It’s one of those places on the map to which very few people have actually been, but of which very many people have now heard – all thanks to the suddenly international debate over developing massive reserves of clean-burning natural gas from shale.
It’s a town called Pavillion, a community of about 160 located in Fremont County, Wyoming, smack-dab in the middle of the Wind River Indian Reservation. Ironically, there’s no commercial shale to be found around here. But nonetheless, over the past three years, the town has become something of a western capital among anti-shale campaigners in the United States, with folks quick to cite Pavillion as smoking-gun proof that completing a natural gas well can despoil sources of drinking water underground.
Late last week, Pavillion found its way into the news once again – and as we’ve seen, when a story about hydraulic fracturing breaks, it’s often of more interest to media outside of Wyoming than within it.
Writing from his offices in Manhattan, ProPublica author Abrahm Lustgarten blasted out a piece headlined “EPA finds compound used in fracking in Wyoming aquifer.” Much later in the story, we learn “the information released yesterday by the EPA was limited to raw sampling data: The agency did not interpret the findings or make any attempt to identify the source of the pollution.”
In other words, still no proof – and really, not even much of a suggestion — that oil and gas development is in any way responsible for the issues identified by EPA’s most recent groundwater tests. According to the agency, a final report on Pavillion is scheduled to be released later this month. In the meantime, here’s a couple quick facts, for a change, on what’s actually going on in Pavillion, and as important: what’s not.
Nothing presented by EPA this week is any way new or different from what was presented last year except for the fact they drilled their two monitoring wells into a hydrocarbon zone.
- EPA first started testing water wells in Pavillion back in 2008, holding its first public meeting to release preliminary results in 2009. In 2010, EPA installed two monitoring wells in town, according to the agency’s website. Data released by EPA last week simply represent the findings of phase three and four of that program – findings that do not differ in any material way from what was released during phase one and two last year.
Federal USGS scientists have documented poor water quality in Pavillion going back decades.
- USGS (1992): “Water quality is variable in the Wind River Formation because this unit has highly variable lithology, permeability, and recharge conditions. Dissolved-solids concentrations in water samples from this formation ranged from 211 to 5,110 mg/L.” (page 82)
- USGS (1991): “Dissolved-solids concentrations varied greatly for water samples collected from the 34 geologic units inventoried. Dissolved-solids concentrations in all water samples … were 2 to 14 times greater than the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level of 500 mg/L set by the EPA.” (page 103)
- USGS (1989): “The ground water in Fremont County was ranked the fourth most vulnerable to pesticide contamination in Wyoming. … Six of the 18 focal pesticides and 1 non-focal pesticide were detected in Fremont County. At least one pesticide was detected in 13 of the 20 wells sampled in Fremont County.” (USGS fact sheet)
- USGS (1969): “Poor drainage resulting in salt accumulation has been a problem in many irrigated areas on the [Wind River] Reservation. McGreevy and others (1969, p. I58-I66) reported numerous drainage problems associated with the [Wind River aquifer], and Peterson and others (1991, p. 10) reported that seepage and salt accumulation became apparent in the Riverton Reclamation Project area shortly after irrigation started in the 1920s. (page 8)
At no point in the past, and no point last week, has EPA implicated hydraulic fracturing as a source of contamination in Pavillion.
- “So far the EPA isn’t speculating about where the pollution originated but plans to release a summary of findings later this month. ‘Our scientists are continuing to complete their analysis of those data and we are working hard to complete a report interpreting the findings in the near future,’ EPA spokesman Matthew Allen said in a statement Thursday.” (Associated Press, Nov. 10, 2011)
- “The contamination could have come from other things, such as cleaning solvents.” (Greg Oberley, lead EPA official in Pavillion, as quoted by Energy Daily [subs. req’d]; Aug. 25, 2009)
- “In interviews with ProPublica and at a public meeting this month in Pavillion’s community hall, officials spoke cautiously about their preliminary findings. They were careful to say they’re investigating a broad array of sources for the contamination, including agricultural activity. … EPA officials told residents that some of the substances found in their water may have been poured down a sink drain.” (ProPublica, Aug. 25, 2009)
- “Lind said the [Powder River Basin Resource Council], unlike some nationally based environmental groups, does not allege that fracking fluids are the cause of groundwater contamination anywhere in Wyoming. … ‘We don’t want to accuse them of something they cannot prove. We’re their neighbors.’” (PRBRC director Kevin Lind, quoted by Platts, April 20, 2010)
No compounds attributable to energy development were found by EPA at levels above safe drinking water standards.
- See slide four of this PowerPoint presentation delivered by EPA last week.
Press reports continue to confuse 2-BE and 2-BE phosphate.
- EPA’s groundwater monitoring system detected trace levels of 2-BE phosphate in nine wells sampled, not 2-BE. 2-BE phosphate cannot be created by the combination of 2-BE and phosphates under the geological conditions found in Pavillion.
- According to EPA, 2-BE phosphate “is used as both a plasticizer and a flame retardant and may be found in domestic well components including washers, wiring, PVC pipe, and pumps.” (page 14) 2-BE phosphate is not a component of any known fracturing fluid system.
- According to EPA, the level of 2-BE found in Pavillion is below what’s called the “quantitation limit” — the lowest concentration of something that can be measured (page 112) in all wells tested but one. In the well where 2-BE was found two of the three EPA labs conducting tests did not recognize 2-BE in samples raising suspicion on the detectability even in minute quantities.
- More on 2-BE: “The main use is for 2-butoxyethanol is in paints and surface coatings, followed by household cleaning products and inks. Other products which contain 2-BE include acrylic resin formulations, asphalt release agents, firefighting foam, leather protectors, oil spill dispersants and photographic strip solutions. … 2-Butoxyethanol is relatively non-volatile, miscible in water, readily biodegradable and non-bioaccumulative. There is no apparent risk to any of the environmental compartments.” (United Nations Environment Programme, Feb. 1997)
Read More:
- EPA PPT: Phase 3 and 4 testing results from Pavillion
- Flashback: EID fact-checks Earthworks on Pavillion back in 2009
- ICYMI: Prominent Wyo. enviro group wants to wait for facts on Pavillion
- Fact Check: Opponents of HF say the darndest things
Absent any data, advocacy outlet attempts to conjure up its own lifecycle analysis of natural gas – EID takes a look at the method
In a debate that over time has seen its fair share of twists, turns and temporary detours from fact, the rejection on the part of shale gas opponents of the basic science supporting natural gas’s status as an efficient, clean-burning fuel source stands out as a particularly troubling case of ideology as a substitute for methodology. Indeed, that natural gas emits less carbon dioxide per unit of energy produced than all other fossil fuels isn’t an assertion of faith, policy or politics – it’s a reality of thermodynamics. And it’s a fact corroborated by EPA, EIA, MIT and even the Union of Concerned Scientists, just to name a few.
Of course, as one anti-shale activist cautioned in a recent email exchange, “we should not, and cannot solely depend upon science to guide us.” And on that point, it’s apparent the advocacy journalism outlet ProPublica heartily agrees. Earlier this week, ProPublica author Abrahm Lustgarten published a piece putting forth a series of back-of-the-envelope calculations on the “lifecycle” greenhouse gas (GHG) impact of natural gas. His contention? That natural gas might not be as “clean” as previously thought. And further: that “new research” from EPA actually confirms it.
Except that it doesn’t — precisely because no new EPA research on this question actually exists. So how exactly did ProPublica conjure an analysis without the service of a single new data point upon which to structure its case? Well, it’s complicated. But we’ll do our best to unravel it some.
Let’s start here: In April 2010, EPA published a paper that, among other things, tracks the steady decline of methane emissions from natural gas systems over the past 20 years – even as thousands of new wells (particularly shale wells) were drilled, and billions of additional cubic feet of natural gas (particularly shale gas) were delivered to consumers. The key table from the report is excerpted below, and to its credit, ProPublica at least includes mention of this study in the 35th paragraph of its 44-paragraph piece:
Candidly, this table is, and has remained, a constant thorn in the side of those who believe expanded shale gas development is deleterious to our climate. The reason? Previously, the only credible way to advance such an argument was to suggest the volume of natural gas leaked (or fugitively emitted) into the atmosphere during the development and transportation process is much greater than we thought. EPA, for its part, estimates that 1.4 percent of U.S. natural gas produced is lost somewhere between the wellsite and the customer. Most producers, which have a strong economic incentive to minimize such losses, believe that number’s too high. But whatever the actual figure, the table above indicates that from the well head, to the pipeline, to the processing unit, to the distribution network – the volume of methane that escapes into the air pursuant to natural gas operations in the United States continues to go down. By a lot.
Undeterred by the science, activists such as Robert Howarth, a professor at Cornell, have structured their entire case against shale gas atop the presumption that the published figures for methane leakage/fugitive emissions are too low. So how much methane (and therefore money) does Prof. Howarth believe producers of natural gas fritter away into the ether, to the detriment of both the environment and their bottom line? His lips had been sealed on this for the better part of the past year, but earlier this week, the professor quietly posted an updated two-pager on his website positing his theory that as much as 7.9 percent (!) of this cash-crop is wasted away each day. Of course, without the use of that staggeringly inflated figure, Howarth has no ability to argue that natural gas has a similar GHG profile as coal. And he knows it.
ProPublica knows it too – which is probably why it tacked in a different direction in advancing its cause this week. Working backward from the predetermined conclusion that natural gas isn’t as clean as scientists believe, ProPublica bases its lifecycle GHG analysis of natural gas upon a “technical support document” assembled by EPA as part of the agency’s new proposed reporting standards for oil and natural gas producers. Only one problem: Though the EPA document runs 144 pages long, the word “lifecycle” is found nowhere in the text. In other words, this EPA report, the source most critical to ProPublica’s case against natural gas on the basis of its lifecycle GHG performance, doesn’t include any lifecycle GHG data itself. Nor does it include any new data on the small percentage of methane lost or leaked along the bit-to-burner development and delivery process.
Here’s the thing about lifecycle analyses: Putting together a credible one is hard work. Just ask our friends in the corn business. More than five years into the process, with tens of thousands of man-hours committed and at least 40 separate technical tomes on the subject published, and EPA is still making tweaks to its lifecycle GHG read-out for ethanol.
Now let’s take a look at the ingredients involved in ProPublica’s lifecycle analysis of natural gas: Weeks of work instead of years, zero original data either acquired or introduced, an EPA technical document that at no point addresses the lifecycle question itself, and a six-page pamphlet by a researcher at Carnegie Mellon.
Now, in ProPublica’s defense, the EPA report at the center of its investigation isn’t entirely silent on the question of methane emissions from unconventional energy development – but the sources the agency uses to justify an increase in emission factors are, in fact, quite amazing. As per EPA’s explanation in Appendix B of this document (page 84), instead of gathering new data itself, the agency used a 2004 industry PowerPoint presentation to find a single data point (from 2002) from a single operator to set its baseline volume for the total amount of methane lost annually in the U.S. as part of the well completion and workover process. Once it had that, EPA simply multiplied that figure by the number of unconventional wells it assumes have been drilled (fracked, and re-fracked) over the past several years. Through that process, it eventually arrives at its new emission factors. But not without reminding the reader of this:
The estimated activity factors were multiplied by the associated emission factors to estimate the total emissions from well completions and workovers in the U.S. for 2007. This does not reflect reductions due to control technologies such as flares or bringing portable treatment units onsite to perform a practice called “reduced emission completions.”
In other words, the new nationwide emission factors put forth by EPA in November and then converted this week by ProPublica into a back-of-the-envelope lifecycle assessment don’t take into account the technologies currently being used by operators to reduce the amount of methane emitted into the atmosphere (and remember: they’ve got one hell of an incentive to do just that). And again, as EPA admits, the new figures don’t even attempt to characterize what’s happened in this arena since 2007 (or even 2002, since that’s where its data is derived from). For that information, we must again refer to the April 2010 EPA report – the one ProPublica doesn’t like – in which you’ll find the following statement:
The U.S. natural gas system encompasses hundreds of thousands of wells, hundreds of processing facilities, and over a million miles of transmission and distribution pipelines. Overall, natural gas systems emitted 96.4 Tg CO2 Eq. (4,591 Gg) of CH4 in 2008, a 26 percent decrease over 1990 emissions, and 30.0 Tg CO2 Eq. (29,973 Gg) of non-combustion CO2 in 2008, a 20 percent decrease over 1990 emissions.
Improvements in management practices and technology, along with the replacement of older equipment, have helped to stabilize emissions. Methane emissions decreased since 2007 despite an increase in production and production wells …
So, to recap: In the article published this week, ProPublica shares the results of its own lifecycle GHG analysis of natural gas based on 1) no new original data; 2) no new information on methane leakage and fugitive emissions; 3) an EPA report that does not, and was never intended to, speak to the question of lifecycle; 4) “updated” emissions factor research based on a single data point from 2002 which is then extrapolated out to characterize the entire U.S., and finally; 5) a six-page article from a Carnegie Mellon researcher. And you know what? Even with the aid of its Rube Goldberg analysis machine, ProPublica still can’t come up with a conclusion suggesting natural gas is anything less than between 25 percent and 40 percent cleaner than other fossil fuels – directly contradicting the work of Prof. Howarth at Cornell.
As we know, nothing truly transformational occurs in this world without picking up a few gainsayers along the way – and the more transformational the event, the more powerful the forces that are bound to ally against it. Thankfully, facts still mean something in this debate, and method still counts as a means of establishing credibility. You can’t structure a lifecycle analysis on the back of a napkin. But as we saw this week, that doesn’t mean you can’t try.
UPDATE (1/31/11; 4:31p EST): EPA releases statement on ProPublica piece
EPA has not conducted an analysis of coal versus natural gas, and there is no new report. The information referred to in the article was developed based on information from a Technical Support Document, however, which was developed as support for the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. The reporter used that data and did his own calculations to arrive at the figures used in the article.
The document above does not estimate emissions from the gas industry and the emissions estimates in the article were not developed by EPA. EPA has not reviewed the analysis described in the article in detail, but we have not seen any indication that the benefits of natural gas have been called into question. Available data demonstrate that switching from another fossil fuel to natural gas reduces emissions of carbon pollution and other harmful pollutants that threaten Americans’ health.
Erin Birgfeld
Director of Communications
Climate Change Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
READ MORE
- Issue Alert: EID takes a closer look at Cornell professor’s claims on GHGs
- Statement: EID releases fact sheet on GasLand’s Oscar nom
- Fact-Check: Debunking GasLand (Fact Sheet)
- Issue Alert: When Gummy Bears Attack
- Graphic: What’s In Frac Fluids?
STAFFIN’ UP: PA Gas Producers Welcome Guv’s New Regs, Battalion of Bureaucrats
In a press release yesterday, Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell announced a host of new regulations for Marcellus shale gas development. He is also directing the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to hire 68 (we’re not sure where he got this number either) new employees to oversee and enforce shale gas and environmental regulations and laws, according to the statement.
Safe, responsible shale gas production helped create 50,000 jobs in Pennsylvania last year alone, and Rendell highlights this significant economic impact:
“As I’ve said all along, we want to encourage the development of this resource because it’s a tremendous economic opportunity for the state, but we will not allow that to happen at the expense of our environment.”
Here are the specific new regulations that Rendell laid out:
• Require the casings of Marcellus Shale and other high-pressure wells to be tested and constructed with specific, oilfield-grade cement;
• Clarify the drilling industry’s responsibility to restore or replace water supplies affected by drilling;
• Establish procedures for operators to identify and correct gas migration problems without waiting for direction from DEP;
• Require drilling operators to notify DEP and local emergency responders immediately of gas migration problems;
• Require well operators to inspect every existing well quarterly to ensure each well is structurally sound, and report the results of those inspections to DEP annually; and
• Require well operators to notify DEP immediately if problems such as over-pressurized wells and defective casings are found during inspections.
The governor’s announcement was welcomed with opened arms from the Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC). In a release, MSC President and Executive Director Kathryn Klaber says:
“The Marcellus Shale Coalition has consistently supported the hiring of additional DEP staff to monitor natural gas wells in the commonwealth, as reflected in its proactive endorsement of permit fee increases in 2009 to add and train new inspectors. Our support continues with today’s announcement of an additional 68 DEP staff dedicated to the oil and gas program. This sustainable approach is working and will help to ensure the continued responsible development of the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania.”
MSC also underscores the fact that shale gas producers in Pennsylvania have a remarkable environmental safety record, thanks in large part to the sensible state regulations coupled with efforts by the industry to ensure that every aspect of production is done responsibly. This from their release:
•Inspections: A total of 14,000 field inspections, including shallow well locations, were made by DEP in 2009, with enforcement action resulting from Marcellus Shale drilling activity accounting for only 1.1 percent of the state’s total actions. Often times, those findings were easily and quickly corrected.
Only 1.1 percent of the state’s total enforcement actions were associated with Marcellus shale gas production. An awfully insignificant amount of cases by any metric. Agreed? Well, if you were fair-minded, sensible and make informed decisions based on facts, then the answer would most likely be yes.
But if one opposes safe, well-regulated, environmentally-sound shale gas production – which is helping to create tens of thousands of good-paying jobs and delivering affordable energy to struggling families and small businesses – one may choose to disregard such facts and cherry-pick isolated cases to help build a presupposed narrative.
Enter ProPublica, a mouthpiece for out-of-the-mainstream environmental zealots cloaked as “journalists”. Under the headline “Pennsylvania’s Gas Wells Booming–But So Are Spills,” ProPublica’s Sabrina Shankman reports this earlier in the week:
As more gas wells are drilled in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale, more cases of toxic spills are being reported.
Ms. Shankman highlights several uncommon incidents that have occurred in Pennsylvania associated with shale gas production in her “article.” One “spill” that she hand-picked to showcase was caused by vandalism.
Any mention of the fact that 1 percent of the energy-related incidents that occurred in Pennsylvania last year were related to Marcellus shale gas production, helping to provide adequate context for readers? Of course not. How silly would that be?
Energy In Depth digs deep into the substrata of U.S. code, separates fact from fiction in ProPublica’s latest dispatch
Keep Reading »
Unable to move the needle with conventional attacks, ProPublica digs deep for assault on Marcellus aimed explicitly at scaring the public
Keep Reading »
