Home » Posts tagged "safety"

safety

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

steve_everleySteve
Spokesman

 

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

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

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

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

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

Tennessee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sierra Club also opposes the proposal.

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

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

Wisconsin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Actual Data Tell Very Different (and Very Good) Story on Worker Safety
Opponents of natural gas have settled on a strategy of trying to build a new and pathos-driven narrative around the oil and gas industry – namely, that the work it does is exceedingly dangerous, and no amount of oversight can make it safe. However, the oil and gas industry’s number one priority is safety, for both its workers and the environment in which it operates. This commitment comes across in pretty vivid detail for those who take just a second to look at the actual facts.

johnkrohn

JD
Communications Director

Unable to pick-up traction on their standard set of claims and accusations, opponents of natural gas have settled on a strategy of trying to build a new and pathos-driven narrative around the oil and gas industry – namely, that the work it does is exceedingly dangerous, and no amount of effort, technology or oversight can make it safe (notwithstanding the fact that over nine million people in the U.S. work in the oil and gas business).

Part and parcel of this strategy is to get folks to believe that oil and gas companies don’t care about their workers, and that they routinely put their employees’ lives in danger just to make a quick buck. Josh Fox’s new short film, which he calls “CJ’s Law,” attempts to advance this narrative.

Unfortunately for Josh – and fortunately for our workforce – a review of available state and federal data suggests the narrative is completely unmoored from reality.

Now, make no mistake: not a single death or a serious injury that happens at an industrial worksite is acceptable to anyone. But in rare cases, accidents and incidents do occur, even with the most stringent regulatory system in place anywhere in the world, and the combined investment of literally billions of dollars each year into new processes, systems and technologies designed and proven to make the workplace even safer.

But Fox isn’t just saying that oil and gas companies don’t care about their employees, as scurrilous a charge as that may be. He’s also saying that the industry’s track-record on safety is bad, a contention echoed by a reporter at E&E News in a piece filed the week after Josh’s new video hit (and featuring the same interview subjects as Josh used).

But what do the actual data say about the industry’s safety record? While we have examined this issue before, it’s certainly worth revisiting, especially given the seriousness of the accusations.

First-off, let’s acknowledge right at the top that some element of risk is present in just about any job anyone would have in America. Whether you’re a flight attendant, a crossing guard, a bartender, a foreman at a construction site, a technician at a water treatment facility, or a contractor on a drilling rig – there’s always going to be some risk associated with doing what you do, even as that risk is continously lessened and properly and closely managed.

But hey: working on a rig HAS to be more dangerous than working behind a bar, right? Well, actually — not according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

According to BLS statistics, the fatality rate for “mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction” is lower than a lot of other industries you might be surprised to see on this list. Here are just a few:

Again, this isn’t to say there is no risk involved in developing oil and gas resources. But this information does suggest the claim that wellpads are “among the most dangerous workplaces in the country” might be a little hyperbolic.

The 2011 National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries also lists the total number of fatalities, and notes that the number of fatalities from oil and natural gas development is exceeded by many other industries. Those include, but are not limited to:

 Motor vehicle operators (851 deaths); Transportation and warehousing (733 deaths); Construction (721 deaths); Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting (557 deaths); Construction trade workers (511 deaths); Government (495 deaths); Truck transportation (474 deaths); Professional and business services (424 deaths); Installation, maintenance and repair occupations (362); Manufacturing (322 deaths); Local government (294 deaths); Retail trade (266 deaths); Building and grounds cleaning maintenance occupations (265); farming, fishing and forestry (262); Crop production (238 deaths); Leisure and hospitality (224 deaths); Sales and related occupations as a sector (228 deaths).

Nat Gas Safety chart

A review of additional federal statistics highlights the industry’s commitment to safety, and also the progress that continues to be made.  In fact, the number of injuries in the sector has been declining even as the industry has significantly increased its operations, which of course has resulted in U.S. oil and natural gas production reaching production levels that are exceeding or nearing historic highs.

Such an achievement doesn’t come without a very targeted focus on ensuring the safety of worksites. Eric Esswein, a Senior Industrial Hygienist at the National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety (NIOSH), made this very observation last year when he visited several areas undergoing shale development, concluding that the oil and natural gas industry “runs very, very safe work practices and sites.”

Esswein’s experience is backed by federal statistics. According to data released by BLS late last year, injuries in the oil and natural gas industry declined in 2011 by an amazing 33 percent. The injury rate – 0.8 cases per 100 workers – is well below the national incidence rate of 3.5 cases per 100 workers.  Having an incident rate so far below the national average doesn’t happen by accident.

The oil and gas industry’s number one priority is safety, for both its workers and the environment in which it operates. And it’s a commitment that comes across in pretty vivid detail for those who take just a second to look at the actual facts.

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

Dana
Staff Geologist

 

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

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

—Original post, January 9, 2013—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steve
Spokesman

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–

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

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

“…lays waste to the water we drink…”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And here’s some evidence to support that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

–

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

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

JD
Communications Director

 

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

—Original post, November 8, 2012—

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

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

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

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

–

ISSUE 1: IGNORES EXPERT OPINIONS AND FACTS ABOUT SAFETY

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

ISSUE 2: USES EXCEPTION AS THE RULE

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

ISSUE 3: INVENTS SAFETY FEARS WHERE THERE ARE NONE

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

ISSUE 4: MISREPRESENTS REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

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

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

–

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

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

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

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

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

Kyna
Field Director, Illinois

 

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

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

Here are some excerpts from the column:

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