Home » Posts tagged "Safe Drinking Water Act"

Safe Drinking Water Act

Shale “Exempt” From Federal Laws? Um, Not Even Close.
For years, opponents of hydraulic fracturing have perpetuated the claim that shale development is somehow “exempt” from federal laws. Far from being “exempt,” shale producers have been held to even higher standards, complying with overlapping federal and state regulations, and held accountable by state regulators who are far better equipped to oversee the process.

Katie-Brown-EIDKatie
Researcher

For years, opponents of hydraulic fracturing have perpetuated the claim that shale development is somehow “exempt” from federal laws. One of the most persistent exponents of this talking point is Amy Mall of the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), who constantly pushes the fallacious assertion that oil and gas corporations “enjoy exemptions from critical protective environmental provisions in the Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act.” Dr. George Peridas of the NRDC, in opening remarks at last year’s SXSW Eco Conference, echoed Mall’s sentiments, characterizing shale development as “an unregulated free for all,” claiming that the “industry is exempt from RCRA, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act.”

First of all, the idea that any industry would be allowed to run amok as an “unregulated free for all” is just absurd.  Second, while states have (and have always had) primary regulatory authority over hydraulic fracturing, oil and gas producers also have to abide by a whole host of federal laws – in fact, every step of the way they are regulated at the federal, state, and local levels, often at multiple levels simultaneously.

A report released by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in September 2012 should finally set the record straight on opponents’ claims. In it, the independent agency makes clear that oil and gas developers are required to comply with no fewer than eight federal regulations. From that report:

As with conventional oil and gas development, requirements from eight federal environmental and public health laws apply to unconventional oil and gas development. For example, the Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates discharges of pollutants into surface waters.  Among other things, CWA requires oil and gas well site operators to obtain permits for discharges of produced water – which includes fluids used for hydraulic fracturing, as well as water the occurs naturally in oil- or gas-bearing formations – to surface waters.  In addition, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) governs the management and disposal of hazardous wastes, among other things.

The report goes on to cite the specific federal environmental and public health laws that govern the development of oil and gas, which include: the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (for disposal wells); Clean Water Act (CWA); Clean Air Act (CAA); Resources Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA); Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA); Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); and Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) – all laws that opponents continually claim are, somehow, “exemptions.”

So, not only do oil and gas producers have to comply with overarching federal laws, they must do so on top of a slew of stringent state regulations.  To cite one example, let’s look at Ohio: after going through the process required to obtain the initial permit from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR), companies must then acquire a number of additional federal and state permits before they can even think about drilling the well.  Our EID colleague in Ohio, Shawn Bennett, has the full story, but just to summarize a few points here:

First, operators must be approved by the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. EPA for Clean Water Act 401 and 404 permits for wetlands and water quality.  If they receive the green light on these permits, then ODNR begins a technical review of the drilling permit to ensure the cementing plan is sufficient.  If this plan is approved, water testing is completed for all homes within 1,500-feet of the wellhead, with results distributed to the landowners, ODNR and the company. Next, the company must work with the U.S. EPA and the Ohio EPA to file a Spill, Prevention, Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan.  Then, companies must also file a permit to install and operate (PTIO) with the Ohio EPA for their production facilities that will be onsite.  The PTIO regulates emissions from a production site under the Clean Air Act.  Only after companies jump through all these hoops successfully can they begin to think about actually drilling a well.

Of course, since opponents’ claims about the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act have turned out to be a pretty hard sell, they continue to recite their talking points on the Safe Drinking Water Act ad nauseum.  So let’s clear the air one more time on that: hydraulic fracturing was not “exempted” from the Safe Drinking Water Act.  The SDWA became the law of the land in 1974, long after the first use of hydraulic fracturing, which occurred in the 1940s. Since then, the Act has been amended and updated more than a half-dozen times – and still has very little to say about hydraulic fracturing. How can a process be “exempt” from something that never covered — and was not designed to cover — it in the first place? Your guess is as good as ours.

This fracturing process is, however, aggressively regulated by the states, and this regulatory framework has resulted in a successful record of enforcement for over sixty years.  Even officials from the Obama administration have admitted that state regulators are far more capable in this task than the federal government.  As Carol Browner, President Clinton’s EPA Administrator said in 1995, “EPA does not regulate – and does not believe it is legally required to regulate – the hydraulic fracturing of methane gas production wells…”  President Obama’s former EPA chief Lisa Jackson has also recognized the effectiveness of states taking the lead.  As she said in 2011, “We have no data right now that lead us to believe one way or the other that there needs to be specific federal regulation of the fracking process” – and in February last year, she reaffirmed this position saying, “Let me speak really plainly: There is no EPA setup that allows us to oversee each and every well that’s drilled.”

What have been the results?  Going back to our example of Ohio, of the 329 wells that have already been developed in the Utica shale, there hasn’t been a single environmental violation.  Ohio is simply building on the record of success that has been repeated throughout the country for decades.

So, far from being “exempt,” shale producers have been held to even higher standards, complying with overlapping federal and state regulations, and held accountable by state regulators who are far better equipped to oversee the process.

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

Steve
Spokesman

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Julia
Researcher

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Krasinski: “Correct.”

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

Krasinski: “Ahhhh, who needs that?”

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

Krasinski: “You’ve done your homework …”

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

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

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

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

Krasinski: “100 percent.”

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

David
Field Director, Texas

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Blackmon
Field Director, Texas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You Missed a Spot: A Timeline of Hydraulic Fracturing
Last week, ProPublica posted a big fancy chart about hydraulic fracturing on its website. So, we decided to make our own timeline to provide everyone with a little more context (and facts)...

Last week, ProPublica posted a big fancy chart about hydraulic fracturing on its website that purports to show that “government involvement with the drilling technique goes back decades.” (By “drilling technique” we assume they’re referring to hydraulic fracturing, even though, as a point of fact, hydraulic fracturing is not a drilling technique.) It’s a less-than-veiled attempt to provide cover for the claim that it was the federal government, not private industry, that facilitated the growth of shale development. But as we already know, that claim lacks merit. As Professor Michael Giberson of Texas Tech University has observed, the federal government’s role was “merely convenient to technological advancement and not necessary.” (emphasis added)

And, as it turns out, the chart is defined more by what it omits than what it includes. So, we decided to make our own timeline to provide everyone with a little more context (and facts) about the history of hydraulic fracturing, not to mention its incredible safety record.

–

1947: First well receives hydraulic fracturing treatment to stimulate natural gas development (Grant County, Kan.).

1950s: Hydraulic fracturing is used for the first time in Canada (Cardium oil field in central Alberta).

November 1974: Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is signed into law. Establishes new standards and regulations to protect underground sources of drinking water (USDW). Despite having been utilized commercially for a quarter century, hydraulic fracturing was never considered for regulation under SDWA.

June 1986: SDWA is amended to regulate more than 100 specific contaminants. Hydraulic fracturing, now commercially utilized for nearly four decades, is never considered for regulation.

1980s/early 1990s: George Mitchell successfully combines horizontal drilling with hydraulic fracturing to “crack the code” of the Barnett Shale in north Texas.

1994/1995: The Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation (LEAF) petitions the EPA to withdraw approval of Alabama’s underground injection control (UIC) program, arguing that the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) required that the federal EPA regulate hydraulic fracturing. Then-EPA Administrator (and later President Obama’s climate czar) Carol Browner responds with a clear message: “EPA does not regulate – and does not believe it is legally required to regulate – the hydraulic fracturing of methane gas production wells under its UIC program [under the Safe Drinking Water Act].” In that same letter, Browner says there was “no evidence” of hydraulic fracturing contaminating ground water.

August 1996: SDWA is amended once again to emphasize sound science and standards. Hydraulic fracturing is not considered for regulation.

1997: LEAF appeals EPA’s position (in LEAF v. U.S. EPA) on Alabama’s UIC program, arguing once again that the Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to regulate hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane.

1999: In response to the LEAF decision, the State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama promulgates new rules and regulations on hydraulic fracturing, which the EPA approves one year later. LEAF appeals the Board’s new regulations to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court ultimately sides with the EPA and the State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama, agreeing that the state’s regulatory system is an “effective program to prevent endangerment of underground sources of drinking water.”

2000: EPA initiates its own study of hydraulic fracturing. At less than 0.5 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of production, natural gas from shale accounts for roughly one percent of America’s total natural gas production.

August 2002: EPA releases a draft of its study of hydraulic fracturing, which affirms that the technology does not pose a risk to drinking water.

June 2004: EPA completes its four-year study on hydraulic fracturing (which began under the previous administration), concluding that the technology poses only a “minimal” threat to water supplies and that there are “no confirmed cases” linking hydraulic fracturing to drinking water contamination.

July 2005: The U.S. Congress passes the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (signed in August by the President), which includes a provision codifying that Congress never intended for hydraulic fracturing to be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (as also evidenced by decades of precedence.) Also in 2005, Range Resources drills the first wells in the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania (three of them, in fact).

September 2008: The Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) sends a letter to Mike W. Markham in Weld County, Colo., after Mr. Markham expressed concern that nearby natural gas production could have contaminated his drinking water. After extensive sampling and testing, COGCC finds “no indications of any oil & gas related impacts” to Mr. Markham’s well.

June 2009: U.S. Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.), and Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) introduce the FRAC Act in Congress, which would rewrite the intent of the Safe Drinking Water Act (and upend the effective, state-based regulatory regime currently in place) to put control of hydraulic fracturing squarely in the hands of the U.S. EPA. Senator Bob Casey (D-Pa.) introduces companion legislation in the Senate. Interestingly, Colorado’s Governor at the time, Bill Ritter (D), accused Rep. DeGette of trying to create a “new and potential intrusive regulatory program” with the FRAC Act. Ritter further noted that states, including Colorado, have already “responsibly addressed” hydraulic fracturing. State regulators from across the country, meanwhile, defend the safety record of hydraulic fracturing.

August 2009: Initial testing of local water supplies in Pavillion, Wyo., by the EPA reveals the presence of a “tentatively identified compound,” or TIC. Earthworks blasts out a press release saying EPA has linked hydraulic fracturing to water contamination, even though the EPA made no conclusion or statement about the origin of the TIC, nor did it make any declaration that public health was in danger. A staffer with EPA says the possible contamination could be traced to household items, mentioning cleaning solvents specifically.

February 2010: Steve Heare, director of EPA’s Drinking Water Protection Division, says: “I have no information that states aren’t doing a good job already” with respect to regulating hydraulic fracturing.

March 2010: Under direction from Congress, the EPA initiates yet another study of hydraulic fracturing. The focus of the study is specifically on potential water impacts (despite dozens of state regulators saying hydraulic fracturing does not contaminate water.)

June 2010: The state of Wyoming approves a rule to require disclosure of the additives used during hydraulic fracturing. Later that month is the HBO premiere of the film Gasland, which, among many other things, attempts to rewrite much of the history of hydraulic fracturing. The film includes footage of one Mike Markham from Weld County, Colo., lighting his tap water on fire, which the film links to nearby gas drilling, despite the 2008 letter from Colorado regulators clearly and scientifically denying such a link.

October 2010: The Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) releases a document debunking many of the inaccuracies in Gasland, including notably the “flaming faucet” scene.

December 2010: Arkansas adopts new rules to require disclosure of additives used during hydraulic fracturing.

February 2011: Pennsylvania updates its regulations to include disclosure requirements for hydraulic fracturing fluids.

April 2011: The Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) officially launch FracFocus.org, an online disclosure website for the additives used during hydraulic fracturing. To date, the industry has uploaded more than 11,000 wells to the searchable database. That same month, the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) releases a report that finds natural gas from shale accounts for 23 percent of total natural gas production in the United States, increasing from 0.39 trillion cubic feet (tcf) in 2000 to 4.87 tcf in 2010. Democrats on the House Energy & Commerce Committee, despite using “no scientific data” to support their most frightening conclusions, release a report summarizing the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids. The report says nothing about actual water quality, nor does it provide appropriate context relating to concentration levels.

May 2011: During a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says, “I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracking process itself has affected water.” Michigan regulators announce new regulations that include, among others, a provision to require disclosure of the additives used during hydraulic fracturing.

July 2011: The city of Fort Worth, Tex., releases results from a study looking at health impacts near natural gas exploration and production sites in the Barnett shale. The study “did not reveal any significant health threats.”

September 2011: Montana begins implementing its new disclosure rules for additives used during hydraulic fracturing.

October 2011: Louisiana’s rules for hydraulic fracturing fluid disclosure go into effect (see page 3064 of this document).

December 2011: EPA issues a draft report on water quality in Pavillion that, despite no independent scientific review, alleges that hydraulic fracturing was “likely” the cause of water contamination in the area. Numerous state officials and regulators criticize the report as inherently flawed. Meanwhile, Colorado implements new rules requiring disclosure for hydraulic fracturing fluids, and Texas regulators approve their own disclosure law. Both Colorado and Texas utilize the FracFocus website for implementation of their laws.

January 2012: In his State of the Union address, President Obama issues strong support for developing natural gas from shale, noting that his administration will “take every possible action to safely develop this energy” in order to create “more than 600,000 jobs” by the end of the decade. “The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy,” the President added.

February 2012: Two months after releasing its draft report on Pavillion, the EPA backtracks its initial (and inflammatory) claim that hydraulic fracturing “likely” caused water contamination. At a hearing before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, EPA Region 8 administrator Jim Martin says: “We make clear that the causal link [of water contamination] to hydraulic fracturing has not been demonstrated conclusively,” adding that EPA’s draft report “should not be assumed to apply to fracturing in other geologic settings.” President Obama, in his FY 2013 budget, requests additional funds for the EPA to expand its own mandate for its hydraulic fracturing study, a mandate that goes beyond what was authorized by Congress. Two days later, during a hearing before the House Natural Resources Committee, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says of hydraulic fracturing (subs. req’d): “From my point of view, it can be done safely and it has been done safely.”

–

Of course, we’d be remiss if we didn’t include all of the economic benefits that hydraulic fracturing — by helping to unlock enormous amounts of natural gas — is delivering to Americans from coast to coast. We’re talking about hundreds of thousands of jobs, lower energy bills for consumers, and a rebirth of domestic manufacturing, not to mention less reliance on places like Russia and Saudi Arabia for our energy supplies.

Hydraulic fracturing certainly has a long history, and though it may be inconvenient for opponents to acknowledge, it’s a history that shows time and again how industry best practices and regulation by the states, not federal control, have facilitated robust economic growth as well as a clean and healthy environment.

What the Waxman Report Doesn’t Report

 

• BREAKING: “Shale gas extraction is safe”; Helps Create American Jobs

Now we know why Maryland’s called the “Old Line” state. Following up on a column in the Baltimore Sun this week that was filled with tired old talking points on hydraulic fracturing and shale gas, some actual honest-to-goodness facts were put forth in today’s paper by Erik Milito of the American Petroleum Institute (API). In his must-read Baltimore Sun response, Mr. Milito – a retired U.S. Army Major who directs API’s upstream division – writes this under the headline “Shale gas extraction is safe”:

Del. Heather Mizeur fails to account for previous studies by the EPA and what natural gas development has the potential to do for Marylanders. Just last month, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson noted to NBC Nightly News that previous federal studies have shown no scientific evidence of contamination and that hydraulic fracturing can be done responsibly to develop the energy resources we need to keep our homes comfortable and get to work every day.

Delegate Mizeur is correct in stating that the vast natural gas reserves found in the Marcellus Shale region are a game changer. There is enough natural gas to create hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs and provide Americans with a stable, domestic energy source for generations to come.

Repeating unproven accusations about the hydraulic fracturing process does a disservice to those searching for ways to boost state revenue and get Americans back to work.

And while we’re on the subject of correcting the record and debunking unsubstantiated claims regarding the tightly-regulated development of clean-burning, homegrown energy resources, Colorado Oil & Gas Association’s Tisha Schuller separates fact from fiction in response to Josh Fox’s latest iteration of smears. Here are highlights from Ms. Schuller’s AskMen.com piece:

On Fluids Used in Fracturing, the Technology’s Importance to Energy Security

Hydraulic fracturing can sound frightening, however, I want you to know that this is a highly engineered, managed and monitored process. Truly, for over 60 years, the process of hydraulic fracturing has been conducted safely. But don’t take my word for it. Lisa Jackson, the head of the EPA, recently said so on national television. Currently, over 90% of wells are hydraulically fractured. Hydraulic fracturing is important to all of us because, without hydraulic fracturing, we don’t have access to domestic natural gas resources.

I have two small children and live in the mountains where we drink from a domestic well. I get the concerns about hydraulic fracturing fluids — so here are a few facts to remember. The hydraulic fracturing process uses a mixture comprised almost entirely (99.5%) of water and sand. The remaining materials, used to condition the water, are typically found and used around the house. The most prominent of these, a substance known as guar gum, is an emulsifier commonly found in ice cream. (Emulsifier, by the way, is something that makes something gooey.) The average fracturing operation uses fewer than 12 of these additives, according to the Ground Water Protection Council — not 600. I don’t want 600 chemicals injected at one time into the ground either.

The entire universe of additives used in the fracturing process is known to the public and the state agencies that represent them. Here in Colorado, for example, operators must maintain safety sheets for any chemical products brought to a well site.

On Tired, Debunked Claims About the “Halliburton Loophoole”

Opponents of hydraulic fracturing often blame the so-called “Halliburton Loophole” in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 for protecting hydraulic fracturing from federal regulation and exempting it from restrictions of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).

Remember: Hydraulic fracturing fluids are not being injected into drinking water. They are being injected into the oil- and gas-bearing formation, the one that has been geologically isolated for millions of years. The shallow drinking water aquifers are protected by layers of metal pipe and cement that make up the well bore.

Hydraulic fracturing was never intended to be subject to the Safe Drinking Water Act and it has never been regulated under SDWA — not in the 60-year history of the technology, the 36-year history of the law or the 40-year history of the EPA. … The 2005 Energy Policy Act was nothing more than a restatement of current and practiced law.

Every step of drilling, including hydraulic fracturing, is regulated carefully and with pride in Colorado by our Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC).

State Regulators Confirm That Fracturing Has Never Impacted Groundwater

The Environmental Protection Agency, Ground Water Protection Council, Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, and others have all examined the process and found it to be safe. In Colorado, operators have to apply to get a permit to drill, describing all of their surface and downhole activities through the COGCC.

Despite the assertions in the movie Gasland, the COGCC has investigated hundreds of cases and to date has found no water well contamination attributable to hydraulic fracturing. And these include the flaming faucets and the bubbling surface water in West Creek Divide wetland, both of which were determined to be naturally occurring methane or gas unrelated to drilling.

State regulators in Pennsylvania, New York, Texas, Ohio, New Mexico, and Alabama have also stated the same conclusion that not one case of contaminated groundwater has been caused by hydraulic fracturing.

60 Minutes Takes a Look at Critical 60 Year Old Energy Technology

“It’s an American energy renaissance”

“Shale Gas Drilling: Pros & Cons,” was the title that CBS’s Lesley Stahl went with in her 60 Minutes segment last night on natural gas development in America from shale rock formations that have been around for hundreds of millions of years. Thanks to advancements in horizontal drilling technologies coupled with the 60 year old energy stimulation process called hydraulic fracturing, natural gas is not longer “the ugly stepchild of our national energy debate.”

In a Wilkes Barre Times-Leader story today, under the headline “TV report focuses on gas drilling,” Energy In Depth weighs-in on last night’s CBS segment:

Chris Tucker, of EnergyInDepth.org, an organization that promotes the benefits of natural gas drilling, said the segment was “fairly balanced,” although the show didn’t get everything right.

“I think they did a great job of telling the story of real people, everyday people, all across the country whose lives have changed for the better thanks to the development of this clean, American resource,” Tucker said.

“They didn’t quite get it right when they attempted to venture into the regulatory history of hydraulic fracturing. The reality is that fracturing technology is among the most thoroughly regulated procedures that takes place at the wellsite, which is a big reason why it’s been able to compile such a solid record of safety and performance over the past 60 years of commercial use.”

Here are key experts from the CBS segment:

On America’s Abundance

On the Economic Promise

On Hydraulic Fracturing

 

However, there’s some outstanding facts that didn’t make it into last night’s segment. For instance, Sierra Club’s Michael Brune claims that natural gas production is “under-regulated,” and that “the first thing that the industry should do is disclose what chemicals are being used in fracking.” “The 2005 energy bill completely exempted the natural gas industry and fracking technology from any regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. It’s an outrage,” continues Mr. Brune.

 

But here are several critical facts that CBS viewers, and Mr. Brune, should be aware of:

Roundabout Theatre: NY Rep. Wants D.C. to Tell Commission in N.J. to Shut Down Marcellus Work in Pa.

Congressman Maurice Hinchey, Democrat from Hurley, N.Y., may not have a particularly firm grasp on the history of hydraulic fracturing – continuing to tell anyone who will listen (wrongly) that HF was previously regulated by EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act, but now is not.

But anyone who thinks he doesn’t have a sophisticated understanding of how to use all levels of government to get things done (or, in this case, stop things from happening) – think again.

Mr. Hinchey, an original co-sponsor of the job-killing FRAC Act – which aims to strip individual energy-producing states of their ability to tightly and able regulate hydraulic fracturing – has elevated (or at least tried) his attack on responsible domestic shale gas development.

Under the headline “Obama admin rejects timeout for Marcellus drilling,” Greenwire’s Mike Soraghan reports this:

Brig. Gen. Peter “Duke” DeLuca, commander of the North Atlantic Division of the Army Corps of Engineers, last week declined a request from Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) to use the federal government’s vote on the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) to seek a temporary ban on gas production in the Delaware watershed.

The Obama administration has decided against pressing for a temporary halt to Marcellus Shale drilling in Pennsylvania and New York, a key federal official said.

Hinchey wants drilling there to wait until the commission completes a “cumulative impact statement,” but DeLuca said that could delay drilling for years.

“Just to be clear here, Hinchey was trying to use a federal agency to direct the actions of a regional water board for the purposes of preventing the development of natural gas in a state where he doesn’t even live,” said Chris Tucker, spokesman for Energy in Depth, a group of independent drillers. “Next thing you know, he’ll be ordering the Army Corps to build levees around our well sites in Wyoming.”

Here’s what others – who have actual energy backgrounds and expertise – are saying about hydraulic fracturing’s long and clear record of environmental safety and effectiveness.

Syracuse Resident on Hydraulic Fracturing: “I just really wish we could have an honest debate here”

Earlier this week, EPA found itself in the unenviable position of having to scramble for an alternate location for hosting its previously scheduled public information session on the shale gas stimulation technique known as hydraulic fracturing.

Of course, it was pure coincidence that the agency settled on the one city in the state whose newspaper ran four separate letters to the editor late last week targeting with misinformation the technology in question.

Syracuse, of course, is the city we’re talking about, and even though New York State has more than 13,000 oil and natural gas wells in operation today – the vast majority of which have been fractured – activists continue to spread misleading information about the 60-year-old technology, and the many state and federal regulations in place to ensure that this process is conducted in a safe and environmentally sound manner.

Last week the readers of Syracuse’s Post-Standard witnessed this effort first hand and in full-force – four letters in a single day. Luckily however, there are folks out there who know the truth, speak the truth and are willing to set the record straight on a technology been deployed over 1.1 million different times without a single confirmed case of groundwater contamination.

Which brings us to the first letter from last week’s Aug. 6 Post-Standard:

“Here are some of the exemptions from the United States federal laws that the natural gas industry can ignore due to the “Cheney loophole” in the Federal Energy Act of 2005: Exemptions of the gas (and oil) industry: 1) the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2) the Clean Water Act, 3) the Clean Air Act, 4) the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 5) waste management laws, 6) public right to know provisions of the emergency planning and community right to know act.” – David Kauber, Aurora

Funny thing about these claims? Not a single one is backed up by fact. And no, just because Josh Fox says it’s true, doesn’t mean it is. Local resident Andy Leahy sums it up best in today’s Post-Standard:

“I’m going to have to leave aside the preposterous claims that the oil and gas industry is exempt from the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Superfund law and so on… The history of the Safe Drinking Water Act, on the other hand, carries a slightly more interesting “kernel of truth,” from which the activists have sprouted their claims. For more than two decades since passage in 1974, no one in authority on any state or federal level interpreted underground injection control as encompassing oil and gas well “stimulation,” or fracturing, as had long been routinely deployed during development of these resources… in the late 1990s there was a very effective lawsuit brought by an environmental group having to do with hydraulic fracturing for coalbed methane in Alabama.”

Mr. Leahy goes on to write:

“The Energy Policy Act of 2005, among many other things, rendered this Alabama legal decision ineffective by clarifying congressional intent within SDWA. It said clearly that hydraulic fracturing was not meant, and was never meant, by Congress to be covered under the federal underground injection control program. So that’s the exemption, the so-called “Halliburton loophole.” It just confirmed the status quo, which is that the states remain the primary regulators of oil and gas exploration activity.”

You can imagine the substance of the other three letters – which you can read here if you’d like. But to save you the time, effort and tears, we’ll leave you with this little nugget:

We are a well-informed, intelligent, educated people who are well aware of what we have to lose if the gas companies are allowed to frack within the aquifers of our state. We know that we are exempt from the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts.” – Beverly Ann Scholl, Skaneateles

Sorry, Ms. Scholl, educated people support their arguments with facts, not fiction.

No Second Acts for GasLand

GasLand director Josh Fox is certainly a busy man these days, but apparently not too busy to review a 4,000-word rebuttal to his film sent around two weeks ago by Energy In Depth.

So what’d he think of the write-up? According to one columnist for a major national daily with whom we both spoke, Fox’s primary critique of the EID fact-check was that we had based it off an “earlier print of the film,” not the new and improved version purchased by HBO. That iteration was going to be different, we were told — different from the film he had previously screened in dozens of places all across the country. After all, it was an HBO product now. And certainly a network with more than 30 million U.S. subscribers couldn’t be expected to just run any picture show it got its hands on without conducting a thorough job of vetting and reviewing it first. Right?

Our curiosity was officially piqued. What would Fox decide to change? The possibilities were endless. He could decide to strike the portion of the film on Dunkard Creek, which even the local press in the area have derided as a “glaring error.” Maybe he’d decide to toss-in a quick mention of the report from Colorado regulators on the Markham well in Fort Lupton, which found the methane in the water had nothing to do with oil or gas development.

But then again, adding in that little disclaimer would sort of ruin the flammable faucet scene, wouldn’t it? How about that bit about the endangered species in Wyoming? That part’s factually incorrect as well, and easily confirmable as such. Would that segment make HBO’s final cut? EID had to find out – even if it meant staying up well past its bedtime to do it.

So we watched the film, again. And what do you know? Dunkard Creek’s still in there. And so is the flammable faucet. And so is the phantom claim that natural gas exploration in Wyoming is rendering the sage grouse extinct. Incidentally, if that’s true, someone should tell the Wyoming Game and Fish Commission. It might want to discontinue its sage grouse hunting season. Ditto for the mule deer. We shouldn’t be hunting endangered species.

So what did he actually change, then? In the final analysis, unfortunately, not a whole lot. Take a gander for yourself:

Previous version: “In 2004, the EPA was investigating a water contamination incident due to hydraulic fracturing in Alabama. But a panel rejected the inquiry, stating that although hazardous materials were being injected underground, EPA did not need to investigate.” (31:32)

HBO version: “In 2004, the EPA was investigating water contamination incidents due to hydraulic fracturing across the country. But a panel rejected the inquiry, stating that although hazardous materials were being injected underground, EPA did not need to investigate.” (30:17)

Previous version: “What I didn’t know was that the 2005 energy bill pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney exempts the oil and natural gas industries from Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Superfund law, and about a dozen other environmental and Democratic regulations.” (6:05)

HBO version: “What I didn’t know was that the 2005 energy bill pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney exempts the oil and natural gas industries from the Safe Drinking Water Act.” (5:03)

Two minor changes — that’s all we noticed in watching the “new” version of the film on HBO last night. Of course, we did pick up on a few little things we missed the first couple times around. For instance, Fox does an interview with one woman in Colorado, who is shown coughing on camera and stating that natural gas exploration is the reason “I’m never healthy.” In the next scene (27:48), she’s shown holding a cigarette. The woman also blames natural gas development for the occurrence of methane in her water well. For what it’s worth, Colorado regulators disagree: “COGCC sampled the McClure water well on 3/25/09. Sample results show naturally occurring biogenic methane gas in well and no impact from O&G [oil and natural gas] operations.”

Next up for GasLand? An encore airing on HBO slated for Thursday afternoon at 1 p.m. EST. Check back at energyindepth.org for updates and additional points of debunkery from the film. Tough to imagine we’re through with this yet.

Energy In Depth Corrects the Record on State Disclosure


EID responds to mistaken assertions made during recent markup of Energy & Commerce Committee

WASHINGTON – The federal government mandates the disclosure of materials used in the commonly used, 60-year-old process of hydraulic fracturing – but do any of the states? Late last month during a markup in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) told her colleagues on the panel that “only three states have laws requiring reporting.” But according to the Ground Water Protection Council, the actual number is significantly higher than that – and as recently as this week, growing.

Earlier today, Energy In Depth executive director Lee Fuller sent a detailed letter and accompanying packet of information on disclosure to every member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, seeking to dispel any misconceptions that may exist on what is fundamentally a basic, verifiable question. The text of that letter, along with links to the various addenda included with it, can be found below.

June 11, 2010

The Honorable Henry Waxman
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6115

The Honorable Joe Barton
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce
2322A Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-6115
Dear Chairman Waxman and Ranking Member Barton:

On May 26, the Energy and Commerce panel held a full committee markup of H.R. 5320, the Assistance, Quality, and Affordability (AQUA) Act of 2010, a bill that was reported favorably to the House by a vote of 45-1. One of the amendments brought up for consideration that afternoon, offered by U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), sought to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to target the continued use of hydraulic fracturing, a key energy technology never previously regulated under SDWA, but over the past 60 years, one that has been aggressively regulated by the many states in which the technique is commonly deployed.

Although the DeGette language was ultimately withdrawn — a motion that was supported by the chairman – the debate that was spurred by the introduction of the amendment included several assertions which, upon closer scrutiny, don’t quite reflect the current reality as it relates to state involvement in the regulation and oversight of fracturing activities. I appreciate the opportunity to correct that record on behalf of the Independent Petroleum Association of America and Energy In Depth, of which I have the pleasure to serve as executive director.

Reviewing the archived video of the debate on the committee’s website, Rep. DeGette on several occasions makes reference to what she believes to be an inadequate number of states currently requiring service companies to disclose information related to the materials used in the fracturing process. In particular, she suggests that “only three states have laws requiring reporting,” and that two other states “are considering implementing those laws” as well. All told, she estimates that “only one-tenth of the states require this type of reporting,” and proceeds to use that premise as the foundation for constructing a broader argument in support of her amendment.

But those numbers don’t quite align with research jointly published last year by the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) and the U.S. Department of Energy. According to that report, of the 27 states in which 99.9 percent of oil and gas activity takes place:

Attached for your convenience, please find a previously unpublished addendum to the GWPC report providing a detailed summary of how these states regulate hydraulic fracturing, as well as other rules in place governing every stage of the energy exploration, production and delivery process. Please note that since this addendum was compiled, a number of states – such as Colorado, Pennsylvania, and most recently Wyoming – have updated their disclosure rules to provide for even greater level of transparency in the process.

In analyzing the disclosure requirements currently in place in the individual states, it’s important also to recognize that the federal government also requires the forthright disclosure of additives used in the fracturing process in the form of Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS), which are mandated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to be present at every well site in America where a minimum amount of chemicals are found. In states such as New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, these sheets and aggregations thereof can be accessed easily by navigating to the website of the appropriate state regulatory office. In other states, similar information can be obtained by submitting a simple request to the agency.

In closing, one additional comment made by Rep. DeGette during the debate over her amendment last week may warrant further explanation – specifically, the assertion that “in 2005, the oil and gas industry got itself exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act, the only industry which is exempt from that legislation.”

As senior members of the committee during that time, certainly you remember that the provision of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 dealing with hydraulic fracturing did not result in a substantive change to existing law; it merely clarified Congress’s long-standing position that hydraulic fracturing had never been – and, in fact, was never intended to be – regulated under SDWA. But that doesn’t mean other aspects of the process aren’t regulated under SDWA and a host of other federal rules and statutes. For your convenience, I’ve attached a fact sheet depicting the various forms of federal regulation (SDWA, Clean Water Act, etc.) that apply to each step of that process.

Thank you for the opportunity to address some of the misconceptions that exist regarding ongoing efforts by the states to discharge their long-held responsibilities related to the regulation of oil and natural gas. Please don’t hesitate to contact me directly should you have any additional questions, concerns or comments.

Sincerely,

Lee O. Fuller
Executive Director
Energy In Depth

cc: All members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee

Enclosures

Debunking GasLand

Josh Fox makes his mainstream debut with documentary targeting natural gas – but how much of it is actually true?

For an avant-garde filmmaker and stage director whose previous work has been recognized by the “Fringe Festival” of New York City, HBO’s decision to air the GasLand documentary nationwide later this month represents Josh Fox’s first real foray into the mainstream – and, with the potential to reach even a portion of the network’s 30 million U.S. subscribers, a potentially significant one at that.

But with larger audiences and greater fanfare come the expectation of a few basic things: accuracy, attention to detail, and original reporting among them. Unfortunately, in the case of this film, accuracy is too often pushed aside for simplicity, evidence too often sacrificed for exaggeration, and the same old cast of characters and anecdotes – previously debunked – simply lifted from prior incarnations of the film and given a new home in this one.

“I’m sorry,” Josh Fox once told a New York City magazine, “but art is more important than politics. … Politics is people lying to you and simplifying everything; art is about contradictions.” And so it is with GasLand: politics at its worst, art at its most contrived, and contradictions of fact found around every bend of the river. Against that backdrop, we attempt below to identify and correct some of the most egregious inaccuracies upon which the film is based (all quotes are from Josh Fox, unless otherwise noted):

Misstating the Law

(6:05) “What I didn’t know was that the 2005 energy bill pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney exempts the oil and natural gas industries from Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Superfund law, and about a dozen other environmental and Democratic regulations.”

(6:24) “But when the 2005 energy bill cleared away all the restrictions, companies … began to lease Halliburton technology and to begin the largest and most extensive domestic gas drilling campaign in history – now occupying 34 states.”

(32:34) “The energy task force, and $100 million lobbying effort on behalf of the industry, were significant in the passage of the ‘Halliburton Loophole’ to the Safe Drinking Water Act, which authorizes oil and gas drillers exclusively to inject known hazardous materials, unchecked, directly into or adjacent to underground drinking water supplies. It passed as part of the Bush administration’s Energy Policy Act of 2005.”

(1:32:34) “Diana DeGette and Maurice Hinchey’s FRAC Act [is] a piece of legislation that’s one paragraph long that simply takes out the exemption for hydraulic fracturing to the Safe Drinking Water Act.”

Misrepresenting the Rules

(1:00:56) “Because of the exemptions, fracking chemicals are considered proprietary … The only reason we know anything about the fracking chemicals is because of the work of Theo Colborn … by chasing down trucks, combing through material safety data sheets, and collecting samples.”

(1:03:33) Dr. Colborn: “Once the public hears the story, and they’ll say, ‘Why aren’t we out there monitoring’? We can’t monitor until we know what they’re using. There’s no way to monitor. You can’t.”

Mischaracterizing the Process

(6:50) “[Hydraulic fracturing] blasts a mix of water and chemicals 8,000 feet into the ground. The fracking itself is like a mini-earthquake. … In order to frack, you need some fracking fluid – a mix of over 596 chemicals.”

(50:05) “Each well completion, that is, the initial drilling phase plus the first frack job, requires 1,150 truck trips.”

(51:12) “Before the water can be hauled away and disposed of somewhere, it has to be emptied into a pit – an earthen pit, or a clay pit, sometimes a lined pit, but a pit – where a lot of it can seep right back down into the ground.”

Flat-Out Making Stuff Up

(53:36) “The Pinedale Anticline and the Jonah gas fields [of Wyoming] are directly in the path of the thousand year old migration corridor of pronghorn antelope, mule deer and sage grouse. And yeah, each of these species is endangered, and has suffered a significant decline of their populations since 2005.”

(8:07) “And now they’re coming east. They’re proposing 50,000 gas wells along a 75-mile stretch of the Delaware River and hundreds of thousands more across New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. From 1972 until now – my whole life – all of this has been protected.”

(19:27) “One thing was resoundingly clear: If the industry’s projections were correct, then this would be the end of the Catskills and the Delaware River Basin as we knew it. And it would mean a massive upheaval and redefinition of all of New York State and Pennsylvania.”

(31:32) “In 2004, the EPA was investigating a water contamination incident due to hydraulic fracturing in Alabama. But a panel rejected the inquiry, stating that although hazard materials were being injected underground, EPA did not need to investigate.”

(1:28:06) “Just a few short months after this interview, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection suffered the worst budget cuts in history, amounting to over 700 staff either being fired or having reduced hours and 25 percent of its total budget cut.”

Recycling Discredited Points from the Past

Weston Wilson (EPA “whistleblower”): “One can characterize this entire [natural gas] industry as having a hundred year history of purchasing those they contaminate.” (33:36)

Dunkard Creek: Fox includes images of dead fish along a 35-mile stretch of Dunkard Creek in Washington Co., Pa.; attributes that event to natural gas development. (01:23:15)

Mike Markham: Fox blames flammable faucet in Fort Lupton, Colo. on natural gas development

Lisa Bracken: Fox blames methane occurrence in West Divide Creek, Colo. on natural gas development.

Calvin Tillman: Fox interviews mayor of DISH, Texas; blames natural gas development, transport for toxins in the air, benzene in blood.

Anything we miss? Guess we’ll be seeing you at the movies. Maybe not this one, though.

Press Release: Energy & Commerce Markup Likely to Include Job-Killing Amendment Targeting Hydraulic Fracturing

Language of Opportunity

EID letter to Kerry, Graham & Lieberman lays out the facts on hydraulic fracturing, importance of technology in fueling America’s shale gas revolution

Keep Reading »

EID Fact Check: Congressman Hinchey Talks HF on CNBC, Checks Facts at the Door

CNBC’s Cramer on EPA’s new HF study: “Even though we can’t find a single documented case of groundwater contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing, I’m concerned this could be the beginning of process that creates more regulatory hurdles for natural gas companies, and makes it more difficult to drill in the United States.”

Cramer: “Steve Heare is the EPA’s director of drinking water protection. He recently said that the states our ‘doing a good job already regulating hydraulic fracturing,’ and he added that there is no evidence to suggest the process contaminates water … He would seem to be a knowledgeable figure. He’s the drinking water protection person at the EPA.” 

WASHINGTON – Now we know why they call it “Mad” Money. Yesterday afternoon, U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y) appeared on Jim Cramer’s CNBC financial show to discuss shale gas exploration, hydraulic fracturing, and his ongoing and very active efforts to prevent clean-burning, American made shale gas resources from being produced in New York, or anywhere else.

Actually, Rep. Hinchey disputed that characterization of his intent, offered up throughout by the host. In reality, he said, he’s just interested in “making sure that drilling occurs” and that the exploration process “is not impinged upon” – notwithstanding that his bill, known as the FRAC Act, would impede efforts to safely explore for natural gas in the very best case, and outright ban those efforts in the worst (and most plausible) case.

Keep in mind, this is the same congressman who suggested to one online writer that “very substantial economic elements,” and sinister ones at that, were involved in exploiting the shale gas revolution “for their own economic advantages.” And oh yeah, this is also the fella who once famously said: “I do not think that relying on foreign oil impacts our security. I would hope…that there might be a new approach to this whole issue and that approach would essentially mean let us import as much [energy] as we possibly can.” Yikes.

That aside, let’s see how the congressman’s latest performance holds up under an EID fact check:

HINCHEY CLAIM

 

 

 

 

“A significant portion of the Clean Water Drinking Act [sic.] was repealed in 2005. And that provision in 2005 said that people who are drilling don’t have to tell anybody what they’re putting into the ground.”

FACT

 

 

 

 

The bipartisan 2005 energy bill, supported by then Sen. Barack Obama, clarified that Congress never intended hydraulic fracturing to be regulated under Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). If Congress ever intended the SDWA to extend beyond its original scope and cover the fracturing of energy wells, it certainly had plenty of chances to make that view known.

Passed in 1974, SDWA has been amended a whopping eight separate times over the past 35 years (’74, ’77, ’79, ‘80, ‘86, ‘88, ’96, ‘05), but at no time during that extended run was the concept of regulating fracturing under the Act a significant component of the debate. And that’s true even though at the time of the bill’s passage in ‘74, fracturing had already been in commercial use for 25 years.

What’s changed in 35 years? Not a whole lot on the technological side, with the notable exception of exciting advancements in horizontal drilling techniques that allow producers today to access 10 times the energy by drilling 1/10 the number of wells.

So again: Fracturing was never regulated under SDWA – and, by that definition, could never have been granted an “exemption.” How can you be exempt from something that never covered you in the first place?Dennis Lathem, executive director of the Coalbed Methane Association of Alabama, sheds some additional light on the 2005 bipartisan legislation:

“Hydraulic fracturing has never been regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The 2005 Energy Policy Act contained language clarifying this intent. The language was necessary because a federal circuit court ruled (incorrectly in my opinion) the temporary process of hydraulic fracturing is the same as the permanent disposal of wastes underground and is therefore covered by the SDWA.

“The fact is, if the language clarifying hydraulic fracturing had not been in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, every state in the union would be in exactly the same regulatory posture as they are today, except Alabama.”

Also, click HERE to view a comprehensive timeline illustrating fracturing’s long and clear record of effective regulation.

HINCHEY CLAIM

 

 

 

 

“It was one of the drillers that put 12 homes into jeopardy [in Pennsylvania], and which caused a lot of contamination of drinking water supplies.”

FACT

 

 

 

 

PA DEP: “Responding to recent concerns expressed by residents of Dimock Township, Susquehanna County, the Department of Environmental Protection has collected dozens of water supply samples in the Carter Road area and determined that nearby gas well hydro fracturing activity has not impacted local wells.” (Release, 3/27/09)

HINCHEY CLAIM

 

 

 

 

“I don’t think what I’m doing is going to cause the drilling in New York to be hesitated in any way, or stopped or done more slowly.”

FACT

 

 

 

 

The FRAC Act could give EPA outright authority to regulate fracturing in energy-producing states, stripping states of their ability to closely and effectively regulate this technology. In an editorial entitled “Power play: Fracturing plan wrong, indefensible,” The Oklahoman writes this:

“The latest power grab is an attempt to switch regulation of hydraulic fracturing from the states to the Environmental Protection Agency. … Some believe the technique poses harm to drinking water supplies. U.S. Rep. Dan Boren, D-Muskogee, disagrees and says the regulatory shift would be “disastrous for the industry.” … Legislation has been introduced in Congress to require companies to disclose the chemicals used in the process and allow the EPA to ensure compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. This is a solution in search of a problem.” (6/15/09)

HINCHEY CLAIM

 

 

 

 

“There’s a lot of examples where drilling has caused damage to drinking water supplies.”

FACT

 

 

 

 

At a recent Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) asked senior EPA and USGS officials if “Any one of you know of one case of ground water contamination that has resulted from hydraulic fracturing?” Here are the answers:

Peter Silva (EPA Water Chief): Not that I’m aware of, no.

Sen. Inhofe: Ms. Giles?

Cynthia Giles (EPA Compliance Administrator): I understand there’s some anecdotal evidence, but I don’t know that it’s been firmly established.

Sen. Inhofe: So the answer is no, you don’t know of it.

Cynthia Giles nods.

Sen. Inhofe: Alright, Mr. Larsen?

Matthew Larsen (Assoc. Director for Water, EPA): I’ll have to respond in writing, I don’t, I’m not aware of all of our studies on that topic.

Click HERE to view this exchange online.

Press Release: EPA Water Chief: States Doing “A Good Job Already” in Regulation of Key Energy Technology

Comments by EPA’s Steve Heare aligns with past statements from agency, directly contradicts arguments in support of FRAC Act

WASHINGTON – States are doing “a good job already” when it comes to regulating a 61-year-old energy technology known as hydraulic fracturing, a top EPA water official said yesterday – directly contradicting those who support re-writing the Safe Drinking Water Act to impose EPA regulation over the process for the first time in the agency’s (or Act’s) history. Following comments made yesterday from Steve Heare, EPA’s director of EPA’s drinking water protection office, Energy In Depth executive director Lee Fuller issued the following statement:

“These comments from a key EPA drinking water protection official underscore the tremendous work that state regulators have done for decades, and continue to do today, to ensure the proper balance between responsible energy exploration and the safeguarding of our land, air and water. They also align seamlessly with every single official pronouncement that EPA has ever made on hydraulic fracturing; namely, that fracturing technology is safe, it’s incredibly effective, and that it poses no risk to drinking water supplies as currently regulated.”

In particular, Fuller pointed to testimony offered in December by several EPA water and compliance officials to a committee of the U.S. Senate, a hearing in which EPA’s Peter Silva, Cynthia Giles and Matthew Larsen were asked if they were aware of a single instance of water contamination tied to hydraulic fracturing. None were able to identify a single such case, according to the hearing transcript – a reality confirmed by EPA itself in 2004 when it found “no evidence” of alleged contamination after conducting an exhaustive study of the issue over the course of nearly five years.

Fuller also noted that EPA’s latest comments on hydraulic fracturing present a direct challenge to those who support the so-called FRAC Act currently being considered in Congress – legislation that would fundamentally re-write the 36-year-old Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) with an eye on shoehorning hydraulic fracturing into a potentially unworkable federal regulatory regime. Sponsors of the FRAC Act premise their support for the bill on the assertion that states cannot effectively regulate the fracturing process as currently constituted – a notion that stands in direct contradiction to comments made by Mr. Heare yesterday.

“It seems we have a bit of a disagreement to resolve here,” Fuller added. “If supporters of the FRAC Act believe that EPA’s drinking water official is wrong, they should say so – and be ready to defend that assertion. Alternatively, if they think he may right, they ought to take a second look at the legislation they’re trying to pass, and perhaps do a bit more research into how their individual states are effectively handling this important responsibility. I think they’ll be pleasantly surprised by how aggressively this process is being managed by experts on the ground and in the community.”

READ MORE

What Lies Beneath

Energy In Depth digs deep into the substrata of U.S. code, separates fact from fiction in ProPublica’s latest dispatch

Keep Reading »

Sign of the Times

NY Times – America’s “paper of record” – re-writes history of hydraulic fracturing, uses schoolyard attacks to defend endorsement of DeGette’s FRAC Act

Keep Reading »

EID Friday Fact Check: HF Opponents Say the Darndest Things

A Top 10 List of Errors, Half-Truths and Full-On Falsehoods Targeting Hydraulic Fracturing

Keep Reading »