. Hill told Revkin that her language was intentionally strong, but that it wasn’t meant to mislead readers about the “caveats surrounding these findings.”)

Item III: Building toward a convenient narrative

The author couldn’t help but leap from an empirical research project into the policy and advocacy realm, stating at the end of her paper (p. 21-22): “These results suggest that policies that intend to prevent pollution exposure stemming from unconventional natural gas development should increase the regulated/allowable distance between drilling activity and nearby residences.” She then reaches even further, saying that shale development is occurring in 31 states nationwide, which, to her, means that “there is likely to be many exposed babies resulting in a nationwide increase in LBW.” (Interestingly, Ms. Hill has already backtracked from this statement, stating earlier this week that her results actually have “limited external validity” — a complete contradiction of the assertion in her paper.)

Ms. Hill also states that since her paper only looked at the impacts on infant health at birth, “the total increased health costs due to unconventional natural gas development are likely to be much greater.” Again, no credible scientific study would start to make these kinds of extrapolations or recommendations based upon a single assessment that the author herself admits is essentially a first of its kind – unless (a) the purpose was to make those kinds of recommendations and then work backwards from there, or (b) she truly believes that a single initial assessment — limited in scope — scientifically justifies conclusions that require evidence that she has not even collected, much less analyzed.

Item IV: Flawed air pollution claims

Ms. Hill cites air pollution problems in the Dallas-Fort Worth area (p. 9-10), mentioning a single assessment conducted by a consulting group in 2011. What Ms. Hill doesn’t mention is the research that’s been done by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the regulatory body in charge of regulating air emissions in the state, which also has access to the most comprehensive emissions data in Texas. Here’s what TCEQ has said about the region Ms. Hill references:

“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.”

Ms. Hill also claims there are “no current studies [examining air emissions and toxicities] in the Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania” (p. 10) – a categorically false claim. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) conducted ambient air sampling reports for the Northeast Marcellus and the Southwest Marcellus, both under Gov. Ed Rendell (D). After extensive study, the DEP “did not identify concentrations of any compound that would likely trigger air-related health issues associated with Marcellus Shale drilling activities” in either assessment. Perhaps Ms. Hill was referring to peer-reviewed academic studies, but to pretend these comprehensive regulatory assessments simply don’t exist seems like a huge omission — and perhaps a little too convenient.

Item V: Irrelevant data proves health risks?

The paper cites a paper compiled by Cornell veterinarians (which itself was fundamentally flawed) as essentially scientific proof of her conclusions, even though she admits the lack of applicability: “Although their study is not an epidemiologic analysis, nor is it a study that identifies specific chemical exposures related to NGD, it provides evidence that there are clear health risks in natural gas development” (p. 11). This is an enormous logical fallacy: “A doesn’t provide evidence of B, but A nonetheless clearly proves B.” And remember, a member of the U.N. Environmental Programme called the veterinarians’ paper “an advocacy piece” that “does not qualify as a scientific paper.”

—

The upshot here is that a paper that has not yet undergone peer review should, as Lisa McKenzie of the Colorado School of Public Health has said, be “approached with extreme caution.” But for opponents of hydraulic fracturing and natural gas development, the need to spread information that maligns the oil and gas industry trumps even basic standards of fact checking, much less a lengthy scientific review process.

This is now the second time in less than a year that anti-shale activists have run with a conclusion that has not been scientifically vetted, and unfortunately for their credibility, it’s also the second time that even a cursory review of available data shows how flawed their conclusions truly were. And that’s in addition to the AP analysis that ran earlier this week, which showed how ideological opponents have seized upon convenient talking points, even when the facts completely contradict them.

UB Marcellus Study: The Numbers Don’t Lie
A large, multimillion dollar organization co-headquartered in New York and California is funneling money to a thumb-on-the-scale "research" campaign aimed at trying to shut down hydraulic fracturing. But the New York Times ignored all of that in a story purportedly about how money is influencing shale research.

Let’s say, hypothetically, that a deep-pocketed organization was financially underwriting the bulk of activities associated with a campaign to stop oil and gas development in America, including organizing and orchestrating research projects designed to attack 65 years of history, science and experience with respect to the safe use of hydraulic fracturing.

Now let’s stop pretending and recognize that everything we’ve described above is, in fact, happening, and the organization so-described is the Ithaca-based Park Foundation. Would that classify as news fit to print?

Not according to the New York Times, it isn’t.

What the Gray Lady does view as a story, however, is a fresh round of grumbling from opposition groups charging that a recently released paper on Marcellus regulation in Pennsylvania from the University at Buffalo is “biased” – and that, because of this paper, the entire university’s reputation is now at risk. You know, the same way Cornell’s reputation was reduced to a smoldering husk following the release of the now widely debunked Howarth and Ingraffea GHG papers.

Wait, what? Cornell’s doing just fine? Right, that’s what we thought.

Anyway, the report about which activists are screaming “bias!” (more on that later) was released last month by the University at Buffalo’s Shale Resources and Society Institute. It found that even as natural gas development from the Marcellus Shale has increased in Pennsylvania in recent years, the number of environmental incidents has actually fallen on a per-well basis, and that New York’s proposed regulations would have prevented many if not all of those incidents from occurring in the Empire State.

But opponents say the opposite is the case, citing the increase in total violations in Pennsylvania as evidence that things are getting worse, not better.

The reality, though, is that the term “violation,” especially as it relates to oil and gas operations, suggests (at least through implication) an environmental problem. But most violations are actually administrative in nature and relate to the mountain of paperwork that must be filled out before, during, and after a well is drilled. These are logged as “violations,” but there’s obviously no environmental damage resulting from an unfilled box on a piece of paper submitted to the Pa. Dept. of Environmental Protection.

According to the UB study, 62 percent of all violations were for “administrative or preventative reasons.” The study also points out that the number of violations constituting the remaining 38 percent is itself a bit misleading, as multiple violations often referred to the same incident. And as the folks at EID-Marcellus have previously observed, the number of violations per well has actually been decreasing in recent years.

But what activists claim — and for which the Times provided a lopsided forum — is that the types of violations don’t matter. To them, a misspelled word on a piece of paper is apparently an environmental catastrophe.

Of course, this isn’t the first time opponents have tried to skew violation data in their favor. But unfortunately for them, the whole truth continues to be a better barometer than the half truth they got the New York Times to promote.

What else did the Times leave out of its skewed attempt to connect the dots between funding and advocacy in shale development? Why, only the most obvious and blatant example: The Park Foundation.

Consider:

All of these efforts continue to draw media attention, despite each of them being thoroughly debunked by scientists, regulators, and independent experts. Yet all of this was also overlooked in a story purporting to examine how money can drive research. Of course, the Times likely doesn’t want to tell the ugly truth about an organization on which it relies for research, so it’s perhaps only fitting that the story had such a glaring omission.

There’s also something else worth pointing out here: Is it possible that opponents doth protest too much? Hearing “bias!” from anti-shale activists is not news, but rather the natural product of a desperate yet well-funded national campaign to deny science, deny evidence, and deny the truth as it tries to stay relevant. Participants cannot rely on scientific findings to support their claims (because there are none), so, when they’re not funneling money to friendly professors to score headlines, they speak in talking points (“bias,” “industry shill,” “hack,” etc.) and hope the public is too stupid to see what’s really going on.

A few notable examples:

So, to recap: A large, multimillion dollar organization co-headquartered in New York and California is funneling money to a thumb-on-the-scale “research” campaign aimed at trying to shut down hydraulic fracturing. But the intrepid reporters at the Times write an 1,100-word story about how opponents of responsible energy production are, for the umpteenth time, accusing those with whom they disagree of being biased.

Amazing that no one seems to read newspapers anymore, isn’t it?

U.S. Rep. Compares State Regulation of HF to Jim Crow?
There was an interesting exchange this afternoon during a House hearing between Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Michael Krancer, an exchange that culminated in an apparent comparison of states regulating hydraulic fracturing to racial segregation.

There was an interesting exchange this afternoon during a House hearing between Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Michael Krancer, an exchange that focused on who should hold primacy in regulation hydraulic fracturing: the states, or the  federal government?

EID was there for the hearing (check out our Twitter feed for updates from throughout the day) and it was clear that Rep. Connolly believes that the federal government — despite the fact that states have proven over the past 60 years that they can regulate the process effectively — should be put in charge, a position that, even when met with facts by Mr. Krancer, Rep. Connolly refused to withdraw.

At one point, Krancer noted that while his own expertise is in Pennsylvania (it’s who employs him, after all), he believes that states are more than capable of taking primary responsibility for regulating hydraulic fracturing, a conclusion he said his counterparts in other states (as well as his Democratic predecessor in Pennsylvania) have similarly reached.

Rep. Connolly then asked him to offer an “intellectual conceit” that there is a state, somewhere, maybe, possibly, that doesn’t have regulations as robust as those in Pennsylvania. Krancer responded to this ridiculous premise with an equally ridiculous answer, saying he could also concede that “Sasquatch is in  the woods, but that doesn’t get us anywhere.” Rep. Connolly, clearly incensed, then proceeded to cut him off — after asking Krancer the question, mind you — in order to interject: “This is my time!”

And this is where things got interesting.

Rep. Connolly launched from that exchange into what can only be described as one of the more fascinating leaps in logic in modern times, directly tying Mr. Krancer’s arguments to … racial segregation. Connolly said:

“Those are the same kinds of arguments that have been used for generations against federal involvement. If we were talking 40, 50 years ago about, for example, Jim Crow laws in the South, and the Civil Rights Movement, we would have heard testimony right here at this table…”

Upon hearing such an outrageous statement, Secretary Krancer attempted to interject. “With all due respect,” Krancer said. That only further angered Rep. Connolly, who barked back at the DEP Secretary once again: “This is my time!”

(To get even more details, including a post-hearing reaction from Secretary Krancer, be sure to check out Talia Buford’s coverage of the whole exchange [subs. req'd].)

Rep. Connolly went on to lecture Krancer that the Secretary doesn’t have the “expertise” to speak for other states and their regulatory programs, and therefore, according to Rep. Connolly, the Secretary’s own observations are not applicable to the nation as a whole.

The irony here – beyond the fact that Rep. Connolly, who has a background in literature and public administration, tried to lecture a state regulator about environmental regulation in his own state – is that the Congressman supports federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing on the basis that states aren’t equipped with the tools to do so adequately. Yet Rep. Connolly – a recent entrant to the national debate over HF, mostly because he represents a district where zero oil and gas activity is found — could not name single incident where the state was either ill equipped or responded inadequately, nor is there any evidence that the federal government possesses the tools and expertise to be an effective regulator of hydraulic fracturing.

The overwhelming evidence – 1.2 million wells hydraulically fractured over the past six decades without a single case of water contamination – is proof enough that state regulation has been effective in protecting the public. Handing that authority over to the U.S. EPA – which itself has stated on numerous occasions that there is no evidence of water contamination and that state regulations are already effective – is a solution in search of a problem.

And unfortunately for Rep. Connolly, no amount of hyperbole can change those facts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—Original post from May 14, 2012—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

U.S. Steel’s Shale Gas Comeback
We spend a good bit of time at EID documenting how some folks are willing to do, say and write just about anything – however misleading or flat-out wrong – to try to scare the public about responsible oil and natural gas development. So it’s always fun to turn the tables by discussing a subject that makes professional energy activists nervous: paychecks.

We spend a good bit of time at EID documenting how some folks are willing to do, say and write just about anything – however misleading or flat-out wrong – to try to scare the public about responsible oil and natural gas development. So it’s always fun to turn the tables by discussing a subject that makes professional energy activists nervous: paychecks. The paychecks, jobs, revenues and new opportunities made possible by oil and natural gas production from shale are fueling an economic revival in America, and as people see the benefits of this abundant energy source, they are demanding those critics back up their rhetoric with facts. And the critics know, as we do, the facts are against them.

For this reason, today’s Wall Street Journal report on natural gas and Pennsylvania’s steelmaking industry, “Steel Finds Sweet Spot in the Shale,” caught our eye:

The rising fortunes of a massive U.S. Steel Corp. plant here has much to do with what sits below: massive deposits of cheap natural gas.

Shiny coils roll off the line destined for energy companies drilling in the Marcellus Shale natural-gas formations that rest below much of southwestern Pennsylvania. Production for so-called tubular goods used for pipes, tubes and joints in gas drilling has doubled in two years, says Scott Bucksio, the general manager of the plant in the sprawling Mon Valley Works, as drillers have raced to extract ever-larger amounts of gas from the shale deposits.

As significant, or more so for energy-intensive steelmakers, is that newly plentiful natural gas “is also keeping costs down” said Mr. Bucksio of U.S. Steel.

The Journal notes that increased production of shale gas came “just in time” for America’s biggest steelmaker, after posting losses in recent years, and now the company’s fortunes are rebounding. CEO John Surma expects shale oil and gas development “to make significant, positive contributions to U.S. Steel” in the years ahead. In other words, more paychecks:

That is good news for the U.S. Steel plant in the Mon Valley Works south of Pittsburgh, where 800 unionized workers take steel slabs made at the company’s Edgar Thomson Mill in Braddock, founded by Andrew Carnegie in 1875, and roll them into thin coils that are turned into pipes at another nearby company location.

PGT Trucking, a Pennsylvania trucking company, said revenue related to transporting steel tubular goods like those made at the Mon Valley Works plant soared to $10 million in 2011 from $1 million in 2010.

CEO Patrick Gallagher has 500 employees and wants to add another 50 to 100 over the year. “And we’re investigating a new fleet of trucks that run on liquid natural gas for 2013 and beyond,” he said. “We’re on a paradigm shift with natural gas becoming our main energy source.”

U.S. Steel is just one example of existing jobs becoming more secure and new jobs being created because of the oil and gas industry. Another is Shell Oil Co.’s planned ethane cracker in southwestern Pennsylvania, which would use locally produced ethane from gas production in the Marcellus Shale. According to Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett, the project could create 10,000 construction jobs and 10,000 permanent jobs and has the potential to be “the single largest industrial investment in the region in at least a generation.”

As EID has noted before, the economic benefits of oil and gas development are being felt across the country, and are winning international acclaim. According to the Switzerland-based World Economic Forum, nearly 1 in 10 new jobs in the U.S. last year were created by the oil and gas sector. Looking ahead, the WEF says the U.S. economy will create 1 million more jobs in 2014 than would otherwise be the case thanks to increases in natural gas production alone. That’s unquestionably good news, unless you’re in the business of fabricating bad news to try to bring American oil and gas development to a screeching halt.

Poll: Americans Support Hydraulic Fracturing by More than 2-1 Margin
Americans consistently support more domestic energy development, and they also highly value a clean and well-protected environment. So it's of little surprise that a new poll released today shows that 57 percent of Americans support the use of hydraulic fracturing. Only 22 percent oppose the process, which means nationwide support outstrips opposition by a more than two-to-one margin.

Americans consistently support more domestic energy development, and they also highly value a clean and well-protected environment. So it’s of little surprise that a new poll released today shows that 57 percent of Americans support the use of hydraulic fracturing. Only 22 percent oppose the process, which means nationwide support outstrips opposition by a more than two-to-one margin.

The specific question asked:

“A process known as hydraulic fracturing, sometimes called fracking, is used to drill for oil and natural gas in shale oil reserves. Do you favor or oppose the use of fracking to produce more oil and natural gas in this country?”

The poll fits nicely with other recent surveys conducted that have found strong support for developing natural gas from shale. A survey by Harris Interactive, for example, found that despite “intense negative media focus,” 66 percent of Americans believe that the economic benefits of natural gas far outweigh any concerns about environmental impacts. A poll in October of last year found that 80 percent of Marylanders support natural gas production. In New York, more voters support hydraulic fracturing than oppose it, and in Pennsylvania, voters say — by a significant margin — that the economic benefits of drilling outstrip any perceived environmental impacts.

Nationwide, Americans strongly support more energy development and believe consumers will ultimately benefit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maryland Strongly Supports Natural Gas Production

New poll finds Maryland voters, like their neighbors in New York and Pennsylvania, want to participate in the shale gas revolution

It may be news to government officials in Annapolis who have imposed a temporary pause on hydraulic fracturing, but voters throughout the state of Maryland actually support natural gas production. Big time.

A new poll by Gonzales Research & Marketing Strategies finds that an incredible 80% of Marylanders support natural gas production in the United States, including 60% who “strongly support” it. The poll finds large majority support for developing natural gas among both men and women, across all political affiliations, and in every region of the state.

As for producing natural gas specifically in western Maryland, where the Marcellus Shale could provide significant new economic opportunities for the Old Line State, nearly 75% of voters in the state express support. Production in western Maryland also enjoys majority support across all demographics polled in the state.

This poll comes as another Quinnipiac survey in New York shows a plurality of voters support Marcellus Shale development, a fact that has remained consistent in Quinnipiac’s polling over the past few months. A Siena poll from last month also found more New Yorkers supported than opposed natural gas production.

And in neighboring Pennsylvania, where the Mighty Marcellus is the source of significant job creation and the rebirth of manufacturing, voters say the economic benefits of drilling outweigh any perceived environmental issues by 62 percent to 30 percent.

Throughout the United States, natural gas development enjoys 81% support according to a recent poll by the American Consumer Institute (ACI).

READ MORE

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

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

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

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

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

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

ICYMI: Sen. Casey implicates Marcellus wells in McKean Co., incident – facts tell a different story

On March 28, 2011, U.S. Senator Robert Casey (D-Pa.) wrote a letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu requesting federal assistance in the investigation of gas migration issues in McKean County, Pa. Although Sen. Casey acknowledged at that time that very little was known about the cause of those issues, that lack of evidence didn’t stop the senator from suggesting that “extensive new deep drilling activities” were at least partially to blame for the incidents in the area.

Well, less than two weeks after Sen. Casey wrote his letter to federal regulators, he got an answer to the question he was asking – but not from the agency he wrote to, and not necessarily the one he was hoping to get. In a press release issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) last week, the agency reports that its investigation into gas-migration issues in McKean County turned up plenty of evidence suggesting that those issues were caused by three abandoned wells – not a single one of them having a single thing to do with the Marcellus.  According to DEP, one of these abandoned wells was drilled in 1881; the other two nearly 90 years ago.

From DEP’s April 8, 2011 Press Release:

It Was the Best of Times, It Was the Worst of Times

While Upstate NY Continues to Suffer Economic Hardships, PA Neighbors Say “Shale Yes”; Reap Jobs, Revenues and Opportunity Because of It

Keep Reading »