Anti-Shale Activists Trying to Upset Democratic Process
On Tuesday of this week (May 21), lawmakers in Springfield will be considering a historic compromise on hydraulic fracturing, which will pave the way for responsible development in Illinois and establish some of the strongest regulations in the country. Yet, despite an unprecedented level of support, a small yet vocal minority of ideological activists continues to think that the rules are inadequate and have somehow been “rushed.”
Kyna
Midwest Field Director
On Tuesday of this week (May 21), lawmakers in Springfield, Ill., will be considering a historic compromise on hydraulic fracturing, which will pave the way for responsible development in Illinois and establish some of the strongest regulations in the country. This legislation – filed as Amendment 1 to SB 1715, and which was the product of more than a year of discussions, compromise, and in-depth reviews of science and facts – was designed to address concerns specific to Illinois, and it enjoys support from an impressive coalition: environmental groups (including the Sierra Club, the NRDC, and the Illinois Environmental Council), labor (including the AFL-CIO), the business community, the oil and gas industry, and agriculture groups, among many others.
Yet, despite this unprecedented level of support, a small yet vocal minority of ideological activists continues to think that the rules are inadequate and have somehow been “rushed.” They’re planning to meet at the Capitol in Springfield on Tuesday, during which time they’ll hold a press conference and likely try to make as much noise as possible. The headliner will be Sandra Steingraber, a well-known activist who has likened hydraulic fracturing to a “tornado on the horizon” and disgracefully advanced the alarmist narrative that fracking causes cancer – even though actual scientists disagree.
The goal? Make a ruckus and prevent the Illinois legislature from passing the agreed-upon regulatory bill.
To be sure, we’ve examined in depth the claims that Illinois activists have made about hydraulic fracturing, and – lo and behold – they’ve been thoroughly debunked. But because ideologues don’t typically bother with self-reflection or legitimate research, these same groups continue to repeat their talking points, as if scientific and regulatory consensus mean nothing.
More alarming, however, is that the debate here in Illinois over hydraulic fracturing has taken place in a variety of forms. There have been public hearings and forums. We’ve read countless letters to the editor and op-eds. News stories and editorials from every major newspaper have tackled topics ranging from environmental issues to economic benefits. Lawmakers in Springfield have been occupied for months on end examining data, scientific reports, and studies from across the country regarding hydraulic fracturing and shale development. Social media and blogs are overrun with points and counterpoints about potential impacts, good and bad.
This is the essence of compromise, something that our legislature seems unable to do with almost anything else. It’s long, it’s arduous, it’s frustrating, and yes, it often results in outcomes that some people are not 100 percent satisfied with. The agreed-upon regulatory bill is no exception. Each constituency within the large and diverse group of supporters has stated that it’s not a perfect bill, and that there are things they wish were different. But they also recognize that the benefits of development are too big to ignore (as an example, look at North Dakota’s 3.2 percent unemployment rate), and ensuring safety is a superior goal to just sticking our heads in the sand, denying jobs to Illinois citizens, and preventing a responsible path forward.
What opponents are trying to do is frankly a fundamental disruption of democracy. The public debate has played out in a variety of channels throughout the past year, and a large and diverse majority of Illinois interests have united to support a path forward for shale development. The legislation is based on science, and it has been carefully crafted to address the needs and concerns of folks across our state. Those facts, among others, demonstrate why the legislation enjoys enormous bipartisan support.
Simply put: Just because anti-fracking activists don’t like the results of the democratic process should not give them license to upend it.
Responsible shale development in Illinois would create tens of thousands of jobs for a state suffering from an unemployment rate exceeding nine percent. It would encourage investment in a state with the worst bond rating in the country, and would generate new tax revenue that could address an out of control budget deficit and fund vital public services. At a time when businesses are fleeing our state, shale development would lead to an influx of much-needed new investment.
It’s bad enough that anti-fracking activists oppose new economic growth for Illinois. The fact that they’re willing to hamstring a historic compromise to do so is just shameful.
Back to the Future: Ceres Water Report Relies on Old Understanding of Issue
Unfortunately, some groups are still determined to draw attention to themselves by writing scary-sounding reports on water use and hydraulic fracturing, when the reality isn’t scary at all. Take the Boston-based “sustainability” group called Ceres and its “Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Stress: Growing Competitive Pressures for Water” report. EID takes a look at some of the biggest problems in that report.
Simon
Research Director
When EID first made its way onto the scene back in the days of antiquity known as 2009, folks who were against developing natural gas (we didn’t even know about the oil!) from shale frequently cited the volume of water required to fracture the well as the number one reason to oppose those activities.
The playbook usually went like this: 1) declare loudly that hydraulic fracturing consumes millions of gallons of water per well; 2) add up every well currently in the ground to the number of wells you believe will be drilled in the future, producing an astronomical figure (usually in the trillions) seemingly representing the total number of gallons that will be “lost” to the fracturing process; 3) provide no context or perspective on those volumes compared to the water requirements of other industries;4) deny firmly that any technology for reusing or recycling that water – or even using non-potable water instead — is being used, or even exists; and finally, 5) insist to all who will listen that, once that water is lost, it is “forever removed” from the hydrological cycle – never to be accessed by humans again.
Four years now removed from EID’s launch, and the good news is that we’ve seen a good bit of evolution on the issue of water – so much so, in fact, that most activists have completely abandoned the talking point, recognizing (rightly) that their case is weakened considerably owing to the recent and continuing advances in water usage, treatment and recycling technologies to which we provide links above.
Of course, not all anti-shale groups have gotten the memo. Earlier this month, a group calling itself the Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC) released a report on water and hydraulic fracturing that could have just as easily been produced in 2008 – with almost no recognition at all of any of the advances that have been made in the water space over the course of just the past five years.
EID took a closer look at that report, and did what we could to bring WORC up to speed. Earlier this year, we also released a fact-sheet — “Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Use: Get the Facts” – that sought to provide some additional context on how water use in oil and natural gas production compares to other industries. Unfortunately, though, some groups are still determined to draw attention to themselves by writing scary-sounding reports on water use and hydraulic fracturing, when the reality isn’t scary at all.
Take the Boston-based “sustainability” group called Ceres and its “Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Stress: Growing Competitive Pressures for Water” report. Here are some of the biggest problems in that report:
#1 Arbitrarily picking on oil and gas
Here is the highly original conclusion of the Ceres report:
“The bottom line: shale energy development cannot grow without water, but in order to do so the industry’s water needs and impacts need to be better understood, measured and managed.”
Actually, you can say that about almost any industry that exists in the world. Consider the following statement from the U.S. Geological Survey’s Water Science School:
“Probably every manufactured product uses water during some part of the production process. Industrial water use includes water used for such purposes as fabricating, processing, washing, diluting, cooling, or transporting a product; incorporating water into a product; or for sanitation needs within the manufacturing facility. Some industries that use large amounts of water produce such commodities as food, paper, chemicals, refined petroleum, or primary metals.”
At the risk of stating the obvious: no industry can grow without water, and therefore the water needs and impacts of all industries need to be understood, measured and managed.
#2 Relying on water-management data, then pretending water isn’t being managed
Strangely enough, water use is already being measured and managed. It has been for many years: in all 50 states. But don’t take our word for it. Check out this database of water regulations from the National Council of State Legislatures. And this federal report from the USGS, which provides data down to the county level.
In fact, if water use wasn’t being measured and managed, Ceres could not have written its report. The report’s central claim is that during an 18-month period, just under half the shale gas and shale oil wells developed in the U.S. were drilled “in water basins with high or extremely high water stress.” Based on data in the Ceres report, “high water stress” means 40 percent to 80 percent of the available water “is already being withdrawn for municipal, industrial and agricultural uses.” As for “extremely high stress,” that’s when more than 80 percent of available water is being used for towns and cities, factories and other industrial plants, and farms.
So, Ceres has total confidence in the ability of state regulators, federal officials and others to measure and manage water consumption by municipal, industrial and agricultural users. But in the same breath, Ceres suggests those same state and federal officials can’t measure and manage water use by another industrial user – oil and gas companies. That double standard is completely unsupported by the facts.
For example, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Ground Water Protection Council – which represents the state regulatory agencies charged with protecting and conserving this precious natural resource – published a study in 2009 which found:
“The amount of water needed to drill and fracture a horizontal shale gas well generally ranges from about 2 million to 4 million gallons, depending on the basin and formation characteristics. While these volumes may seem very large, they are small by comparison to some other uses of water, such as agriculture, electric power generation, and municipalities … Calculations indicate that water use for shale gas development will range from less than 0.1% to 0.8% of total water use by basin.”
Just last year, the state of Colorado – which was given special attention in the Ceres paper – released a report on hydraulic fracturing water consumption. Colorado officials found it accounted for “slightly less than one-tenth of one percent of the total water used” in the state, and by 2015, it should be “slightly more than one-tenth of one percent of the total water used.”
In Texas, which also received special attention from Ceres, state officials report that “water needs are expected to increase most in the area of municipal water use in the coming decades,” while the mining category – which covers a range of activities including oil and gas development and hydraulic fracturing – remains “less than one percent of statewide water use, although percentages can be larger in some localized areas.”
And how do Texas officials know about those higher local percentages? Because the Texas Water Development Board commissioned a study to prepare for an expected increase in hydraulic fracturing between now and 2020. According to the TWRB’s 2012 State Water Plan, “[f]uture trends in these types of water use will be monitored closely in the upcoming planning process.”
But here’s the TWRB’s current projection:
“The mining category is the smallest of the water user categories and is expected to decline 1 percent from 296,230 acre-feet to 292,294 acre-feet between 2010 and 2060.”
That’s right, a one percent decrease. Those same TWRB projections show a 73 percent increase in municipal water use over the next 50 years, a 67 percent increase in manufacturing water use, and the amount of water used by power plants is expected to more than double.
So it turns out state and federal water officials – who enforce the laws and regulations that govern water use – are absolutely measuring and managing how much water is used by different industries and different sectors of the economy, including oil and gas companies. Not only that, when you look at current and projected water use, hydraulic fracturing is still a tiny fraction of present and future consumption.
There’s nothing scary about that, of course, and so you’ll find almost none of this highly relevant context in the Ceres report.
#3 Distorting their own research
On the website promoting the Ceres report, and in the text of the report itself, the authors say the following:
One can see that almost half (47 percent) of U.S. shale gas and oil wells are being developed in regions with high to extremely high water stress. This means that more than 80 percent of the annual available water is being withdrawn by municipal, industrial and agricultural users in these regions.
That’s a misrepresentation of their own research. Remember, an area of “high water stress” is when 40 percent of the water is already consumed by municipal, industrial and agricultural users, and the threshold for “extreme high water stress” is 80 percent.
So it’s simply wrong for Ceres to claim it found 47 percent of shale gas and shale oil development took place in areas where 80 percent or more of the water was already being used. Based on the number in the report, the actual finding was 41 percent.
So, why would Ceres misrepresent its own research for the sake of six percentage points? Perhaps because once you concede that significantly less than half of shale development is taking place in areas of extreme high water stress – not almost half – people might start to wonder where the majority of shale development is actually taking place.
Well, based on the Ceres research, the majority (53 percent) of shale gas and shale oil wells are being developed in areas where municipal, industrial and agricultural users consume 40 percent or less of the available water.
In other words, the Ceres report finds that more than half the nation’s hydraulic fracturing takes place in areas where water is plentiful and there is relatively little competition for supplies.
Yet, for some reason, that wasn’t the conclusion of the Ceres report, and it certainly wasn’t mentioned in the press release that announced the report to the world. This huge and frightening distortion of the group’s own research started the Energy In Depth research team wondering, “Who wrote this stuff?” And that led us right to the next problem with the report
#4 Failure to disclose opposition to oil and gas
Here’s how Ceres identifies itself on page 2 of the report:
“Ceres is a nonprofit organization mobilizing business leadership on sustainability challenges such as climate change and water scarcity.”
While that may sound like the description of a trade association for businesspeople who care about the environment, the reality is quite different.
While the Ceres coalition does include some institutional investors – mostly public-employee pension funds – it also has large number of activist groups that oppose the oil and gas industry. Here’s what some Ceres members have said about our industry and/or hydraulic fracturing:
“In the past few years, the oil and gas industry has drilled thousands of new wells using a perilous extraction process called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. To frack an oil or gas well, a massive volume of water and a toxic chemical soup are injected underground at high pressures to break up rock formations, allowing oil or gas to flow up the well.
Fracking threatens the air we breathe, the water we drink, the communities we call home and the climate on which we depend.”
“You wouldn’t let a loved one drink water so contaminated that it was flammable, right? And yet, thousands of animals like cattle, fish, frogs and deer have died after drinking water poisoned by a secret concoction of toxic ingredients — also known as fracking fluid. …
Despite the alarming concerns, the industry operates with almost no federal oversight and doesn’t have to disclose what chemicals they’re pumping into our waterways.”
Natural Resources Defense Council:
“Natural gas producers have been running roughshod over communities across the country with their extraction and production activities for too long, resulting in contaminated water supplies, dangerous air pollution, destroyed streams, and devastated landscapes. Weak safeguards and inadequate oversight fail to protect our communities from harm by the rapid expansion of fossil fuel production using hydraulic fracturing or ‘fracking.’”
“We have grown increasingly concerned about the prevalence of hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking,’ a technique used to mine natural gas. We’ve watched movies like Split Estate and Gasland, which explain the serious health risks associated with fracking…”
“Natural gas drillers exploit government loopholes, ignore decades-old environmental protections, and disregard the health of entire communities. “Fracking,” a violent process that dislodges gas deposits from shale rock formations, is known to contaminate drinking water, pollute the air, and cause earthquakes.”
Nowhere in the Ceres report on water use and hydraulic fracturing will you find any disclosure of its membership, or their openly hostility towards the oil and gas industry. But that’s not all.
Besides members, Ceres also has donors — and you’ll be surprised to learn that they include some well-known funders of activism that targets the oil and gas industry, and especially the use of hydraulic fracturing. According to the group’s last annual report, those donors include the Park Foundation and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. But again, that’s something you won’t find disclosed in the Ceres report on water use and hydraulic fracturing.
And then there’s one of the co-authors of the study, Ryan Salmon. Before joining Ceres, he worked as an energy policy advisor for the National Wildlife Federation. Remember, that’s same group that claims “thousands of cattle, fish, frogs and deer have died” because of hydraulic fracturing, and clings to the belief that the oil and gas industry “operates with almost no federal oversight and doesn’t have to disclose what chemicals they’re pumping into our waterways.” Was that disclosed in the front matter of the report? No.
Water use is a serious issue that should concern citizens, public officials and the business community. But Ceres pretty clearly ignored the facts and decided to frighten the public about hydraulic fracturing because its members, donors, and even one of the report’s authors, have an ideological objection to the oil and gas industry. They just don’t like us and want to shut us down.
They’re entitled to their opinion, of course, and they can put out any kind of report they want. But when they hide their mistakes and their obvious bias against the industry from their readers, they are simply out to mislead the public.
IEA Report: Shale Puts America Back in Control
This week, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released a report stating that North American shale and oil sands development is “reaching all recesses of the global oil market” and, most importantly, displacing OPEC supplies. As the report continuously echoes, North America is altering the entire global energy equation and enabling the United States’ highest level of energy security in two decades, all while boosting our economy, creating jobs, and providing a resurgence in domestic manufacturing.
Meagan
Researcher
This week, the International Energy Agency (IEA) released a report stating that North American shale and oil sands development is “reaching all recesses of the global oil market” and, most importantly, displacing OPEC supplies. As the report continuously echoes, North America is altering the entire global energy equation and enabling the United States’ highest level of energy security in two decades, all while boosting our economy, creating jobs, and providing a resurgence in domestic manufacturing.
According to IEA’s report, North America will provide 40 percent of new global oil supplies in 2018, while OPEC supplies will decrease to only 30 percent — a development, as Bloomberg describes, that is sending “shockwaves” throughout the global oil trade.
More from the report:
“Incremental North American supply clearly played a critical role in offsetting record supply disruptions in 2012, and is likewise forecast to help offset decline rates elsewhere through the forecast period.”
“…The forecast of non-OPEC supply growth has been adjusted upwards, with North America now forecast to grow by 3.9 mb/d from 2012 to 2018, accounting for more than half of the increase”.
And as the report emphasized, this isn’t occurring in a vacuum. The development of American shale resources is creating a “chain reaction” in the global transportation, processing and storage industry – actions that may escalate as other countries try to replicate the American oil boom. As Bjarne Schieldrop, chief commodity analyst at SEB AB, describes it, this development is “a godsend solution for a market where emerging market demand is continuing to increase, while supply in the Middle East and North Africa won’t increase that much”. He may just be right.
That the global balance of power in energy is being shifted toward North America is, without question, a significant development. For decades, the United States has been conditioned to think of energy in terms of scarcity. “We’re running out of oil,” or “we need to import natural gas.” Thanks in large part to shale, we’re suddenly staring at surpluses of oil and natural gas, enough to make us not only more secure, but also able to spur new economic growth through increased domestic usage – and even exports.
Even more impressive: As America’s – indeed, the entire world’s – energy supply story is revolutionized by the development of our vast shale reserves, that development is also helping to accelerate an industrial renaissance in the United States, which we’ve discussed on several occasions.
Increased energy security. A stronger economy with more jobs. A revitalized manufacturing sector. Can there be any legitimate doubt that shale development in the United States has been an enormously positive story?
EPA’s Methane Assumptions Still Way Too High
Last month, the EPA released its latest Greenhouse Gas Inventory, in which the agency significantly lowered its estimate of the amount of methane emissions from natural gas systems. But even with those dramatic revisions, EPA still has a long way to go to get this right.
Katie
Researcher
Last month, the EPA released its latest Greenhouse Gas Inventory, in which the agency significantly lowered its estimate of the amount of methane emissions from natural gas systems. But even with those dramatic revisions, EPA still has a long way to go to get this right.
In its fact sheet about its changes to methane emissions estimates, EPA admits that at least some of its prior methods for collecting emissions data were flawed:
“The study data show that there is more widespread use of emissions control technologies than had been assumed in the previous Inventory. It also demonstrated that duration of emissions from liquids unloading activities is shorter than had been assumed in the previous Inventory.”
The key word here is “assumed.” While EPA’s current revisions are certainly an improvement and bring its estimates closer to accuracy, there are still a number of assumptions that are simply wrong. Digging deeper, and frankly speaking, it’s difficult to ascertain anything other than a fundamental lack of understanding of the actual development process.
One of the biggest problems with EPA’s latest report is that it still grossly overestimates emissions from well completions, based an inappropriate interpretation of data from its own Natural Gas STAR program. EPA assumes that the amount of methane that is captured from a “green completion” is the same amount of methane that is released in operations without green completions. Put differently, EPA assumes that operators not using a particular technology or process are just venting methane into the air that would have been captured by it. These faulty estimates have long been criticized, as a report by IHS CERA from 2011 made clear:
“EPA derives its new emissions factor from two slide presentations at Natural Gas STAR technology transfer workshops, one in 2004 and one in 2007. These two presentations primarily describe methane that was captured during ‘green’ well completions, not methane emissions. EPA assumes that all methane captured during these green completions would have been emitted in all other completions. This does not reflect industry practice.” (emphasis added)
Got that? EPA is using data on captured methane to estimate how much methane is being emitted into the air. Try to wrap your head around that one!
EPA also does not properly assess the role of flaring, a process that burns off methane instead of releasing it directly into the air. Since EPA’s Natural Gas STAR program does not consider flaring a recommended technology, it does not provide any data on the process – therefore, EPA simply assumes it isn’t happening. This assumption wholly misrepresents industry practice. Although states are rapidly moving toward reducing its usage (opting instead for methane capture), flaring is actually used for a whole host of reasons that the EPA is either unaware of or refuses to acknowledge. “Flaring is used not exclusively to limit potential greenhouse gas emissions from completions, but it is also often used due to safety concerns for the protection of industry employees,” according to Devon Energy, which – last we checked – is certainly no stranger to this whole shale development business.
Essentially, EPA assumes that, in states where flaring is not mandated, it’s never used there. This is like assuming that, in states that don’t mandate the use of hybrid vehicles, there are no hybrid cars on the road.
Furthermore, EPA’s prior estimate assumes that flowback duration is twice as long as it actually is in field practice, which in turn greatly distorted EPA’s estimates (again). More specifically, EPA asserts that the flowback periods for wells that utilize green completions are identical to wells that vent or flare the gas. But according to a report by URS Corporation (see Appendix A in here), the average flowback duration from a well with green completion is 7.7 days, while wells whose emissions are flared or vented take an average of only 3.5 days. That means the EPA assumes the duration of emissions (and, by extension, the total amount of emissions) from certain wells is more than double what it actually is.
According to EPA, well completions are the largest methane emission source within natural gas systems, which means EPA’s entire data set for this segment of the economy is not only inflated, but perhaps wildly so.
The worst part, however, is that future public policy decisions could be – and perhaps already are – based on EPA’s irresponsible use of data. By extension, the EPA has even justified costly regulations based on emissions that are not even occurring. For example, here’s what the EPA said in its overview of the New Source Performance Standard rule last year:
“In addition, the reductions would yield a significant environmental co-benefit by reducing methane emissions from new and modified wells. Methane, the primary constituent of natural gas, is a potent greenhouse gas – more than 20 times as potent as carbon dioxide when emitted directly to the atmosphere. Oil and natural gas production and processing accounts for nearly 40 percent of all U.S. methane emissions, making the industry the nation’s single largest methane source.” (emphasis added)
And yet, even with one small revision, in which the EPA adjusted its estimates based on better data, the agency was forced to recognize that methane emissions since 1990 have not been increasing, but have actually decreased – even as natural gas production grew exponentially. One can only imagine how significant of a downward revision would be made if the EPA actually corrected all of its errors.
As long as the EPA continues to rely on assumptions about industry activity that are not, in fact, based on actual industry activity, their estimates for methane emissions will remain wrong. The fact that those assumptions result in inflated emissions estimates makes the agency’s conscious decision not to adjust its methods even more troubling.
Bending the Natural Gas Polling Curve Down
A recent story in NPR's State Impact focused on the results of one poorly phrased and misleading question out of several in a poll that ended up showing broad public support for natural gas development. One question suggested citizens of both Michigan and Pennsylvania desired moratoria on hydraulic fracturing, but other survey results contrasted sharply with this conclusion.
Kyna, EID Midwest Field Director
Tom, EID Marcellus Campaign Manager
A recent story in NPR’s State Impact focused on the results of one poorly phrased and misleading question out of several in a poll that ended up showing broad public support for natural gas development. One question suggested citizens of both Michigan and Pennsylvania desired moratoria on hydraulic fracturing, but other survey results contrasted sharply with this conclusion.
When polling results don’t fit the template, some media sources try bending the polling curve to suit their storyline. When the poll itself is also designed to deliver a particular result, we get headlines like this one from State Impact :
“Poll Shows Support for a Drilling Moratorium in Pennsylvania”
The poll in question was one conducted by the National Surveys on Energy and Environment (NSEE), and was entitled Public Opinion on Fracking: Perspectives from Michigan and Pennsylvania.
State Impact’s headline, unfortunately, reflects the answer to a single (poorly phrased) question among a total of more than two dozen – and an equally poor understanding of how phrasing can alter the results. (More on that later.)
Nonetheless, given the actual results throughout the poll, a far more accurate headline – and one that actually describes the overarching results – would have been:
“Poll Shows Residents Strongly Support Shale Development”
NSEE doesn’t offer a copy of its survey instrument, so we don’t know exactly what prefaced the questions asked in this phone survey. But we do know that the results were, by anyone’s judgment, extremely favorable toward natural gas development. Consider this finding among Pennsylvania residents, who were asked whether natural gas development “will provide more benefits or problems”:
Pennsylvania residents, by nearly a two to one ratio, said there were more benefits than problems from the natural gas development they had experienced so far. The results were nearly identical for those Michigan residents surveyed, and this is only the beginning of the good news from the poll.
Astoundingly, some 82 percent of Michigan residents said natural gas development was either somewhat important or very important to the overall condition of their state economy.
As for overall public support, the numbers are again revealing. By a nine point margin, more Pennsylvanians support shale gas than oppose it, and a clear majority of Michiganders supports development.
The poll also confirmed what so many in the media keep claiming to be an “industry position” is, in reality, the position of the general public. Consider, too, this question:
“When it comes to regulating where drilling sites can be located, which level of government do you think should have the primary control, if any? Do you think the federal government, state government, or local government should have primary control for regulating where drilling sites can be located, or should this decision be made solely by private land owners without any government influence?”
The results, depicted below, indicate that in both Michigan and Pennsylvania, state regulation is preferred over either federal control or “home rule” by local government.
It’s worth repeating: Pennsylvanians and Michiganders both say they prefer state regulation over any other. Only about a quarter of respondents suggesting local regulation is appropriate. Michigan residents, in fact, preferred no regulation over local control — perhaps a wise decision given the ludicrous nature of some local regulations adopted in New York.
The reason is simple: States are, unquestionably, the best equipped to regulate oil and gas development. They have the most expertise, the longest history in regulating the industry, and they have proven themselves fit at separating fact from fiction when it comes to issues that arise. You can read more about all of this by clicking here.
Another interesting finding from the survey was that some 26 percent of respondents said any tax revenue from natural gas development should first go to reducing local property taxes. That’s good news, especially when you consider that Pennsylvania’s Act 13 put over $110 million in the hands of local government last year.
Moratorium?
So, if the survey shows all this support for natural gas development and not so much opposition, how is it that State Impact put out that headline suggesting everyone was ready to halt development and impose a moratorium? Well, as with any poll, it’s all in the way the questions are phrased. Here is the question regarding a moratorium:
“Some states have imposed a ‘moratorium’ on hydraulic fracturing until there is a fuller understanding of the possible risks. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that Michigan/Pennsylvania should establish a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, or not?”
The wording of the question plants the false idea that there are risks that are not fully understood. Given six decades of experience and over one million wells hydraulically fractured, this is a little like warning an accountant of the “risks” of working with pencils. It also violates a best practice of survey methodology; namely, avoiding “loaded, leading, emotional, or evocative language as it can bias responses.”
The poll includes no mention of how many times hydraulic fracturing has been used, and certainly no discussion of what a moratorium would actually do. Do the respondents realize that shale development, which they strongly support, could be entirely undermined by imposing a moratorium? Were they informed about how investment decisions in oil and gas are complex, and cannot – indeed will not – be made amidst constant whims and vacillations of lawmakers? Was it explained to the respondents that a “temporary pause” on drilling would destroy jobs and drive out investment?
It appears the ones in charge of formulating these questions believe shale development can be turned on and off like a light switch. One has to wonder if they think electricity is produced in the same manner.
Incredibly, the pollster, Barry Rabe, had this to say about the moratorium question:
“A moratorium is not a ban… A moratorium is taking some time out and taking some time to develop a policy and process as opposed to completely prohibiting. So if there is a mixture of possible benefits and risks, support for a moratorium might be viewed as a way to view all those risks and minimize them before going forward.”
Promoting the thought that a moratorium is anything but a prohibition is as intellectually dishonest as it gets. A moratorium would be an industry shutdown, period. The industry must continually develop wells to meet production commitments, as well as to adhere to contracts with property owners. Halting production and blocking the development of new wells, even for a short period, means that the very shale development that the respondents overwhelmingly support would actually be completely hamstrung.
Nonetheless, the poll still shows significant support for natural gas development and hydraulic fracturing. Despite years of fear mongering and promoting false talking points in the media, people realize that shale development is spurring enormous economic activity, and they understand the benefits far exceed risks. The fact that “support” for a moratorium required a misleading question intended to pull respondents in one direction is also indicative in its own right, though we wish those who reported on the poll would have given their readers the full story.
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
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.
Report Finds Enormous Cost of HF Delays in New York
The Marcellus shale continues to bring good news to Pennsylvania: high-paying jobs, royalty payments for families, and an affordable feedstock for American manufacturers. Unfortunately, as these benefits are realized by Commonwealth towns and counties, neighboring New York has been left to watch, waiting for these same benefits – much like the natural gas underground -- to be brought to the surface. And as a new report highlights, those potential benefits are enormous.
Dana
Staff Geologist
The Marcellus shale continues to bring good news to Pennsylvania: high-paying jobs, royalty payments for families, and an affordable feedstock for American manufacturers. Unfortunately, as these benefits are realized by Commonwealth towns and counties, neighboring New York has been left to watch, waiting for these same benefits – much like the natural gas underground — to be brought to the surface. And as a new report highlights, those potential benefits are enormous.
The report from the Empire Center, a project of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, takes a look at how shale development is creating jobs and generating income in Pennsylvania counties – and how it could provide the same benefits throughout New York. That hinges, of course, on whether Governor Cuomo will lift the five-year moratorium on hydraulic fracturing.
According to the report, between 2007 and 2011, Pennsylvania counties with more than 200 Marcellus wells experienced a 19 percent rise in per-capita income. Counties with fewer wells also experienced growth; those with 20 to 200 wells had a 14 percent income rise, and those with fewer than 20 wells registered a 12 percent rise. As the report highlights, these benefits are clear and concrete.
“By our count, there are immediate and concrete benefits in hydrofracturing wells: more money in the pockets of the people, more tax revenue for the state. These data deserve close attention and consideration as New York State confronts its decision.” (p.10)
So what do these numbers mean for neighboring New Yorkers? According to the Empire Center’s data, the twenty eight New York counties above the Marcellus Shale would see a 15 percent income-growth rate over the four years following the lifting of the current moratorium – a growth rate of six percent above what they are currently experiencing. That translates to over $8 billion in extra income to upstate New York families.
To put these numbers into action, take the example of Chemung County – a county in southwestern New York with much to gain from hydraulic fracturing. In 2011, Chemung County had a per-capita income of under $36,000, about average for the Empire state’s Marcellus counties. But as the report notes:
“Under the hydrofracturing moratorium, our model projects that Chemung will see a per-capita income of over $38,000 in 2015, a 7 percent increase. Total annual income would have increased by $231 million. However, if hydrofracturing were permitted in Chemung, natural gas extraction start-up and the drilling of just 20 unconventional wells through the period would have brought per-capita income up to an estimated $39,207, an increase of over 10 percent. Well-drilling at the average Pennsylvania rate of 52.3 wells in 2011–15 would bring another full percent of income growth, to $39,540.” (p.9)
Real money in the pockets of real Americans. It’s hard to argue with that – although Governor Cuomo’s continued delays have certainly prevented that income from becoming a reality.
As with anything, the study notes you cannot weigh benefits without costs, and that any final decisions about moving forward with the practice in New York state will consider both. But as the environmental benefits of clean-burning natural gas continue to unfold, and as technological advances make industry safer and cleaner every day, those costs are on a clear downward trajectory. Also of note: a Yale Graduate Energy Study Group looked at shale development and compared the cost of repairing potential environmental damage with the likely benefits to consumers and producers, the benefits exceeded costs by a factor of up to 400 to one.
Development of the Marcellus Shale is a net positive for consumers, counties, and the environment alike. The quicker New York can recognize those facts and move forward with responsible development, the better it will be for families in the Southern Tier, and indeed for all energy consumers throughout New York.
WORC’ed Into A Frenzy About Western Water
Earlier this week, a gaggle of activists published a report under their umbrella group – the Western Organization of Resource Council (WORC). The report, titled “Gone for Good,” strikes an expectedly dramatic tone about the water usage of oil and gas operations in the West.
Courtney
Field Director, Mountain States
Earlier this week, a gaggle of activists published a report under their umbrella group – the Western Organization of Resource Councils (WORC). The report, titled “Gone for Good,” strikes an expectedly dramatic tone about the water usage of oil and gas operations in the West.
But, before we start debunking the claims in the report, let’s take a quick look at the authors.
The Western Organization of Resource Councils is made up of smaller, state-focused anti-oil and gas activist groups – Dakota Resource Council, Dakota Rural Action, Northern Plains Resource Council, Oregon Rural Action, Powder River Basin Resource Council and Western Colorado Congress.
Lest you think we are unfairly labeling them as activists, note that these groups have called hydraulic fracturing and the oil and gas industry “dangerous,” “uncontrollable,” “hazardous,” “a major threat,” “exempted from regulation” and accused the industry of “fouling the air, drying up home wells, polluting groundwater, and poisoning livestock.” Heck, the Western Colorado Congress even proudly touted their association with the Bucket Brigade and Gasland’s Josh Fox.
Doesn’t sound like a group of unbiased researchers, does it?
Because no one should be forced to read though yet another repackaging of talking points and debunked claims, Energy in Depth took one for the team and read the report. Here are a few of the worst claims:
Claim: “[I]t seems clear that water use for fracking is reaching a crisis point in the region. There is mounting evidence that the current level of water use for oil and gas production simply cannot be sustained…”
Fact:
The press release accompanying the WORC report claims the total annual water use for hydraulic fracturing across Colorado, Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota is “at least seven billion gallons.”
Now, let’s assume that estimate is accurate (given the associations mentioned above, we know “facts” are not something these folks typically worry about, but just for argument’s sake, let’s pretend otherwise). According to the U.S. Geological Survey, those four states use roughly 33,250,000 acre-feet of water in a year. That’s approximately 10.8 trillion gallons.
So, seven billion gallons represents roughly 0.06 percent of the combined water use of those four states. That’s even lower than the 0.08% finding in a report last year by three Colorado state agencies who specifically estimated hydraulic fracturing water use, and much lower than the Department of Energy and Ground Water Protection Council’s estimated range of “less than 0.1% to 0.8% of total water use,” depending on the basin. Of course, there’s nothing scary about those percentages, so the WORC report simply throws around the term “billions of gallons” again and again without any context to frighten as many people as possible.
It turns out that DOE and GWPC officials anticipated this kind of alarmism, and included the following passage in the water use section of their report on hydraulic fracturing:
“While these volumes may seem very large, they are small by comparison to some other uses of water, such as agriculture, electric power generation, and municipalities, and generally represent a small percentage of the total water resource use in each shale gas area.”
In Colorado for instance, while hydraulic fracturing accounts for about one-tenth of one percent of water use, the recreation industry uses almost six percent, municipal and industrial users account for more than seven percent, and the agriculture sector consumes more than 85 percent.
Claim: “With few exceptions, the rest of the water used for fracking is gone for good from the hydrological cycle.”
Fact:
Here’s another major flaw – the report completely ignores the water that’s added to the hydrological cycle as a result of oil and gas development.
For example, Gov. John Hickenlooper recently pointed out that when natural gas is burned, it produces “far more than the water used in fracking,” because “when you burn natural gas, it gives off CO2 and H2O that goes into the air and into the hydrologic cycle.”
Based on estimates from DOE and the Colorado Oil & Gas Association, every billion cubic feet of natural gas burned produces more than 11 million gallons of water:
U.S. Department of Energy, January 2012
“All hydrocarbon fuels release significant quantities of water vapor as a combustion byproduct. … When one molecule of methane is burned, it produces two molecules of water vapor. When moles are converted to pound/mole, we find that every pound of methane fuel combusted produces 2.25 lb. of water vapor, which is about 12% of the total exhaust by weight.”
Colorado Oil & Gas Association, June 2012
“Since a volume measurement of H2O is easier to interpret than pounds of water, we want to convert our 2.25 lb yield of H2O into gallons. … Our calculations show the combustion of 1 pound of methane results in the production 3.71 gallons of water and that 1 BCF of methane produces over 11 million gallons of water.”
Claim: “Congress exempted fracking, other than fracking with diesel, from the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2004. Federal agencies have not yet identified a means of regulatory leverage adequate to address looming conflicts over water quantity.”
Fact:
First of all, you simply cannot get oil or natural gas out of shale rock without complying with overlapping state and federal environmental laws, and the many regulations that are issued under those state and federal laws. As the U.S. Government Accountability Office reported last year:
“As with conventional oil and gas development, requirements from eight federal environmental and public health laws apply to unconventional oil and gas development.”
The Department of Energy and Groundwater Protection Council leave no uncertainty about this, saying, “The development and production of oil and gas in the U.S., including shale gas, are regulated under a complex set of federal, state, and local laws that address every aspect of exploration and operation.”
As for SDWA specifically, in 2005 (not 2004) Congress passed the Energy Policy Act, which did not “exempt” hydraulic fracturing from any law, period. It simply affirmed the regulatory system already in place: states regulate hydraulic fracturing. This has been the established structure since the first hydraulic fracturing job was completed in southwest Kansas in 1947. SDWA, meanwhile, became law in 1974, and it has never covered hydraulic fracturing, because it was never designed to cover hydraulic fracturing. How can you be “exempt” from something that never applied to you in the first place?
Activists, it’s time to put this talking point to rest.
Same recycled activist groups, same recycled talking points. The only “crisis” here is a crisis of credibility for environmental activists, who will do or say anything to manipulate the fear of drought in the West into fear of the oil and gas industry. This so-called report is just another chapter in that irresponsible fear campaign, masquerading as “science” and research.
*UPDATE* EPA’s Massive, Downward Revision of Methane Emissions
One of the subjects that seems to have captivated the welter of reporters and bloggers now writing on shale, natural gas and climate on a fairly regularly basis is the infamous “methane leak” issue. How much of it is “leaking” from natural gas systems? At what rate does natural gas lose its greenhouse gas advantages under a scenario in which fugitive emissions continue to increase? New data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may not answer all of those questions in a comprehensive fashion, but they do strongly suggest that activists’ arguments about “the methane problem” for natural gas development are without merit.
Steve
Team Lead
UPDATE (4/28/2013; 6:56 pm ET): The Associated Press reports that the EPA has “dramatically lowered its estimate of how much of a potent heat-trapping gas leaks during natural gas production,” based on data in the agency’s latest GHG Inventory. The AP further notes:
The scope of the EPA’s revision was vast. In a mid-April report on greenhouse emissions, the agency now says that tighter pollution controls instituted by the industry resulted in an average annual decrease of 41.6 million metric tons of methane emissions from 1990 through 2010, or more than 850 million metric tons overall. That’s about a 20 percent reduction from previous estimates. The agency converts the methane emissions into their equivalent in carbon dioxide, following standard scientific practice.
The EPA revisions came even though natural gas production has grown by nearly 40 percent since 1990. The industry has boomed in recent years, thanks to a stunning expansion of drilling in previously untapped areas because of the use of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, which injects sand, water and chemicals to break apart rock and free the gas inside.
Discredited Cornell professor Bob Howarth is cited in the story as saying, “I think EPA is wrong,” an ironic shift — especially considering how the Howarth/Ingraffea paper relied so heavily on data from the EPA. He also seemed puzzled that more people aren’t extrapolating larger meaning from NOAA’s research on emissions — the same research from which the Environmental Defense Fund said “conclusions should not be drawn,” and which has been categorically debunked.
Surprise, surprise. The more data that come out, the less accurate the Howarth thesis on “leakage” becomes.
—Original post, April 16, 2013—
One of the subjects that seems to have captivated the welter of reporters and bloggers now writing on shale, natural gas and climate on a fairly regularly basis is the infamous “methane leak” issue. Namely: How much of it is “leaking” from natural gas systems? And at what rate does natural gas lose its greenhouse gas advantages under a scenario in which fugitive emissions continue to increase?
New data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency may not answer all of those questions in a comprehensive fashion, but they do strongly suggest that activists’ arguments about “the methane problem” for natural gas development are without merit. They also suggest that methane emissions aren’t increasing it all. They’re decreasing, actually — even as more wells and greater production come online.
The new data come from the EPA’s latest Greenhouse Gas Inventory, which was released earlier this week. You can read EPA’s release here and the full report here. The most notable part of the Inventory – in addition to the admission that, thanks to natural gas, U.S. GHGs declined once again – was the downward, post-hoc adjustment of the agency’s previous methane emission estimates from natural gas systems.
The chart below details what EPA found with respect to methane emissions from natural gas systems in this year’s report compared to the figures it used in last year’s report:
1990 2007 2008 2009 2010
2012 report: 189.6 205.3 212.7 220.9 215.4
2013 report: 161.2 168.4 163.4 150.7 143.6Diff. (raw): 28.4 36.9 49.3 70.2 71.8
Diff. (%): 15% 18% 23% 32% 33%(All raw numbers listed in million metric tons of CO2 equivalent)
So, then: what do all these data mean? Three things jump out immediately.
The first is that EPA’s 2012 report attempted to argue that methane emissions had increased every single year from 1990 through 2009, with a slight decline in 2010. But revised data issued in 2013 demonstrate precisely the opposite: in fact, there has been a significant and consistent decline in total methane emissions since 1990. Last year’s report suggested an increase in methane emissions of 14 percent since 1990. EPA’s new data show a decline of 11 percent.
The second is that EPA’s 2013 data show an increasing gap between agency estimates in 2012 and what it released this year – and always in the direction of fewer emissions. This suggests, at a minimum, that EPA’s original data set was deeply flawed (more on that in a moment).
The third point is that methane emissions are falling even as natural gas production continues to increase dramatically. Since 1990, U.S. natural gas production has increased by 38 percent. Since 2007, it has increased by 26 percent. There is simply no credible explanation for this divergence – more wells, greater production, fewer emissions – other than the role that significantly and consistently improving technologies continue to play in making the development process safer, cleaner and more efficient.
Indeed, for the narrative to be true that natural gas systems have a “leakage” problem in the United States, we have to exit the realm of fact-based reality and enter the world of baseless assumptions: We have to assume, for example, that the same technologies that reduced emissions by 11 percent even as production expanded by 38 percent are also somehow mysteriously leaking like uncontrolled sieves across the country. But, looking at this data, can anyone really believe that?
So, then: what explains EPA’s downward adjustment of estimated emissions?
The answer lies in a fact sheet that EPA released yesterday summarizing its latest report. Among other things, EPA cites a study from URS Corporation released last year as having better data for the “liquids unloading” stage. From the fact sheet:
“The [URS] study data show that there is more widespread use of emissions control technologies than had been assumed in the previous Inventory. It also demonstrated that duration of emissions from liquids unloading activities is shorter than had been assumed in the previous Inventory.” (emphasis added)
So, in essence, updated and more accurate data reveal significantly smaller amounts of methane being emitted by natural gas systems.
But wait, there’s more.
The URS Corporation study that EPA cited as having better data than its own prior estimates is the same study that Cornell activists Robert Howarth and Anthony Ingraffea trashed as “fatally flawed.” Howarth and Ingraffea said the study was “almost useless,” but clearly the U.S. EPA disagrees.
So, to whom should we ascribe more credibility: two activists whose funding comes from an entity trying to “fuel an army” to oppose fracking (and whose research has been debunked throughout the academic community), or the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency?
Of course, Howarth and Ingraffea also leaned heavily on EPA’s prior data in an attempt to validate their own research as it was continuously being called into question by their peers. In their response to Cornell colleague Lawrence Cathles, who comprehensively debunked their report, Howarth and Ingraffea cited EPA’s 2011 Greenhouse Gas Inventory as having data that fell “within our estimated range” of methane emissions from shale gas. Howarth and Ingraffea also admitted: “Our high-end methane estimates for both conventional gas and shale gas are substantially higher than EPA,” comparing once again their results to EPA’s 2011 inventory.
EPA’s 2011 estimates for methane emissions from natural gas systems were almost identical to the numbers released in the 2012 Inventory – the same numbers that EPA has now dramatically revised downward based on better data. That means Howarth and Ingraffea’s emissions estimates have been even further marginalized, if such a thing is even possible.
And remember: Howarth said that NOAA’s leakage estimates (from a study conducted last year) “are coming in very close to ours, maybe a little higher.” If that’s the case, then Michael Levi’s critique of the NOAA study is at the very least supported – if not entirely validated – by EPA’s latest Inventory.
What this all boils down to is both simple and significant: the “scholarly” argument against the climate benefits of natural gas – which was always premised on the Howarth and Ingraffea research, and then supposedly supplemented by NOAA’s findings – has now been rejected by EPA. And as technologies continue to improve, it’s hard to imagine those methane numbers going anywhere but down as we eagerly await the next installment of this EPA report.
Debunking Gasland, Part II
Three years after the release of Gasland – a film panned by independent observers as “fundamentally dishonest” and a “polemic” – the main challenge for director Josh Fox in releasing Gasland Part II was manifest: Regain the public’s trust by discarding hyperbole and laying out the challenges and opportunities of shale development as they actually exist in the actual world. In short, do everything he did not do in Gasland. Unfortunately, Josh eschewed that path entirely with Gasland Part II, doubling down on the same old, tired talking points, and playing to his narrow base at the exclusion of all others.
Steve
Team Lead
Three years after the release of Gasland – a film panned by independent observers as “fundamentally dishonest” and a “polemic” – the main challenge for director Josh Fox in releasing Gasland Part II was manifest: Regain the public’s trust by discarding hyperbole and laying out the challenges and opportunities of shale development as they actually exist in the actual world. In short, do everything a documentary filmmaker should do, but which he chose not to do in Gasland.
Unfortunately for those who attended the premiere of Gasland Part II this past weekend (we were there), Josh eschewed that path entirely, doubling down on the same old, tired talking points, and playing to his narrow base at the exclusion of all others. The Parker County case? It’s in there. Dimock? Probably receives more focus than anything else. Pavillion and EPA? You bet. And yes, that damned banjo of his makes an appearance or two as well.
This isn’t Gasland Part II, folks. It’s Gasland Too.
Sure, the sequel has some new cast members and a few new claims. Somehow, Fox discovers that shale is actually worse than he previously thought: Earthquakes. Methane leaks. Well failures. Hurricanes. Heck, viewers were probably waiting for swarms of locusts to appear – fracking locusts, to be sure.
And there was plenty of spectacle, too. Yoko Ono was in the audience. So was former Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.), the congressman who lent his name to the infamous “FRAC Act” that Josh so desperately wants to become law. After the movie, they joined him on stage, along with the Lipskys, John Fenton, Calvin Tillman, and the rest of the “cast.”
But the emotion-filled remarks afterwards – including a plea to push for Mark Jacobson’s “100% renewables” plan as the way to stop natural gas development – were also the perfect bookend to a movement that was always based on sensationalism over substance (Jacobson’s plan is, quite simply, pure fairy tale). The call to action was more of a cry of desperation (“Please, keep us relevant!”) by a filmmaker, and indeed an entire ideology, whose time has come and gone. As an early review of the film puts it, Gasland Part II “runs longer than the earlier installment, but ultimately it has less to say.”
So, beyond the bigger picture about the waning credibility of the anti-fracking movement, what was in Gasland Part II? Where did Fox travel, and with whom did he speak? Given that issues relating to Dimock have been explained ad nauseum over the past several years, we won’t go into detail explaining why opponents’ claims about that town are untrue. If you want the real story about Dimock, please go here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Similarly, the Lipsky case in Parker County, Tex., has been in the news for years, and most of it deals with fraud on the part of local activists, who strategized for months on how to deceive the public and get the EPA involved. The EPA dropped its case, too – not because of election year politics or industry pressure (as Fox alleges), but because real scientific evidence disproved any link between natural gas development and the methane in the Lipsky water well. In fact, most of what Fox tried to spin out of the case paralleled what several media outlets previously tried to manufacture as a story line, and each one has been completely debunked. It’s unclear why Fox would rest his laurels so heavily on a case that the public has moved past, but when you’re desperate to remain relevant, you often have to grasp at straws.
However, let’s look at some of the case studies and subjects that appeared in the film, and a full discussion about why reality, once again, tells a completely different story.
—
John Fenton (Pavillion, Wyo.)
Summary: Mr. Fenton was also featured in Gasland, providing clarity from the beginning that Gasland Part II is little more than a retread of the same themes explored in the first movie. Fenton has said: “When we turn on the tap, the water reeks of hydrocarbons and chemicals,” which he blames on nearby hydraulic fracturing. The town of Pavillion itself has become a flashpoint in the debate over shale development in the United States, premised chiefly on an unreviewed, draft EPA report from December 2011 that theorized a link between hydraulic fracturing and test results from two deep monitoring wells the agency drilled. In Gasland Part II, the EPA report is presented as proof that hydraulic fracturing causes water contamination, and Fenton (along with a curse word-laden scene with Louis Meeks) is the vehicle through which Fox presents it.
The Facts: Since at least the 1960s, the U.S. Geological Survey has documented poor water quality in the Wind River Formation, over which Pavillion sits. The reasons vary from naturally-occurring compounds to pesticide and agriculture runoff. Here are a few examples:
- USGS (1992): “Water quality is variable in the Wind River Formation because this unit has highly variable lithology, permeability, and recharge conditions. Dissolved-solids concentrations in water samples from this formation ranged from 211 to 5,110 mg/L.” (page 82)
- USGS (1991): “Dissolved-solids concentrations varied greatly for water samples collected from the 34 geologic units inventoried. Dissolved-solids concentrations in all water samples … were 2 to 14 times greater than the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level of 500 mg/L set by the EPA.” (page 103; emphasis added)
- USGS (1989): “The ground water in Fremont County was ranked the fourth most vulnerable to pesticide contamination in Wyoming. … Six of the 18 focal pesticides and 1 non-focal pesticide were detected in Fremont County. At least one pesticide was detected in 13 of the 20 wells sampled in Fremont County.” (USGS fact sheet; emphasis added)
- USGS (1969): “Poor drainage resulting in salt accumulation has been a problem in many irrigated areas on the [Wind River] Reservation. McGreevy and others (1969, p. I58-I66) reported numerous drainage problems associated with the [Wind River aquifer], and Peterson and others (1991, p. 10) reported that seepage and salt accumulation became apparent in the Riverton Reclamation Project area shortly after irrigation started in the 1920s. (page 8; emphasis added)
Fenton is described in the movie as a person fighting back against the oil and gas industry, a cause he asked the viewers at the premiere to take up themselves. According to Bloomberg News, Fenton receives about $2,000 per year for each of the 24 gas wells on his property – a fact that neither Josh nor Fenton gave nary a mention.
Meanwhile, EPA’s report on water quality in Pavillion has been exposed as flawed by Wyoming state regulators, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, and the U.S. Geological Survey. Don Simpson, a high ranking official for BLM, pointed to the possibility of “bias in the samples” from EPA’s research. In fact, Simpson says that EPA’s findings
“…should not be prematurely used as a line of evidence that supports EPA’s suggestion that gas has migrated into the shallow subsurface due to hydraulic fracturing or improper well completion until more data is collected and analyzed.”
Due to concerns over the EPA’s methods, the agency agreed to retest the wells, and the U.S. Geological Survey was brought in to do its own sampling. When the USGS completed its tests, the EPA prematurely declared that USGS’s findings were “generally consistent” with its own. The only problem? More than 50 of the EPA’s measurements were discredited by the findings of the USGS. In fact, the USGS effectively disqualified one of the EPA’s two monitoring wells due to low flow rates and poor construction.
These mistakes are critically important, because they show the EPA may have contaminated the very water the agency was trying to sample. For example, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality observed mineral accumulation within one of EPA’s monitoring wells, which “indicates the well casing was not constructed of stainless steel as originally reported by EPA. This has been confirmed by EPA.” Using the wrong material for well casing can introduce new compounds into groundwater, which will then register in the samples taken from that well.
A Wyoming DEQ geologist added:
“You have low flow rates that increase the time water is in contact with those drilling materials [from the construction of EPA’s monitoring well], and materials used in drilling mud can affect groundwater quality. You don’t know if it’s biasing the results up or down.”
Indeed, photos and video from the Wyoming DEQ actually show some of the mineral accumulation and drilling materials found inside the monitoring well, which contributed to the refusal by USGS to take water quality samples from it.
Then there’s the issue of the depth of the EPA’s monitoring wells themselves. Pavillion’s drinking water wells are typically less than 300 feet deep, because state officials have known for decades that drilling deeper could result in striking one of the area’s shallow hydrocarbon deposits. But EPA officials drilled two monitoring wells to almost 1,000 feet. That’s important for at least two reasons.
First, EPA’s theory absolutely hinges upon on the detection of hydrocarbons in those monitoring wells — but you would expect to find hydrocarbons in a monitoring well that was drilled below the aquifer and into a hydrocarbon reservoir. Second, the test results from the area’s shallow drinking water wells simply don’t match what the EPA says it found in the deep monitoring wells. That means the EPA’s test results from the deep monitoring wells, however flawed, don’t have any connection to the shallow wells that actually provide people with drinking water.
Unsurprisingly, when the draft Pavillion report became public in late 2011, then-EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said: “We have absolutely no indication right now that drinking water is at risk.” And several months later, Jackson told reporters, “In no case have we made a definitive determination that the fracking process has caused chemicals to enter groundwater.”
Furthermore, in response to the criticism of its methods, the EPA announced in January 2013 yet another delay in starting the peer-review process for the draft Pavillion report. The announcement of the eight-month postponement also noted: “This draft research report is not final … and should not be construed to represent Agency policy or views.”
Read More:
- Casper Star-Tribune: EPA agrees to more testing of water wells near Pavillion to ‘clarify questions’
- S.S. Papadopulos & Associates, Inc.: Review of U.S. EPA’s December 2011 Draft Report
- EID: Enormous Differences between USGS and EPA on Pavillion
- EID: Six – Actually, Seven – Questions for EPA on Pavillion
—
The Parr Family (Wise County, Tex.)
Summary: Bob Parr moved into his home in Wise County, Tex., in 2001. In 2008, Bob and Lisa Parr were married, after which Lisa and her daughter moved into Bob’s house. Shortly thereafter, the Parrs claimed to experience health impacts, including nosebleeds, nausea, headaches, and breathing difficulties. In Gasland Part II, several photos of the Parrs are shown for dramatic effect, including their daughter’s nosebleed and Lisa’s skin welts. The Parrs filed complaints with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) in 2010, which investigated and took air samples in the area. The Parrs, meanwhile, relocated to live in Bob’s office in Denton. The Parrs also filed a lawsuit against local operators, seeking punitive damages for environmental and health impacts.
The Facts: Since at least 2010, the Parrs have been working closely with Earthworks, an environmental organization known for its intense and ideologically-driven opposition to oil and gas development. Unsurprisingly, Earthworks has an entire page devoted to publicizing the Parrs’ story, and Lisa Parr was even a featured speaker at an Earthworks event. Sharon Wilson, a north Texas organizer for Earthworks (who also played a role in “educating” former EPA regional administrator Al Armendariz), flew to the U.S. EPA’s North Carolina office to present the Parrs’ story as one of four “case studies of health impacts caused by natural gas extraction in the Barnett Shale.” Wilson also paid a visit to the Parrs’ hometown (and blogged about the same company that the Parrs would later complain about) around the time the Parrs notified TCEQ of their problems.
Earthworks links to air sampling from TCEQ to support the Parrs’ case, which was completed in July 2010 (the group also referenced that test in a report submitted to the U.S. Department of Energy during a public hearing). Earthworks claims an outside environmental specialist’s tests “detected chemicals in [Lisa’s] blood and lungs that match the results of TCEQ’s air sampling.” For some reason, the Parrs’ own lawyer declined to identify the specialist who conducted the blood tests, although Earthworks identified him as William Rae from Dallas.
Of course, Earthworks did not include the full TCEQ sampling report in its write-up of the case study — just the table of measurements. Earthworks also omits any mention that TCEQ completed followup tests a few months later. It was a critical omission, because in the July 2010 results, TCEQ states the following:
“Preliminary review of the available literature indicates that short-term adverse health effects such as respiratory irritation and central nervous system depression related to these chemicals usually occur at concentrations greater than those reported. However, based on the observed adverse health effects experienced by the citizen and the regional investigator, the Toxicology Division (TD) strongly advises emission reduction from this facility.”
TCEQ went on to mention that it ordered the company “to reduce emissions” and requested a “follow-up sampling event to monitor ambient air near this facility.” Two months later, Earthworks claimed the exact opposite, alleging that TCEQ’s response was limited only to “laughably small fines” and no requirements to compensate the Parrs. A few days after Earthworks’ baseless critique, TCEQ released its followup sampling. From that TCEQ report:
“Reported concentrations of target volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were either not detected or were detected below levels of short-term health and/or welfare concern.”
To recap: A citizen complaint to TCEQ resulted in an investigation of local activity, and regulators ordered the company to reduce emissions. Two months later, all measurements were below any threshold that would trigger public health impacts.
Of course, Earthworks also cites TCEQ testing done on behalf of the Ruggiero family (who live near the Parrs) as evidence of high VOCs and other emissions in the area. More specifically, Earthworks references a January 20, 2010 test; one from February 5, 2010; and a test from March 16, 2010. Once again, Earthworks decided only to post the raw sampling data — not TCEQ’s conclusions and interpretations, which tell a completely different story.
In the January and February tests, TCEQ detected certain compounds, but added this statement (which Earthworks failed to mention):
“None of the reported concentrations would be expected to cause adverse health effects.”
For the March test, TCEQ came to an even more benign conclusion:
“Reported concentrations of target volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were either not detected or were detected below levels of short-term health and/or welfare concern.”
TCEQ also mentioned in all three tests that benzene concentrations were below health thresholds.
Read More:
- Powell Shale Digest: Parr Petition against Aruba Petroleum, et al.
- Tex. Comm. on Env. Quality: Follow-up Air Sampling from Parr Complaint
- Tex. Comm. on Env. Quality: Wise County Air and Health Tests
- EID: EPA Official: ‘Crucify’ Operators to ‘Make Examples’ of Them
—
Calvin Tillman (DISH, Tex.)
Summary: Mr. Tillman, a former mayor of DISH, Texas, played a prominent role in Gasland, and regularly tours the country to recite talking points about the supposed dangers of shale. Tillman claims that natural gas development in his community created a range of health problems for local residents, and that those impacts will affect residents in other parts of the country where development is or will be occurring. Tillman decided to get active on the issue after a series of natural gas compressor stations were built near DISH, and he most frequently cites benzene concentrations as the key problem. In Gasland Part II, Tillman’s story was retold as if it were new, and he is shown driving around his (former) community, pointing out houses of residents who are suing the natural gas industry.
The Facts: The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) – which is responsible for regulating air emissions in the state – evaluated Tillman’s claims, specifically a report from Wolf Eagle Environmental that supposedly found harmful levels of benzene concentrations in DISH. As mayor of DISH, Tillman had contracted Wolf Eagle to conduct that test.
TCEQ’s investigation, however, found that the “highest potential 1-hour maximum benzene concentration is below the health effects level,” although the agency did stress the need for additional research. The problem was that the Wolf Eagle team measured benzene over an incredibly short period of time, which led TCEQ to conclude that it “was not possible to determine if residents were exposed” to the concentrations that Tillman had claimed.
In other words, Tillman’s consultants took a snapshot measurement and suggested it was what residents were being exposed to over a long period of time. That’s just not how credible scientific air sampling and analysis works.
It’s worth noting, too, that Wolf Eagle Environmental used to go by the name Wolf Eagle Environmental Engineers and Consultants, but later shortened its name after it was revealed that the company did not actually employ a single licensed professional engineer on staff. Wolf Eagle Environmental is also the firm that, through its employee Alisa Rich, helped devise a “strategy” with Parker County, Texas activists to get the EPA involved in a now-infamous water contamination case in 2010 – a strategy that involved creating a deceptive video to make regulators think a landowner’s water was on fire, which they blamed on nearby shale development.
In addition to the TCEQ’s findings, the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) later collected blood and urine samples from residents in and around the town of DISH to assess whether Tillman’s claims were accurate. DSHS concluded:
“Although a number of VOCs [volatile organic compounds] were detected in some of the blood samples, the pattern of VOC values was not consistent with a community-wide exposure to airborne contaminants, such as those that might be associated with natural gas drilling operations.”
DSHS added that the sources of exposure were likely tobacco (those who registered elevated levels of benzene were smokers), public drinking water systems, which include disinfectant byproducts, and even household products like cleaners and lubricants. Although there were limitations to DSHS’s review (VOCs are only present in blood for a short period of time), the agency nonetheless stated that its findings “did not indicate that community-wide exposures from gas wells or compressor stations were occurring in the sample population.”
In early 2013, Tillman’s organization – ShaleTest – claimed to have found high levels of benzene in DISH once again, and cited a TCEQ report that found elevated benzene levels in Fort Worth. TCEQ, however, explained that neither reading crossed the threshold for health impacts. Tillman was once again guilty of using short-term readings to suggest a long-term exposure problem, a decision that TCEQ said was “not scientifically appropriate.”
Read More:
- Tex. Comm. on Env. Quality: Health Effects Review of Ambient Air Monitoring Data Collected by Wolf Eagle Environmental Engineers and Consultants
- Tex. Dept. of State Health Services: Final Report: DISH, Texas Exposure Investigation (May 2010)
- Fort Worth Star-Telegram: “Benzene levels at Fort Worth, Dish gas compressor stations questioned”
- EID: Public Health and Hydraulic Fracturing: Get the Facts
- EID: Seven Questions for the Mayor of DISH
- EID: Gasland Star Sees His Shadow in Michigan; Good News for Shale?
—
Deborah Rogers (Fort Worth, Tex.)
Summary: Ms. Rogers resides in Fort Worth, Tex., and she previously managed investments for Prudential Bache, Merrill Lynch and Smith Barney. She currently owns a business of her own (Deborah’s Farmstead). This combined experience led to a three-year appointment to the Small Business and Agricultural Advisory Council of the Federal Reserve Bank’s Eleventh District in Dallas. This experience also got her into Gasland Part II, where she discusses the industry’s plan to export natural gas.
The Facts: Gasland Part II suggests exporting a portion of America’s abundant natural gas supplies is a conspiracy: get consumers “hooked” on natural gas with rhetoric about “energy independence,” then raise prices (by selling to markets where natural gas is more expensive) to boost profits – all at the expense of hardworking Americans. But like most conspiracies, this one requires a willful suspension of disbelief, and a substantial one at that.
First of all, despite the eerie and dark tone of the film in discussing “industry’s plan” to sell natural gas to our trading partners, proposed export facilities are actually in the public domain. They’re right on the Energy Department’s website, for anyone to see. The entire export debate has taken place in the public sphere, too – largely because U.S. law requires that government approval or denial be based on the public interest. Furthermore, the Department of Energy recently held a public comment period on the exports issue, which generated over 180,000 responses. If folks were trying to keep this behind closed doors, it’s quite possibly the most poorly executed conspiracy in history.
Second, and more importantly, the “rising prices” angle is just not credible. Fox references a report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration and says in the film that prices could rise “by more than 50 percent.” Of course, that was just one of many scenarios considered, and was the least likely of all of them. It assumes, for example, an export scenario that rapidly materializes (which isn’t going to happen) and a resource base dramatically less than what the United States knows it has. In fact, the Potential Gas Committee’s latest report on technically recoverable natural gas in the United States showed the highest estimate in the organization’s 48-year history. The numbers were, predictably, driven chiefly by shale gas. The EIA assessment that Fox quoted, meanwhile, was based on old data, which EIA has even updated to show even more supply and production coming online in the coming years.
That’s why analyses from Brookings and Deloitte, as well as a landmark report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy, all found that the benefits of exports would outweigh the costs, and that any price impacts would be modest. The DOE report concluded specifically that exports would deliver “net economic benefits” under all scenarios modeled. A recent study by the Bipartisan Policy Center also found a compelling case for exports, driven largely by projected price impacts that were minimal.
As it turns out, allowing companies in the United States to access markets overseas actually helps the U.S. economy. For most, that’s basic economics. In Gasland Part II, it’s the Illuminati and the Freemasons working together.
So, the conspiracy behind the conspiracy – the man behind the curtain behind the man behind the first curtain: companies in the United States want to sell products to other countries. For the sequel to Gasland, could there possibly be a more pathetically fitting conclusion?
Read More:
- Washington Post: Natural gas exports: A boon to the economy
- The Economist: For a cleaner world and richer America, Obama should allow exports
- New York Times: Benefits of gas exports far outweigh any price impacts
- EID: IPAA and EID Explain to Feds Why LNG Exports Make Sense
- EID: Exporting Misinformation
—
Methane ‘Leaks’ and Climate Change
Summary: Critics of natural gas development, armed primarily with research from activist professors at Cornell University, have suggested that natural gas developed from shale – due to alleged methane “leaks” – actually increases net greenhouse gas emissions. According to this theory, high leakage rates throughout the production, mid-stream distribution, and delivery systems negate the lower CO2 profile of natural gas. Cornell professor Robert Howarth is the “star witness” for this claim in Gasland Part II, going so far as to claim that shale gas is actually the “worst” form of energy in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, due to high methane leakage rates.
The Facts: The basis for virtually all claims about methane “leaks” through the development of natural gas from shale comes from a paper written in 2011 by Cornell professors Robert Howarth and Anthony Ingraffea (both of whom appear in Gasland Part II, the latter of whom is also presented as an “expert” in well casing). Within months of its release, the paper had been debunked by experts at the U.S. Department of Energy and within the academic community. This includes a paper from researchers at Carnegie Mellon University, which was commissioned by none other than the Sierra Club, an entity that opposes natural gas development. Subsequent reports by experts at MIT – including a lead author of the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC – and the Dept. of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory demonstrated that life cycle GHG emissions of natural gas developed from shale are not significantly different from those produced by so-called “conventional” natural gas development, contrary to the Howarth thesis.
Here are just a few of the statements from the expert community responding to the Howarth/Ingraffea research:
- “Howarth found a large fraction of produced gas from unconventional wells never made it to end users, assumed that all of that gas was vented as methane, and thus concluded that the global warming impacts were huge. As the [Department of Energy] work explains, though, 62% of that gas isn’t lost at all – it’s ‘used to power equipment.’” (Michael Levi, Council on Foreign Relations, May 20, 2011)
- “Here we reiterate and substantiate our charges that none of these [Howarth/Ingraffea’s] conclusions are warranted, especially in the light of new data and models.” (Cathles et. al., Response to Howarth, Feb. 29, 2012)
- “We don’t think they’re using credible data and some of the assumptions they’re making are biased. And the comparison they make at the end, my biggest problem, is wrong.” (Paulina Jaramillo, Carnegie Mellon University, August 24, 2011; full CMU study here)
- “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.” (John Hanger, former Secretary of Pa. DEP, April 12, 2011)
- “[A]rguments that shale gas is more polluting than coal are largely unjustified.” (Hultman et. al., GHG study of unconventional gas, Oct. 2011)
If all that weren’t devastating enough to the Howarth/Ingraffea paper, data released by the U.S. EPA in April 2013 (more specifically, the week before the premiere of Gasland Part II) confirm that methane emissions from natural gas systems actually declined as gas production rapidly expanded. Howarth and Ingraffea used methane emission data from EPA to arrive at their estimates, drawing from data that were published in 2011. But in its latest Greenhouse Gas Inventory, EPA actually revised downward its methane emissions estimates from natural gas systems. The revision was based on better data and the recognition that certain emissions-reducing technologies are far more widely used than previously thought.
As such, the basis for the “shale is worse than coal” talking point has not only been debunked by experts across the board, but it’s also premised entirely on inflated and outdated information.
The reality is that natural gas is providing net benefits in terms of greenhouse gas reductions. The United States did not sign the Kyoto Protocol, nor did it approve a government sanctioned cap-and-trade program. And yet it is the United States that is currently leading all developed nations in reducing CO2 emissions on an annual percentage basis.
The reason? There are actually several – but one of the biggest is that the U.S. power sector is using more natural gas, an increasing share of which is being developed from shale. According to IEA:
“US emissions have now fallen by 430 Mt (7.7%) since 2006, the largest reduction of all countries or regions. This development has arisen from lower oil use in the transport sector … and a substantial shift from coal to gas in the power sector.”
The U.S. Energy Information Administration agrees with IEA’s assessment. As EIA noted in April:
“U.S. carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions resulting from energy use during the first quarter of 2012 were the lowest in two decades for any January-March period. Normally, CO2 emissions during the year are highest in the first quarter because of strong demand for heat produced by fossil fuels. However, CO2 emissions during January-March 2012 were low due to a combination of three factors…[including] a decline in coal-fired electricity generation, due largely to historically low natural gas prices.”
EIA also observed that total CO2 emissions from energy consumption were at their lowest level since 1992.
For this reason, some of our country’s leading officials, regulators, and academics have contested the assertion that the utilization of natural gas in power generation doesn’t provide net environmental benefits. For example:
- “[A] long-term domestic supply of natural gas is expected to yield environmental benefits… [natural gas] has the lowest carbon dioxide emission factor at combustion of any fossil fuel.” (Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University, April 2013)
- “It boggles the mind why anyone who wants to reduce carbon emissions right now would oppose shale gas production. Nothing has cut US emissions more than low natural gas prices made possible by the shale gas boom.” (John Hanger, former Secretary of Pa. DEP, Dec. 31, 2012)
- “… carbon emissions are declining in the US more than in any other country in the world. The USA is the global climate leader, while Europe and Germany are returning to coal. The main reason is gas, which increased last year by almost the exact same amount that coal declined.” (Michael Shellenberger & Ted Nordhaus, Breakthrough Institute, March 2013)
- “Natural gas plays a key role in our Nation’s clean energy future.” (U.S. EPA)
- “Natural gas is the fossil fuel that produces the lowest amount of GHG per unit of energy consumed and is therefore favoured in mitigation strategies, compared to other fossil fuels.” (Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the U.N. IPCC, Nov. 2012)
- “On balance, we think substituting natural gas for coal can provide net environmental value, including a lower greenhouse gas footprint.” (Mark Brownstein, Environmental Defense Fund, Sept. 2012)
- “We produce more natural gas than ever before — and nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it. And over the last four years, our emissions of the dangerous carbon pollution that threatens our planet have actually fallen…. the natural gas boom has led to cleaner power and greater energy independence. We need to encourage that.” (President Barack Obama, State of the Union, Feb. 2013)
Contrary to what opponents have claimed, the facts clearly show that increased utilization of natural gas – regardless of how it is developed – is helping to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Read More:
- U.S. Energy Information Administration: U.S. Energy-Related CO2 Emissions Lowest Since 1992
- Int’l Energy Agency: Global Carbon-Dioxide Emissions Increase by 1.0 GT in 2011 to Record High
- Los Angeles Times: EPA: U.S. greenhouse gases drop 1.6% from 2010 to 2011
- The Breakthrough Institute: Deadly Air Pollution Declines Thanks to Gas Boom
- The Hill: Study: Fracked gas far more climate-friendly than coal
- MIT: Report: Natural gas can play major role in greenhouse gas reduction
- EID: EPA’s Massive, Downward Revision of Methane Emissions
- EID: New Study Debunks Cornell GHG Paper. Again.
—
Hydraulic Fracturing and Earthquakes
Summary: Josh Fox (and a host of other anti-energy activists) recently leaped into a new area of criticism of hydraulic fracturing, claiming that it causes earthquakes. Predictably, Gasland Part II brings up the seismicity issue, chiefly in the context of California and the numerous known faults in the state. Fox previously adopted this talking point after seismic events that occurred in Youngstown, Ohio, in early 2012. In one interview, Fox declared “there is a clear link between earthquakes and fracking,” adding that the use of the technology in the Baldwin Hills (Calif.) oil field could “trigger a 7.4 earthquake,” a claim repeated in Gasland Part II to suggest nothing short of the apocalypse for southern California. Seismic events tied to injection wells, which were receiving wastewater from oil and gas development, have even given the media a license to link earthquakes to fracking.
The Facts: According to Bill Ellsworth, a geophysicist with the U.S. Geological Survey who authored a landmark report on seismicity and oil and gas development in 2012, the “clear link” that Fox alleges does not exist. “We find no evidence,” Ellsworth said, “that fracking is related to the occurrence of earthquakes that people are feeling.” Ellsworth later stated: “We don’t see any connection between fracking and earthquakes of any concern to society.”
The National Research Council has confirmed the USGS findings: “The process of hydraulic fracturing a well as presently implemented for shale gas recovery does not pose a high risk for inducing felt seismic events.” NRC added that “only a very small fraction of injection and extraction activities among the hundreds of thousands of energy development sites in the United States have induced seismicity at levels noticeable to the public.”
The reason for this is simple: the amount of energy needed to complete the hydraulic fracturing process is miniscule compared to what’s recorded during actual seismic events that can be felt by people. So small, in fact, that Stanford University geophysicist Mark Zoback (himself a member of the Dept. of Energy’s shale gas advisory team) told the U.S. Senate that the seismic energy released by the hydraulic fracturing process is “about the same amount of energy as a gallon of milk falling off a kitchen counter.”
Instead, what much of the press has failed to report accurately is that the stories of “fracking-related earthquakes” are actually seismic events resulting from wastewater disposal into injection wells. The U.S. EPA is in charge of regulating these wells (those used for oil and gas are designed as “Class II”), and often grants states “primacy” for enforcement – the well-established system in federal environmental laws since they were passed in the 1970s, which reflects the crucial role of states in regulating industry activity. EPA considers injection wells to be a “safe and inexpensive option” for disposing of wastewater, be it from oil and gas development or manufacturing or any other process.
Moreover, the link between injection wells and seismicity is actually well-understood and has been acknowledged by federal officials for decades, according to the U.S. Department of the Interior. For example, a series of small earthquakes around Denver, Colo., in the 1960s were traced back to wastewater disposal from a nearby chemical plant.
The risk of such seismic events, however, is incredible low, and in fact can be easily managed by making simple changes (i.e. reducing flow rates). As proof, there are more than 150,000 Class II wells in the United States. Only about 40,000 of them are used specifically for wastewater disposal (others are used for things like enhanced oil recovery), and only a handful of those 40,000 have been linked to seismic events of any significance.
Not surprisingly, the media has often failed to contextualize these facts, opting instead to use the search engine bait of “fracking” in the headlines. When he released a major study on induced seismicity in 2012, Ellsworth (of USGS) actually criticized the media’s role in misrepresenting his work and suggesting he linked fracking to earthquakes. “I was greatly surprised,” Ellsworth told E&E News, “to see how words were being used in the press in ways that were inappropriate.” Ellsworth added: “The public has legitimate concerns for which it needs good information.”
While academic and government experts alike note that seismicity is not a major concern associated with hydraulic fracturing, that’s not the case with every energy source. In fact, some of the very sources Josh Fox wants to implement on a wider scale have a much larger risk of causing seismic events. In 2011, Fox noted, “we’re for renewable energy …You know, I was just in Iceland, and there, it’s almost all geothermal and hydroelectric power.”
What Fox either doesn’t know, or conveniently omits, is that hydraulic fracturing is used in conjunction with geothermal power. For precisely that reason, France is now dealing with the repercussions of promoting geothermal while maintaining a ban on hydraulic fracturing.
And, whereas credible scientists have stated that hydraulic fracturing a well for natural gas recovery does not pose a major risk of creating seismic events, the same cannot be said for geothermal power. Researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory noted that the nation’s largest geothermal facility – The Geysers just north of San Francisco – was responsible for creating 30,000 seismic events in a span of less than three years – more than 300 of which were above magnitude 2, and six of which were magnitude 4.
The National Research Council also observed that The Geysers “has the most historically continuous and well documented record of seismic activity associated with any energy technology development in the world.”
We look forward to Josh’s next movie: the perils of the same geothermal power that he wants to expand.
Read More:
- E&E News: Disconnects in public discourse around ‘fracking’ cloud earthquake issue
- National Research Council: Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies
- U.S. Department of Interior: Is the Recent Increase in Felt Earthquakes in the Central US Natural or Manmade?
- EID: On Shaky Ground
—
Well Failures and Casing Leaks
Summary: Opponents of shale development often cite a statistic that 60 percent of all shale wells will fail, which will result in polluted underground aquifers and damage to the environment. The claim originates from Cornell professor (and anti-natural gas activist) Anthony Ingraffea, who claims to have “industry documents” as his source. Ingraffea’s appearance in Gasland Part II was thus a foregone conclusion, and Fox spent nearly as much time running through Ingraffea’s CV as he gave to Ingraffea to repeat that talking point.
Riding on Ingraffea’s coattails, Josh Fox also cited the statistic in an op-ed last summer, as did Yoko Ono in a recent letter to the New York Times. Fox even made the talking point a key part of his short film “The Sky Is Pink,” released last summer. The actual source is a decade-old article that examined what’s known as sustained casing pressure, or SCP. There is indeed a graph on the second page detailing that, over a 30 year time span, 60 percent of wells will be affected by SCP. The graph appears in Gasland Part II, as well.
The Facts: The problem for Ingraffea – who fashions himself an objective scientist – is that the statistic he’s waving around has absolutely nothing to do with shale development. How do we know that? The caption under the graph from which Ingraffea pulled the statistic (and which the camera in Gasland Part II does not provide viewers enough time to read) actually states the following:
“Wells with SCP by age. Statistics from the United States Mineral Management Service (MMS) show the percentage of wells with SCP for wells in the outer continental shelf (OCS) area of the Gulf of Mexico, grouped by age of the wells. These data do not include wells in state waters or land locations.” (p. 63)
Read through that again. Notice that it is referring to activity in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Notice as well that it explicitly excludes any sort of data from onshore development. Shale wells in the United States are drilled onshore, not thousands of feet deep in the Gulf of Mexico – a fact that Ingraffea, Fox, Yoko, and all the other activists apparently hope the public never discovers.
This would be like preaching about the dangers of convertible automobiles based on statistics relating only to the performance of heavy-duty trucks. It reflects a fundamental ignorance of the very industry that these activists so desperately want to malign. It’s also hilarious that Ingraffea makes this claim in Gasland Part II immediately after Fox spends several minutes describing how the professor is the world’s most renowned expert on well casing and cementing. If that were the case, wouldn’t he be able to recognize something as basic as the difference between an onshore and offshore well?
As for sustained casing pressure (SCP), it’s actually a term that refers to the buildup of pressure between casing strings in a well. It does not necessarily refer to a leaking well, or even to a well that soon will be leaking. There are a variety of technologies and processes that can address SCP if it appears, too. Ironically, SCP reduction is the whole point of the document that Ingraffea believes is some sort of smoking gun. If you read the article in its entirety, it actually highlights what’s available to the industry to prevent, minimize and even fix SCP.
Once again, Fox and his disciples have demonstrated they do not understand the basic processes they’re trying to explain; and yet, they claim we should trust them anyway.
Let’s take a closer look at the onshore well “failure” issue, though, and this time with data that are actually relevant. An August 2011 report from the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) actually examined data that is relevant to shale development. GWPC reviewed more than 34,000 onshore wells drilled and completed in Ohio between 1983 and 2007. The data show only 12 incidents related to failures of (or graduate erosions to) casing or cement – a failure rate of 0.03 percent. Most of those incidents (more than 80 percent) occurred in the 1980s and 1990s, long before the current technology and updated state regulations that came online over the past decade.
The report also looked at more than 187,000 wells drilled and completed in Texas. The incident rate there: 0.01 percent.
So, far from shale wells suffering from a failure rate of 60 percent, data from hundreds of thousands of wells show that casing failures occur at a rate of no more than three one-hundredths of one percent. Of course, failure rates – however low they may be already – can always be made lower still. But can we at least agree that folks who rely on the “leaky shale wells” talking point should at least have a grasp of the basic facts – like, for instance, which data do and do not refer to shale wells?
Read More:
- Ground Water Protection Council: State Oil and Gas Agency Groundwater Investigations – A Two State Review: Ohio and Texas
- Associated Press: Some fracking critics use bad science
- EID: For Josh Fox, the Sun Also Rises
- EID: 60 percent of statistics are made up
—
Lobbying and ‘Polluting Our Democracy’
Summary: The first Gasland wanted the public to believe that hydraulic fracturing was polluting drinking water. Gasland Part II suggests that the companies developing oil and natural gas from shale are also polluting our democracy through targeted lobbying and backdoor meetings with regulators. For that reason, supposedly “proven” cases of water pollution in Dimock, Pa., and Parker County, Tex., were swept under the rug by EPA, and President Obama vocally supported shale gas as merely a clever political move in an election year.
The Facts: Indeed, President Obama now touts the environmental and economic benefits of natural gas, something that Fox references as if to say “even he has turned against us!” The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – which Fox had hoped would be the vehicle to shut down shale gas development – now openly says natural gas is a part of America’s “clean energy future.” A study commissioned by the Sierra Club found considerable environmental benefits from natural gas developed from shale, as compared to other energy options. Shale development has also expanded considerably since the release of Gasland.
Gasland Part II makes the audience believe that those facts are all essentially a conspiracy (notice a trend, here?), a series of back room deals and coordinated industry pressure that forced our regulators and elected leaders to abandon their responsibilities. Politics trumps science, Fox might say.
It’s a bold position to take, especially for a guy who claims membership in a group that stands accused of avoiding lobbying laws.
It’s also a fact that, even though some of the big organizations that oppose hydraulic fracturing do not include lobbying as explicit portions of their budgets, the line between explicit lobbying and what is, in effect, lobbying by another name is quite hazy.
Anti-fracking groups bring state lawmakers on “tours” of Pennsylvania to explain to them how supposedly dangerous shale development is. For a single statewide race, the League of Conservation Voters funneled $50,000 to its candidate of choice. We all know how those opposed to energy development use multiple conduits to fund their objectives, and also toss around lots of cash during campaign season. The head of the Sierra Club has even joined a broader “Democracy Initiative” in alliance with left-leaning groups to influence the public debate about a range of issues, many of which have nothing to do with the environment.
At its core, though, the “democracy denied” allegation in Gasland Part II is supported by little to no actual evidence. He interviews members of Congress who have vocally opposed oil and gas development (former Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Sen. Ben Cardin, Rep. Lois Capps, etc.), and correlates an election year to EPA’s “reversal” of decisions about water contamination in Texas and Pennsylvania. Since the evidence just isn’t there, though, Fox simply asserts it as truth. Because corporations, or something.
The real reason that shale development has expanded is not because of some nefarious plot on the part of industry leaders wearing black robes. Rather, it’s because people across the United States have recognized that there are massive environmental and economic benefits to be reaped: substantially lower air emissions, reduced reliance on imported energy, hundreds of thousands of new jobs, and a revitalization of American manufacturing. Both political parties are pushing for increased responsible natural gas production, and it’s because of the facts, not because they’ve been “captured” by Corporate America. Even Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) – certainly no shill for the oil and gas industry – has pushed back against groups who oppose domestic natural gas development. “I think environmentalists should want natural gas on the table as an option,” Markey said.
The emblematic example of Fox’s determination to see a conspiracy was his discussion of Pennsylvania Governor Tom Corbett’s election in 2010. Gasland Part II explains that Corbett ran on a pro-shale platform, mentions that Corbett was elected, and then continues to suggest there’s a broader back room plan that’s subverting democracy. Left unanswered: If Corbett, a Republican, ran explicitly on a pro-shale platform as Fox alleged, then wouldn’t voters take that into account? It’s not as if Pennsylvania is a bastion of right-wing Republicanism, either; the state hasn’t gone for a GOP presidential candidate in more than two decades.
What Fox sees as democracy denied is actually an example of democracy confirmed – it’s just that Fox didn’t like the results.
Read More:
- Associated Press: NY Fracking Foes: Will Become Lobby if Necessary
- E&E News: ‘Big Green’ groups distancing themselves from Josh Fox
- EID: Poll: Support for Hydraulic Fracturing Still Exceeds Opposition
- EID: Key Democrats to Sierra Club: You’re Wrong about Natural Gas
Four Things to Know about the Harvard FracFocus Study
A new study from researchers at Harvard University alleges that FracFocus “fails as a regulatory compliance tool.” Those of us who are actually familiar with the issues involved in fluid disclosure know that’s not true, but it seems the media saw a narrative too enticing to question: another alleged “failure” regarding hydraulic fracturing. Had reporters done a little research, the story would have been dramatically different.
JD
Communications Director
A new study from researchers at Harvard University alleges that FracFocus “fails as a regulatory compliance tool.” Those of us who are actually familiar with the issues involved in fluid disclosure know that’s not true, but it seems the media saw a narrative too enticing to question: another alleged “failure” regarding hydraulic fracturing. Here are a few examples:
- Bloomberg News: “FracFocus Fails as Fracking Disclosure Tool, Study Finds”
- Associated Press: “Report highlights problems with fracking database”
- Dallas Morning News: “Fracking disclosure site contains ‘serious deficiencies,’ Harvard study says”
- Denver Post: “Colorado fracking database questioned by Harvard study”
- FuelFix/Houston Chronicle: “Harvard report slams fracturing chemical website”
- E&E News: “FracFocus has ‘serious flaws,’ Harvard study says”
Ouch, right?
The problem is, most of these stories were essentially press releases describing publication of the study. Had the reporters done a little bit of investigation and research – like, say, what they do every damn time a study is released that finds hydraulic fracturing to be safe – their reports may have been much different. At the very least, the general public would have actually been able to weigh the claims in the study against the broader context in which it was released.
Here are four items that, for some reason, went underreported or completely unreported.
Item 1: What’s the lead author’s background?
Think back to every study that had funding or assistance from industry. Can you think of any that were reported on without that affiliation mentioned?
Now, because we’re interested in the full story, let’s look the CV of the lead author of the Harvard study, Kate Konschnik, which took a grand total of three seconds to pull up via a Google search:
“Konschnik currently serves as staff director for Sen. Whitehouse’s Oversight Subcommittee on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. For the last three years, she has worked with Sen. Whitehouse’s office on a number of nationally significant environmental policy issues, including negotiations around Senate climate bill provisions (carbon offsets, carbon capture and sequestration, and adaptation funding), defense of EPA Clean Air Act rulemaking, and oversight of the 2010 Gulf oil spill.”
Yep, that’s the same Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) who was a co-sponsor of the FRAC Act, the legislation that would put EPA in control of regulating hydraulic fracturing, including the disclosure of additives. Gee, why would someone like that oppose a fully functional tool like FracFocus, which makes EPA regulation completely unnecessary?
And yes, it’s also the same Sen. Whitehouse who has authored a carbon tax and endorsed the activities of Bill McKibben, a well-known anti-fracking activist.
Whitehouse’s name appears in zero of the above mentioned stories.
Let’s continue:
“She was also awarded an International Environmental Law Fellowship at Earthjustice, to work on sea turtle protection and the application of international law to prevent oil spills in ecologically sensitive areas of the world.”
Yes, you read that right. In addition to working for an anti-fossil fuel U.S. Senator, Ms. Konschnik completed a fellowship with Earthjustice, one of the most well-known “green” groups in the country. Here’s how Earthjustice describes hydraulic fracturing:
“Fracking is a dangerous way of getting oil and gas and a shortsighted energy strategy.”
Ms. Konschnik was also a former member of the Montgomery County (Md.) Sierra Club’s executive committee, and we all know what the Sierra Club thinks about hydraulic fracturing.
To be clear, Ms. Konschnik has every right to affiliate with whatever environmental group she wishes. But why were neither of those affiliations — of the study’s lead author, mind you — given even a single mention in any of the stories about the report?
Item 2: Researchers never even spoke with operators of FracFocus.
In the Harvard study, the authors make this claim:
“And of all the states relying on FracFocus, only Texas receives copies of the form.”
The Associated Press took that claim and ran with it:
“But the fact that reports are provided only to FracFocus, and not to state agencies, is another concern of the Harvard report. The authors said the reliance on a third-party database makes the information exempt from public information laws and could cause problems should the site ever go offline.”
Now, you would think a credible, academic attempt to understand a disclosure database would involve, at the very least, talking to the people who operate it. But apparently, at one of America’s most respected institutions, picking up a phone or sending a few emails was just too difficult:
“In an April 23 statement responding to ‘Legal Fractures,’ officials from the Groundwater Protection Council (GWPC), one agency involved in creating FracFocus, indicated they do notify states when companies file. According to EnergyWire, in a story that ran April 24, 2013, “[i]t is then up to state officials to determine if the disclosures were filed in time and whether companies are following the rules governing trade secrets, the GWPC statement said.” We will reach out to the GWPC to learn more about the process they outlined in their statement.” (emphasis added)
Indeed, as GWPC President Stan Belieu told Shale Daily:
“I am not aware of any state regulatory program that has been contacted by Harvard University to make inquiry of its capabilities. I do not understand how, without direct contact, this study can draw the conclusions it has.”
So, let’s get this straight: Before making a very serious accusation that there is zero notification to states when companies file their reports, the researchers at Harvard University didn’t see fit to call up the folks who actually created FracFocus and ask them? Even worse, they didn’t even bother to call many (if any) of the states and inquire about the process itself?
Once again, this fact appears in zero of the above-mentioned stories – even though the authors themselves now feel it necessary to admit their egregious mistake publicly (to their credit, by the way).
Item 3: New version of FracFocus going live in June.
If researchers are truly interested in playing a constructive role in the debate over disclosure, then they’ll likely take into account context and ongoing developments. In the case of FracFocus, updated version – dubbed “FracFocus 2.0” – boasts more user-friendly tools, including searchability by chemical and date of disclosure (among others).
That’s not irrelevant, either, considering the Harvard researchers concluded of the current FracFocus system:
“…the limited search function sharply limits the utility of having a centralized data cache.”
The 2.0 system officially launched last November, but it won’t be until June of this year that all disclosures are required to use the new format. Now, we’re not Ivy League educated or anything. But wouldn’t it make sense for a study on the utility of FracFocus, including critiques about its search features and overall user-friendliness, to wait until upgrades to the system being studied are fully implemented – especially when those upgrades are less than two months out?
A constructive dialogue on benefits and drawbacks of any sort of regulatory activity requires that the topics discussed are done so in a manner that incorporates context and genuinely seeks to fix any problems that may exist. Blasting a disclosure system that will soon be obsolete literally just before the changes are incorporated is not a constructive attempt at reform; it’s gratuitous.
As you probably guessed, none of the major stories on the Harvard study mentioned any of this.
Item 4: FracFocus enjoys praise from across the spectrum.
When Colorado passed its disclosure regulations in late 2011, the Environmental Defense Fund praised them as “a model for the nation.” The executive director of Colorado Conservation Voters said the “clear winners of the rulemaking today are the citizens of Colorado” because “all Coloradans will know what chemicals are being used in natural gas drilling in our state.” Even Earthjustice – which, as mentioned above, hates hydraulic fracturing – said it was “good rule” and “an important step forward for Colorado.” Earthjustice represented a range of other environmental groups in the regulatory negotiations, including Earthworks, the National Wildlife Federation, and the San Juan Citizens Alliance.
What was at the core of Colorado’s disclosure regulations? Yep, you guessed it: the use of FracFocus.
Meanwhile, the Obama White House’s energy and climate adviser, Heather Zichal said the following last year: “As an administration, we believe that FracFocus is an important tool that provides transparency to the American people.”
But hey, who cares about that broad support when a few researchers at Harvard released a fundamentally and transparently flawed study suggesting the opposite?
Reporter, Disclose Thyself
Recently, the Denver Post’s environmental writer Bruce Finley took aim at two government agencies – the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission – over the state’s hydraulic fracturing fluid disclosure regulation. According to Finley’s story, the disclosure regulation’s intellectual property protections could deny doctors “information they need to treat patients and protect public health.”
Simon
Research Director
Recently, the Denver Post’s environmental writer Bruce Finley took aim at two government agencies – the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission – over the state’s hydraulic fracturing fluid disclosure regulation. According to Finley’s story, the disclosure regulation’s intellectual property protections could deny doctors “information they need to treat patients and protect public health.”
But in a news report about disclosure, it turns out the only person with a disclosure problem is Finley himself. That’s because in at least five cases, he failed to disclose key facts to the Denver Post’s readers, and as a result, produced a story that’s both misleading and alarmist.
Failure to disclose doctor’s anti-industry activism
In Finley’s story, Dr. Mitchell Gershten of Cedaredge accuses state regulators of imposing a “gag order” on medical professionals, and then says the following:
“There are spills happening all over the state, all the time … This is just about transparency so that nobody is harmed and the environment is not harmed. Why does it have to be so secretive?”
Gershten is only identified in the story as a doctor. But Finley doesn’t disclose that Gershten is also an activist who opposes the oil and gas industry. In addition to serving on the board of Citizens for a Healthy Community, a group that’s campaigning against oil and gas development in the Delta County region, Gershten has organized anti-industry petitions and letter-writing campaigns.
Gershten has also mounted a statewide letter and op-ed writing campaign against the oil and gas industry. Some examples:
Delta County Independent: “The people of the North Fork have been very clear. We were against natural gas development here last year and we remain against it now.”
Grand Junction Daily Sentinel: “The rush to drill is not about America, but is rather about large future profits for a few companies and a few already wealthy individuals. Those of us here at ground zero suffer the consequences and long legacy of unbridled gas development while a tiny few are enriched.”
Boulder Daily Camera: “Once these companies take their profits, the rest of us are often left with a toxic legacy that goes on for decades, hardly a model of longevity. … Human life and healthy ecosystems are simply incompatible with the industrialization brought by drilling.”
Gershten is entitled to his opinion, of course. But the Denver Post’s readers are also entitled to know where Gershten is coming from so they can decide for themselves whether he’s an objective and credible source. By failing to disclose the fact that Gershten is an anti-industry activist, Finley misrepresented Gershten’s political agenda as a professional medical opinion free of any such bias.
Failure to disclose more than 25 years of federal law
Finley’s story presents intellectual property protection for industrial chemicals as something novel and potentially alarming, but the facts tell a very different story. To understand why, we first need to review some background information on hydraulic fracturing and Colorado’s disclosure regulations.
Hydraulic fracturing fluids are typically more than 99.5 percent water and sand, with the rest a combination of chemical additives that ensure the safe and effective completion of the hydraulic fracturing process. Many of those additives have the same ingredients as commonplace household and industrial products, such as laundry detergent, toothpaste and window cleaner. However, a small number of additives have been specially engineered over many years and at a cost of many millions of dollars. Without protections for this intellectual property, the companies that developed the additives would lose business and shed jobs as competing firms simply copied their products for free.
For this reason, Colorado’s disclosure law does not require “trade secret” additives to be posted on a publicly accessible Internet database. However, any doctor can demand the specific identity of those additives if that information is needed for the diagnosis or treatment of a patient. In return, the doctor must agree to only use the “trade secret” information for treating their patient.
Some environmental activists have recently started claiming these confidentiality agreements constitute a new kind of “gag rule” that’s unique to the oil and gas industry. But in reality, if the activists had sincere and legitimate objection, they’d have started protesting 25 years before Colorado’s hydraulic fracturing disclosure regulation was finalized in December 2011.
That’s because confidentiality agreements for medical professionals have been enshrined in federal law since the passage of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act in 1986. EPCRA requires companies to disclose “trade secret” information to health professionals who need that information for the diagnosis or treatment of a patient. EPCRA also states that health professionals who are provided this information:
“…be required to agree in a written confidentiality agreement that he will not use the information for any purpose other than the health needs asserted in the statement of need, except as may otherwise be authorized by the terms of the agreement or by the person providing such information.”
So, it turns out that under one of the nation’s best-known environmental laws, medical professionals have been signing confidentiality agreements for decades in order to access the information they need to treat patients, while at the same time honoring intellectual property rights.
In fact, this practice is so well understood and non-controversial that it’s even been endorsed by U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), who has spent years advocating for an unnecessary federal takeover of the nation’s state-led regulatory framework for oil and gas development. While DeGette’s proposed legislation is opposed by the oil and gas industry as well as state regulators, it does include the very same intellectual property protections that exist under federal law. The DeGette bill says:
“…the person conducting the hydraulic fracturing operations shall, upon request, immediately disclose the proprietary chemical formulas or the specific chemical identity of a trade secret chemical to the State, the Administrator, or the treating physician or nurse, regardless of whether a written statement of need or a confidentiality agreement has been provided. The person conducting the hydraulic fracturing operations may require a written statement of need and a confidentiality agreement as soon thereafter as circumstances permit.”
It’s hard to imagine that Finley, who has covered the environment beat for years, wouldn’t know all of this. And yet, he still failed to disclose to the Denver Post’s readers that confidentiality agreements of this kind have been commonplace and widely accepted within the realm of environmental regulation for decades.
Failure to disclose why no Colorado doctors have signed Form 35
Finley’s story says some doctors have complained about the paperwork, known as Form 35, which allows for the full details of a “trade secret” additive to be disclosed. Then the story declares: “No doctor has signed the form.”
If Gershten – the doctor-turned-activist – is correct, and people are potentially being exposed to hydraulic fracturing fluids “all over the state, all the time,” then a decision by doctors to boycott the Form 35 would be a big story indeed.
So Energy In Depth e-mailed the COGCC to find out why no doctor has signed the Form 35. Here’s what COGCC director Matt Lepore said in an e-mailed statement:
“The answer to your questions are: 1) Yes, it is true no doctor has signed a Form 35; and 2) because no doctor has requested trade secret information since Colorado’s frac fluid disclosure rule … went into effect.”
So, no doctor has signed the Form 35 because no doctor has requested any “trade secret” information in the first place. In a story that deals with the safety of an industrial process like hydraulic fracturing, the fact that not a single doctor in Colorado has found it necessary to ask for such information is highly relevant.
If Finley’s intent was to inform his readers, rather than needlessly alarm them, he should have disclosed the reason why “no doctor has signed the form.”
Failure to disclose environmental endorsement of intellectual property protections
Finley’s story paraphrases a COGCC spokesman as saying “representatives of the industry and environmental community helped develop the confidentiality pledge” for medical professionals as part of the state’s hydraulic fracturing disclosure regulation. But there’s much more to the story than that.
When Colorado’s disclosure regulation was finalized in December 2011, it was hailed by state and national environmental organizations, and some green groups even clamored to take credit for their role in the rulemaking process.
Here’s what the New York-based Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) said in a press release when the regulations were completed:
“Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) today praised the State of Colorado for adopting a fracturing fluid chemical disclosure policy that, in many ways, can serve as a model for the nation …
“The Colorado rule … makes important strides in requiring companies to disclose chemical information in ways that are useful and user-friendly. The Colorado rule requires companies to disclose chemical information on a database that allows the public to search and sort information by company, chemical, geographic area and other criteria. … Finally, the Colorado rule takes a reasonable approach to trade secrets.”
At a press conference with Governor John Hickenlooper, Colorado Conservation Voters Executive Director Pete Maysmith said:
“The clear winners of the rulemaking today are the citizens of Colorado. Now all Coloradans will know what chemicals are being used in natural gas drilling in our state. … It’s no secret that we don’t always see eye-to-eye with the natural gas industry, but this was a great example of putting aside our differences where we have them and getting something done.”
San Francisco-based Earthjustice, which represented a number of environmental groups in the negotiations over the disclosure regulation, issued a press release saying it was “instrumental” in securing a “positive outcome” for its clients:
“The rule is one of the strongest in the country and Earthjustice’s Denver office was actively involved in shaping the decision. … In the negotiations, Earthjustice represented the Colorado Environmental Coalition, Earthworks Oil and Gas Accountability Project, National Wildlife Federation, San Juan Citizens Alliance and High Country Citizens Alliance, and also worked closely with the Environmental Defense Fund.”
Later, Earthjustice attorney Michael Freeman told the Huffington Post:
“That’s the big advancer here. We’re getting a full picture of what’s in that fracking fluid.”
So, environmental groups didn’t just “help develop” the state’s hydraulic fracturing disclosure regulation. They called it a model for the nation, took credit for its adoption, and said it provides a “full picture” of the components of hydraulic fracturing fluids. In a story that gives critics of the COGCC and CDPHE plenty of opportunities to attack the environmental integrity of this regulation, these endorsements from environmental groups should have been mentioned to the Denver Post’s readers. Yet, once again, Finley failed to disclose information that would have made his story more informative and less frightening to the public.
Failure to disclose citizen group’s anti-industry activism
Finley’s story concludes with a section that’s supposed to represent the views of the general public. Here’s an excerpt:
“Western Colorado residents say they favor giving doctors better access to information about chemicals.
‘To gag the doctors, to not be able to relate what those chemicals are, that’s awful. I would think (state health regulators) would want to protect people’s health,’ said Grand Valley Citizens Alliance president Leslie Robinson. ‘And one way to protect health is information.’”
To start with, one citizens group can’t possibly speak for all “Western Colorado residents.” But even so, what kind of group is the Grand Valley Citizens Alliance? For example, is it an alliance of citizens who are engaged across a wide range of issues, such as economic development, schools and transportation, which concern the public?
The answer is no. The GVCA is a single-issue activist group devoted solely to restricting energy production, and especially oil and gas development, in Garfield County. For example, Robinson has accused the oil and gas industry of “economic blackmail” and lobbied local officials to call for a federal takeover of oil and gas permitting. And on GVCA’s website, Robinson says:
“[F]or nearly 100 years, locals in Western Colorado have been pricked, prodded, drilled, fracked, mined and even bombed in the attempts to extract these minerals.”
So, after Finley already failed to disclose that one of the doctors he interviewed is an anti-industry activist, he also neglected to mention that the citizens group he quoted also opposes the oil and gas industry. For a news reporter who regularly writes about environmental issues and activism in Colorado, and is familiar with the players in the environmental debate, that’s an astonishing failure.
Finley’s sources certainly have a right to express their opinions, but concealing their bias against the oil and gas industry isn’t fair to the Denver Post’s readers. Taken together, all of Finley’s failures to disclose resulted in a news story that’s heavy on fear and light on facts.
Will Gasland Sequel Be Based on Same Fallacies as the Original?
This Sunday, Gasland Part II premieres at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York City. Here we provide a round-up and refresher of how the original film was received by select media, academics, and independent experts. Will the sequel address these problems, or just double down?
Steve
Team Lead
This Sunday, Gasland Part II premieres at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York City. Below, we provide a round-up and refresher of how the original film was received by select media, academics, and independent experts. Will the sequel address these problems, or just double down?
–
“Fundamentally dishonest … a deliberately false presentation for dramatic effect … [T]his movie certainly contributes to more public misunderstanding.”
–John Hanger, former Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (source)
“…one sided, flawed and personal in the Michael Moore mode.”
–New York Times (source)
“…a long, muck-raking polemic, peppered with sensationalism, emotionalism, and distortions.”
–Towanda (Pa.) Daily Review (source)
“Gasland incorrectly attributes several cases of water well contamination in Colorado to oil and gas development when our investigations determined that the wells in question contained biogenic methane that is not attributable to such development.”
–Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (source)
“[Fox] made errors and … spun some facts to their outer limits.”
–E&E News/New York Times (source)
“As [Josh] Fox may (or may not) be learning, using incomplete data to make sweeping observations may do his cause more harm than good.”
–Tom Wilber, former journalist and editor of Shale Gas Review (source)
“My biggest disappointment in Gasland was that, basically a guy that doesn’t understand the industry at all goes and tells a story – and it truly is a story and a lot of it is fiction and I can see people falling into it. But, as an expert in the hydrology near the surface and deep oil and gas I have a difficult time going through the whole movie. It really disturbs me the things he misrepresents….”
–Gary Hanson, director of the Red River Watershed Management Institute, Louisiana State University (source)
“Obviously, Gasland has a lot of pretty dramatic events. I think where I would differ with Josh is his conclusions that those problems are all related to fracking.”
–Jim Marston, Environmental Defense Fund (source)
“[I]t’s maddening to see how easy [Josh Fox] makes it for the film’s critics to attack him, and how difficult for sympathetic but objective viewers to wholly embrace him … Mr. Fox shows a general preference for vivid images … over the more mundane crossing the t’s and dotting the i’s of investigative journalism.”
–New York Times (source)
“‘Gasland’ presents a carefully crafted point of view. Not everything in the film’s narration is precisely accurate. Not all of its subjects are completely credible. Some major components of the story are missing.”
–Harrisburg (Pa.) Patriot-News (source)
“The movie [Gasland] has a critical flaw, and the flaw is that there’s a tremendous amount of innuendo in the movie.”
–Dr. Terry Engelder, Professor of Geosciences, Penn State University (source)
“One glaring error in the film is the suggestion that gas drilling led to the September fish kill at Dunkard Creek in Greene County. That was determined to have been caused by a golden algae bloom from mine drainage…”
–Washington (Pa.) Observer-Reporter (source)
“Fox’s defence for any lack of rigour was that he wanted to start a debate, rather than have the last word. But that doesn’t absolve him of the responsibility to thoroughly check his claims.”
–Financial Times (source)
“One of the clearest examples of a misleading claim comes from north Texas, where gas drilling began in the Barnett Shale about 10 years ago. Opponents of fracking say breast cancer rates have spiked exactly where intensive drilling is taking place — and nowhere else in the state. The claim is used in a letter that was sent to New York’s Gov. Andrew Cuomo by environmental groups and by Josh Fox … but researchers haven’t seen a spike in breast cancer rates in the area.”
–Associated Press (source)
“Sadly, the film’s baseless claims and wild exaggerations have garnered significant media attention, coaxed policymakers to pass laws and regulations detrimental to economic development and energy security and, here’s the kicker, led to it being recently nominated for an Academy Award in the feature documentary category. Given the lack of facts within the film, perhaps a nomination in the comedy direction category would be a better fit.”
–Dr. Michael J. Economides, Professor of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Houston (source)
“With so much need for a clear evaluation of natural gas drilling, the biased and misleading ‘Gasland’ is a missed opportunity.”
–Elizabeth Stelle, Policy Analyst, Commonwealth Foundation (source)
“Whatever your political sympathies, you can’t ignore the evidence that ‘Gasland’ is pure propaganda, not a documentary.”
–The Washington Examiner (source)
“Imagine someone telling people that they are living in an area where the chances of developing breast cancer are shockingly high; picture the alarm and worry. Then imagine if that same person had made up the story — yet was getting cheers from Hollywood stars for telling it. Stop imagining: Filmmaker Josh Fox has done just that.”
–Phelim McAleer, journalist and director of FrackNation (source)
Read More:
- Associated Press: Some fracking critics use bad science
- Letter to Josh Fox: How about Including Some Facts in Gasland 2?
- EID: Debunking Gasland
- EID: For Josh Fox, the Sun Also Rises
Technology Helping to Accelerate the Shale Revolution
This past week I attended the Society of Petroleum Engineers Unconventional Resources Conference in Houston, Tex., where petroleum engineers and geoscientists from around the world discussed cutting-edge advances in shale gas resource estimation techniques and development technologies. Throughout the discussions, one thing was abundantly clear: the shale revolution is just beginning, thanks in large part to technological advancements being implemented in the nation’s oil and natural gas fields.
Dr. Scott Cline – PhD, Petroleum Engineering
This past week I attended the Society of Petroleum Engineers Unconventional Resources Conference in Houston, Tex., where petroleum engineers and geoscientists from around the world discussed cutting-edge advances in shale gas resource estimation techniques and development technologies. Throughout the discussions, one thing was abundantly clear: the shale revolution is just beginning, thanks in large part to technological advancements being implemented in the nation’s oil and natural gas fields.
This phenomenon was made abundantly clear by the Potential Gas Committee (PGC), which released its biennial technologically available natural gas resources report the same week as the conference. Taking into account new information, the updated report shows the United States now holds an all-time high of 2,384 trillion cubic feet (tcf) of technically recoverable natural gas, a 22 percent increase from just two years ago. The new estimate indicates a 110-year supply at current consumption. (EID previously reported on that development here.)
But that is only a part of the story. What’s left untold is that all estimates consider resources that are able to be extracted given the current state of technology. That leaves tremendous room for growth, as the best current technology is only able to recover, for example, less than 25 percent of natural gas entrapped in shale. This means that most of the available energy in any given shale play will be left in place if we assume zero technological advancement. But remember: It wasn’t long ago that folks were saying the exact same thing about virtually all of our shale and “tight” resources. Technological advancement is not a fait accompli, but to assume it won’t happen at all is to ignore history entirely.
So with that as background, let’s examine the effect of technology and the historical miscalculation of its importance in increasing our nation’s hydrocarbon reserves.
The figures below compare the U.S. Energy Information Agency’s (EIA) 2000 report with its 2012 outlook. EIA recognized the emergence of unconventional resources in 2000, but vastly underestimated their future effect: EIA estimated in 2000 that, by 2010, technological improvements in unconventional resources might add only about one tcf to natural gas reserves, for a total of about five tcf per year from unconventional sources.
Fast forward to EIA’s 2012 report and we see that actual 2010 production from unconventional resources was double the predicted amount, and is now projected to increase even more rapidly.
Annual Energy Outlook 2012 Release Date: June 25 http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/0383(2012).pdf
This is an important fact to keep in mind. Estimates suggesting the United States has a 100-year supply of natural gas are based on “current” technology and, more importantly, exclude the possibility of technological advancements.
How Can We Get More Resource Out of Shale?
So what is leading to the continual increases in recoveries per unit volume of rock and where are we likely headed? This was the primary topic of the SPE conference. To understand this in greater detail one needs to understand the shale reservoir from which natural gas is being extracted.
Three-dimensional visualization of a shale-gas reservoir.
Because of the quadruple porosity system – consisting of low permeability matrix porosity coupled with organic porosity, natural fractures and induced hydraulic fractures – the flow regime from shale is complex. Without breaking the low permeability matrix into smaller blocks and connecting each of them with high permeability fractures, much of the natural gas will be stranded and unavailable for production. Horizontal wells with hydraulic fractures have been successful in solving part of the problem, but it’s only one step in a much larger extraction efficiency story. Advances in drilling, integration of petro-physical and geo-mechanical data, proppant technology and production process advances are leading to ever increasing recoveries.
Further, shale is not homogeneous, so targeting the part of the shale with the largest resource is critically important. Advances in drilling with rotary steerable assemblies, diamond crystalline bits and logging are allowing the steering of wells to target the rock with the best hydrocarbon potential and best fracture ability. Simply put, these kinds of technologies are significantly improving production per well. The latest experimental development in this regard is utilizing complex well trajectories, with multiple horizontal legs radiating from the main horizontal to increase the surface area contact with the geological resource. This allows for a greater area to be targeted, thus allowing for increased production and a reducedneed for fracture stimulation.
http://www.slb.com/services/drilling/mwd_lwd/at_bit_measurements/ipzig.aspx?t=2
Drilling multiple branched wells rather than a single horizontal well may also help target previously un-stimulated areas of shale rock identified by combining microseismic, 3-D seismic and flow data from individual perforation clusters.
Adding to this, research into newer proppants with even higher strength, lower weight and better transport ability coupled with new injection schemes are enabling better proppant placement. Again, to put it simply, this development mean increased production from each well, which in turn means more energy produced with less surface impact.
Advancements in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing are also responsible for a surge in U.S. oil production. From a steady decline between 1970 and 2008, U.S. production is rising once again thanks to the combination of these two technologies.
As is the case with natural gas, considering we are only extracting less than 10 percent of the oil-in-place in shale reservoirs, there is enormous potential for increased production. In fact, some presenters at the SPE conference believed that North America could even be self-sufficient in oil, assuming wide adoption of natural gas in the U.S. trucking fleet and continued increases in oil production by our neighbors in Canada.
Workforce Challenges Loom
Despite these significant advancements, there was one overriding concern at the conference. Namely, the challenge of finding enough people to fill all the open jobs created by the oil and gas boom. One approach in correcting this problem, however, is already being implemented in Houston, a city widely viewed as the energy capital of the United States. Efforts are underway, for example, to provide training to high school students interested in working in the nation’s oil and gas fields. The Houston Independent School District recently added an Energy Institute High School to provide rigorous scientific training geared to students interested in the energy field. The magnet school will partner with the Independent Petroleum Association of America, which will lend practical experience and training.
Three years ago I wrote the Coming Age of Natural Gas in which I expounded on the natural gas opportunity and soundly criticized naysayers like Niall Ferguson (Harvard University) for his “predictions of the collapse of the American Empire,” taking into account the economic progress that shale development would provide.
Fast forward to just over a month ago, when a recent Bloomberg article quoted Ferguson as saying, “The benefits of the shale gas type oil revolution are still being underestimated by most observers and I think there’s a lot more upside to come in the United States than most people anticipate.”
Ferguson is right. The age of natural gas is no longer coming; it is here and it’s expanding. In the process, it’s bringing our nation phenomenal opportunities for cleaner air, reduced carbon emissions and increased economic vitality. And it’s all made possible by that unique American spirit of innovation and hard work.
*UPDATE* U.S. Shale is Undermining Russia’s Gas Monopoly
The Associated Press has a must-read story from this weekend about how hydraulic fracturing is “shaking up world energy markets from Washington to Moscow to Beijing.” The premise is one we’ve covered here at EID before, but it simply cannot be overstated: developing natural gas from shale is not only an unquestionable economic and environmental winner for the United States, but also re-centering global energy markets away from Russia and the Middle East and toward the United States and North America.
Julia
Researcher
UPDATE (4/15/2013; 1:55 pm ET) This week, the Russian Academy of Sciences noted that crude oil exports from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) – including Russia, Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan — may drop 17 percent by 2040. The culprit? Increased supply from the United States, specifically from shale and other “tight” reservoirs. According to Bloomberg:
“CIS exports will decline to 293 million metric tons in 2040 from 355 million tons in 2010, according to the academy’s base scenario. Russian crude output will fall by as much as 50 million tons annually by 2020 in the report’s ‘shale breakthrough’ scenario, as high costs and the current tax system limit competitiveness on global energy markets.” (4/15/13)
Russian producers and President Vladimir Putin have historically opposed America’s shale development – and with nearly half of Russia’s budget coming from the production and export of oil and natural gas, it’s not surprising why. But as Moscow-based oil and gas analyst Ildar Davletshin noted, the country is beginning to be left behind due to its continued reliance on less sophisticated technology. Meanwhile, North America is only in the initial stages of a technologically-driven energy renaissance, which is turning the global energy mix on its head.
—Original post, Oct. 1, 2012—
The Associated Press has a must-read story from this weekend about how hydraulic fracturing is “shaking up world energy markets from Washington to Moscow to Beijing.” The premise is one we’ve covered here at EID before, but it simply cannot be overstated: developing natural gas from shale is not only an unquestionable economic and environmental winner for the United States, but also re-centering global energy markets away from Russia and the Middle East and toward the United States and North America.
From the AP:
The Kremlin is watching, European nations are rebelling, and some suspect Moscow is secretly bankrolling a campaign to derail the West’s strategic plans.
It’s not some Cold War movie; it’s about the U.S. boom in natural gas drilling, and the political implications are enormous.
Like falling dominoes, the drilling process called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is shaking up world energy markets from Washington to Moscow to Beijing. Some predict what was once unthinkable: that the U.S. won’t need to import natural gas in the near future, and that Russia could be the big loser.
“This is where everything is being turned on its head,” said Fiona Hill, an expert on Russia at the Brookings Institution, a think tank in Washington. “Their days of dominating the European gas markets are gone.”
And as we’ve mentioned before, the growth of shale development in the United States has been anything but a partisan issue:
The U.S. presidential campaigns have already addressed the strategic potential.
A campaign position paper for Republican Mitt Romney said he “will pursue policies that work to decrease the reliance of European nations on Russian sources of energy.”
In early September, President Barack Obama said the U.S. could “develop a hundred-year supply of natural gas that’s right beneath our feet,” which would “cut our oil imports in half by 2020 and support more than 600,000 new jobs in natural gas alone.”
The story also includes some he-said-she-said allegations about the Russians possibly funding environmental efforts in Europe to ban or restrict hydraulic fracturing. It’s a plausible theory, given how continued shale development means more competition for Russian gas giant Gazprom, and the fact that “Gazprom owns media companies throughout Russia and Europe that have run stories examining the environmental risks of [hydraulic fracturing].” But it’s also a theory for which little tangible proof currently exists.
In any event, the AP notes: “Regulators contend that overall, water and air pollution problems are rare,” something most of us interested in the facts already knew (see this list of statements from regulators for more proof). And it was none other than Lisa Jackson, current Administrator of the U.S. EPA, who recently said: “In no case have we made a definitive determination that [hydraulic fracturing] has caused chemicals to enter groundwater.”
In sum, hydraulic fracturing is a safe and tightly regulated process that is creating jobs and undermining Russia’s control over European energy markets, all while helping to deliver a clean and affordable source of energy to American consumers.
Those facts make Alec Baldwin and Josh Fox look even sillier, which most of us didn’t think was possible.
European Union Ready for Shale
This past week was not an enjoyable one for opponents of responsible shale development who, contrary to available evidence, have hoped that countries would ban hydraulic fracturing based on alleged environmental impacts. Most notably, the European Union’s (EU) chief scientific adviser is now expressing support for shale gas development, highlighting the proven safety record of production and the benefits it could deliver. This is in addition to countries across Europe waking up to the reality that the claims made in films like Gasland were intended to scare, not accurately inform.
Dana
Staff Geologist
This past week was not an enjoyable one for opponents of responsible shale development who, contrary to available evidence, have hoped that countries would ban hydraulic fracturing based on alleged environmental impacts. Most notably, the European Union’s (EU) chief scientific adviser is now expressing support for shale gas development, highlighting the proven safety record of production and the benefits it could deliver. This is in addition to countries across Europe waking up to the reality that the claims made in films like Gasland were intended to scare, not accurately inform.
Anne Glover, the chief scientific adviser to European Commission President Manuel Barroso, based her support on the hard, scientific facts:
“We should not go into a denial phase. From my point of view the evidence will allow us to go ahead [with shale production].” (April 11, 2013)
The EU’s Energy Commissioner, Günther Oettinger ,also expressed his support for development, noting the many benefits we are already experiencing here in the United States:
“’I am in favour of producing shale gas, particularly for safety reasons, and to reduce gas prices,’ he said. ‘In the United States, which is a big producer of shale gas, the price of gas is four times less than in Europe.’” (April 11, 2013)
Despite varying opinions amongst the EU’s member states, sentiments are beginning to align with the facts that shale development is both environmentally and economically beneficial.
Just look at United Kingdom. Last week, a report put to bed the accusations that hydraulic fracturing poses a serious risk of earthquakes in the UK (that aligns with what experts here in the United States have been saying for years). In addition, a British Geological Survey found the nation could be sitting atop a natural gas supply large enough to heat every home in Britain for 100 years. British Chancellor George Osborne is now looking to boost investment in responsible shale gas development, looking at possible tax provisions that would enable increased production, which in turn would certainly help UK consumers.
Support is also growing across the EU. António Fernando Correia de Campos, a member of the European Parliament from Portugal, has endorsed increased shale development. Poland has committed to invest €12.5 million to develop its shale reserves by 2020. Romania has recently lifted a ban it had in place on hydraulic fracturing.
Even France, a country that has been largely opposed to shale development and had even banned hydraulic fracturing last year, is now being forced to revaluate its position. As it turns out, hydraulic fracturing is also required for accessing geothermal energy, a renewable energy source that France has no plans to ban any time soon.
The shale revolution occurring in the United States is redefining the global energy mix, propelling North America into a leadership role and leaving once energy-dominant nations unsure of their futures. Against that backdrop – and the fact that U.S. natural gas produced from shale will likely be entering European markets soon as imports – it’s little wonder that Europe is abandoning the hysteria regarding hydraulic fracturing and embracing the economic and environmental opportunities that responsible shale development can bring.
And did we mention that shale development within the EU would reduce reliance on Russian energy? That fact certainly hasn’t escaped decision makers in Europe, many of whom have been dependent on The Bear for their natural gas supplies for decades.
Achievements Many as FracFocus Celebrates Second Birthday
On April 11, 2013 the FracFocus system celebrated its second birthday. During its first two years of operation, the system has been lauded as a highly effective means of providing the public with information about the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. Eleven states have already elected to use the system as their means of regulatory reporting and as many as eleven others are considering its use.
Mike Nickolaus
Special Projects Director, Ground Water Protection Council
**Cross-posted from the Ground Water Protection Council
On April 11, 2013 the FracFocus system celebrated its second birthday. During its first two years of operation, the system has been lauded as a highly effective means of providing the public with information about the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. Eleven states have already elected to use the system as their means of regulatory reporting and as many as eleven others are considering its use. Additionally, the Bureau of Land Management is considering accepting FracFocus as the means of reporting hydraulic fracturing chemical use on federal and tribal lands. There have been over 41,000 disclosures placed in the system and nearly half a million people have visited the FracFocus.org website.
FracFocus is a demonstration that the states are taking positive action to provide the public with the information needed to make informed decisions about hydraulic fracturing.
On June 1, 2013 the new FracFocus 2.0 system will become the exclusive means for submitting reports to FracFocus. The version 2.0 is beginning to take hold and should provide users with a more accurate and easy to use system for entering records. With the new disclosure submission system comes a new set of record search criteria that include searches by date, Chemical Abstract Service number and ingredient (chemical) name. The new system also has the capability of allowing operators to designate registered agents to enter records for them and to allow service companies to prepare records for the operators review and submission.
These features, along with a new user class for state agencies expand the capabilities of the system and provide for the widest possible use. In the near future we hope to provide additional capabilities to state agencies so that they can import regulatory compliance data directly into their data management systems.
In addition to advances in FracFocus here in the U.S., the system is being implemented in two provinces in Canada (British Columbia and Alberta) and is being considered for use in Europe.
With our partner, the IOGCC, we look forward to working with states and all the stake holders to insure that the FracFocus system remains the most comprehensive, publicly accessible system of providing hydraulic fracturing chemical information today, and for the future.
For further information about the FracFocus system please contact Mike Nickolaus at [email protected]
Poll: Support for Hydraulic Fracturing Still Exceeds Opposition
A recent University of Texas poll asked respondents what they thought about a variety of energy issues, not the least of which was hydraulic fracturing. Interestingly, the poll actually shows how anti-energy activists are losing in their misinformation campaign against responsible shale development.
Steve
Spokesman
A recent University of Texas poll asked respondents what they thought about a variety of energy issues, not the least of which was hydraulic fracturing. Interestingly, the poll actually shows how anti-energy activists are losing in their misinformation campaign against responsible shale development.
Regarding the issue of hydraulic fracturing in general, the UT poll (full cross-tabs here) found that a plurality supports its use — 45 percent support to 41 percent oppose. Since September 2012, support has actually increased by four points, while opposition has remained unchanged. In three separate polls over the past year conducted by UT, opposition has never exceeded support. Averaged out among the three polls, support exceeds opposition by six points, 45 percent to 39 percent.
In the current poll, those who said they wanted to promote hydraulic fracturing specifically on public lands also outnumbered those who want to ban it, 41 percent to 36 percent.
Sheril Kirshenbaum, director of the UT energy poll, observed that the polling shows “steady support for the expansion of domestic natural gas development.” Indeed, an amazing 62 percent of respondents support more natural gas production in the United States. That matches the findings of a recent Gallup poll, which showed that 65 percent of Americans want more emphasis placed on domestic natural gas development – including clear majorities among Republicans, Independents, and Democrats.
The UT poll also made it clear that anti-energy groups’ attempts to demonize natural gas as some sort of dirty fuel that’s not worth being produced are backfiring – big time. When asked if the benefits of domestic natural gas development outweigh the costs, 41 percent said “Yes” and only 18 percent said “No,” an amazing 23 point spread. Asked about specific benefits of natural gas, the results were even more stunning:
- 75 percent believe job creation is a benefit of natural gas (only four percent disagree)
- 70 percent believe natural gas production provides energy security (only five percent disagree)
- 69 percent say natural gas boots U.S. manufacturing (only 5 percent disagree)
- By a margin of 53 to 11, Americans say natural gas development is lowering carbon emissions.
The upshot is that Americans overwhelmingly view natural gas development as both an economic and environmental boon to the United States.
Regulation?
Naturally, media reports have either ignored or buried the good news listed above, focusing instead on the poll’s finding that more than 60 percent of respondents support more regulation for hydraulic fracturing or stronger enforcement of existing laws (the university’s news headline emphasized a “divide on fracking”). The implication is that not enough is being done to protect the public, and that the industry is avoiding proper oversight. The reality, however, is much different – even if it’s not convenient for the media to discuss it.
The industry worked with environmental groups in Colorado and Texas to establish disclosure regulations that have been touted as the gold standard. In California, the industry is supportive of similar disclosure regulations, and it’s actually certain environmental groups – some of whom supported those provisions in Colorado – who are now strangely opposing their implementation. In Illinois, the industry teamed with labor, business groups, farm organizations, and environmentalists on legislation that would add new regulations for shale development. In Pennsylvania, the industry supported Act 13, which created a new fee that is generating hundreds of millions of dollars in new public revenues.
Notice the trend here? Despite what opponents have claimed for years, and to which too many in the media have provided a forum, the oil and gas industry does not oppose regulation. On the contrary, the industry has actively supported new regulatory measures in the states as a way to provide public assurances that responsible shale development will continue to be protective of the environment.
It is worth noting, however, that many of the same problems we identified with a Bloomberg poll last year (which found a similar percentage of respondents supportive of “more regulation”) also appear in similar form in the UT poll.
For instance, the Bloomberg poll included a question about global warming immediately before the question about “more regulation or less regulation” of hydraulic fracturing. The UT pollsters, however, asked several questions that could have “primed” the respondents to make what they perceived to be the more environmentally conscious option (i.e. more regulation or stricter enforcement). Prior to the questions on hydraulic fracturing, the UT poll asked, among other things:
- A question about “the impact that U.S. energy production and consumption has on the environment.”
- A question regarding how public policy “will affect your clean energy choices.”
- A question on whether climate change is occurring. If respondents answered in the affirmative, they were read a list of possible contributing factors, including specifically oil and natural gas.
- A question on how they could best be incentivized to reduce water consumption.
To be clear, there is nothing inherently wrong in asking these questions. That’s what pollsters do, after all. But preceding a question about regulation of an activity used in oil and gas development with statements that frame the debate in terms of impacts from that development is, at the very least, a caveat worth highlighting as we interpret the meaning of the results.
Of course, that “priming” also raises another important point. Even with respondents geared toward what was clearly an environmental bent, a plurality still said it supports hydraulic fracturing. In that sense, it would be difficult to find a better example of how anti-fracking activists are losing the debate: even their “base” is abandoning them.
Harvard Study Confirms Shale’s Benefits
Just a few months in, 2013 is proving to be a very frustrating year for ideologically motivated environmental activists seeking to ban hydraulic fracturing. Now, a new report from researchers at Harvard makes clear why activists’ efforts are failing -- and will likely continue to do so.
JD
Communications Director
Just a few months in, 2013 is proving to be a very frustrating year for ideologically motivated environmental activists seeking to ban hydraulic fracturing. So far, they have been confronted with three important facts: a plurality of Americans supports the technology, politicians in both parties are accepting it as a means to improve both the economy and environment, and the President’s nominees to lead the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency have both declared that natural gas, and by extension hydraulic fracturing, is a key component of the nation’s energy future.
Now, compounding this frustration, a new report from researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs makes clear why activists’ efforts are failing — and will likely continue to do so. Specifically, the report found that, on a global scale, “a long-term domestic supply of natural gas is expected to yield environmental benefits,” as the fuel “has the lowest carbon dioxide emission factor at combustion of any fossil fuel.” The study also observes that shale development is certain to continue well into the future, noting that “unconventional fossil fuel extraction from shale formations has already transformed the U.S. energy portfolio,” and that, as a result, “unconventional oil and gas are poised to dominate the U.S. market in the coming decades.”
The study also took a closer look at development in the Bakken, Barnett and Marcellus shale basins to identify environmental concerns and whether or not practices are being implemented to mitigate those concerns. Here again, activists were served a bitter pill. Even though the researchers suggested the industry typically has a “slow rate of adoption” of environmental mitigation (which simply isn’t true), they nonetheless concluded that “the degree of adoption across available technologies highlights characteristics of successful environmental mitigation strategies.” In other words, the industry is proactively addressing environmental concerns through the rapid advancement of new technology.
Now, that’s not to say the study didn’t find any areas in need of improvement. Indeed, there were about twenty items — ranging from “laying reusable mats over well pad site and planned access routes, rather than laying gravel” to “setting surface casing at greater depths.” But, as you can see, the suggestions offered by the researchers don’t point to any inherently troubling concerns with hydraulic fracturing and shale gas development. A few examples:
- Wastewater recycling and reuse
- Laying impermeable liners over well pad sites to reduce the risk of oil and surface water contamination
- Cementing intermediate casing, if present, to surface
- Collection and analysis of surface and subsurface data, used to inform planning and real-time management of hydraulic fracturing jobs
- Conducting small-scale test run before commencing full hydraulic fracturing job
- Reuse of drilling fluids and muds
- Capturing fugitive methane by implementing green completions, replacing high-bleed valves, and installing vapor recovery units on tanks
- Burying corrosion-resistant lines and pipes for longer-term operations
- Planning multiple wells per pad
What ties these (and many others in the report) together is that they’re already being implemented across the country, something that the Harvard researchers also noted. Closed-loop systems are in use in the Marcellus, and many operators are already recycling fluids and drilling muds. Operators have also begun implementing central water conveyance systems in many areas, and green completions are also increasingly being utilized (MIT previously found that such technology had been adopted at a far higher rate than previous studies had estimated). Green completions will also be required for nearly all natural gas wells beginning in 2015.
So, in summation, one of the nation’s pre-eminent academic institutions took a closer look at a process that fringe environmental groups describe as being an “inherently dirty and dangerous process that decimates entire landscapes.” Because they were interested in facts instead of hysteria, they came to a completely different conclusion. Indeed, their review indicated that shale development will provide significant environmental benefits, and that reducing environmental footprints even further is not only possible, but is actually a task already in progress.
In sum, the Harvard study is good news for those of us who view shale development as a valuable part of our energy future, as well as those of us who are interested in solutions and progress. In that sense, it’s yet another reminder that those who want to demagogue “fracking” in order to raise funds from wealthy donors are actually arguing against expert consensus.
PGC Report Finds 110 Years of Natural Gas Beneath Our Feet
A new report from the Potential Gas Committee (PGC) delivers yet another blow to Peak Oil enthusiasts, finding the United States holds a technically recoverable natural gas resource of 2,384 trillion cubic feet (tcf), which is actually 26 percent higher than any previous finding.
Dana
Staff Geologist
A new report from the Potential Gas Committee (PGC) delivers yet another blow to Peak Oil enthusiasts, finding the United States holds a technically recoverable natural gas resource of 2,384 trillion cubic feet (tcf), which is actually 26 percent higher than any previous finding.
The PGC’s year-end 2012 biennial report, Potential Supply of Natural Gas in the United States, found that the United States possesses a technically recoverable natural gas resource potential that, when combined with the proven gas reserves estimated by the U.S. Geological Survey, would yield 110 years’ worth of natural gas, based on current consumption levels.
This is also the highest resource evaluation in the PGC’s 48 year history — exceeding its 2010 assessment by 486 Tcf.
The PGC report looked at all types of resource basins for natural gas, from so-called “conventional” deposits to shales, tight reservoirs, and coalbed methane. But as John Curtis, study lead, director of the PGC and a professor at the Colorado School of Mines, observed: “It’s really shale gas that has exceeded the potential many people expected.”
The Financial Times also highlights how the PGC’s estimates of natural gas tracked the growth of interest in (and development of) U.S. shale deposits:
“The PGC’s biennial assessment of America’s gas potential was fairly stable at about 1,000tn cu ft through much of the 1990s and early 2000s. But it started to rise sharply in 2006 when unconventional gas production took off. The committee estimated that the US had about 200tn cu ft of resources in 2006, a figure that rose fivefold by 2012 to 1,000tn cu ft.
“In its report, the committee said the increase in its current assessment was primarily thanks to a re-evaluation of shale gas plays in the Appalachian basin in the eastern part of the US, which contains the Marcellus and Utica Shales, and also important new contributions of both shale gas and conventional resources in the Rocky Mountains region in the west.” (emphasis added)
And, as American Gas Association President and CEO Dave McGurdy highlighted while announcing the report, this increase in recoverable natural gas has far-reaching benefits for the United States:
“This ground up, science-based assessment emphasizes our nation’s robust supply of natural gas, and confirms that we can continue to rely on abundant, clean natural gas for our future energy needs,” said Dave McCurdy, president and CEO of AGA. “By investing in our energy future and harnessing the promises of this resource, we can look forward to decades of market stability – and that’s great news for our customers.”
Thanks to innovation within America’s oil and natural gas industry, hydraulic fracturing is helping to unlock these plays and more than a century’s worth of clean-burning natural gas, which is creating jobs, reducing air pollution, bolstering our national security, and even providing base load power to allow renewable energy to grow. Today’s report from PGC shows why these benefits are not a fleeting and temporarily anomaly, but in fact the new reality in the United States. Thus, the PGC report is unquestionably good news not only for the economy, but also for the environment that we all cherish.
*UPDATE* Exporting Misinformation
Having effectively lost the scientific debate over the safety of hydraulic fracturing and the environmental benefits to be gained from expanded shale development, groups opposed to natural gas production are now setting their activist sights on a new frontier: liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.
Steve
Spokesman
UPDATE (4/9/2013; 9:51am ET): The Sierra Club is now asking the U.S. Department of Energy to rethink its regulatory process for considering LNG exports. In a petition submitted yesterday, the Club repackages all of the same, misleading talking points on natural gas exports — the same ones we addressed below and here — and slapped a new date on the top, hoping both the general public and DOE will be none the wiser.
One area that caught our attention, however, was this excerpt:
In addition to this fundamental structural shift, both the source, and the effect, of increased gas consumption raise questions which were not germane in 1984. Most exported gas would be sourced from unconventional gas plays (shales, tight sands, and the like), and would be extracted with the fracking process. Imported gas, obviously, does not implicate U.S. production impacts and, in any event, those unconventional plays were not available in the 1980s. Now, though, unconventional production is expanding throughout the country, raising major environmental concerns and fomenting a vigorous ongoing public debate over its wisdom and appropriate limits upon production. As a result, the environmental impacts of such production were not germane to the DOE’s considerations in the way they are now. (p. 7-8; emphasis added)
The Sierra Club — a group whose mission is to “Explore, enjoy and protect the planet” — is essentially admitting that it doesn’t care about environmental impacts overseas, even in countries that lack basic levels of environmental regulation. One would think that a so-called “environmental” organization would be sensitive to the fact that increased global use of a clean burning fuel like natural gas means displacing dirtier forms of energy, and as a result fewer emissions — especially in countries that have rapidly expanding economies and, unfortunately, increasing levels of air pollution.
Of course, caring about other parts of the world would require the Sierra Club to engage in civil disobedience in countries without the First Amendment, so they’re content to tell the public (especially the press) that they want to protect the environment — so long as it doesn’t mean actually doing anything in 94 percent of the Earth’s land mass. That would require consistency, and we already know the Sierra Club struggles to maintain that.
—Original post, Feb. 13, 2013—
Having effectively lost the scientific debate over the safety of hydraulic fracturing and the environmental benefits to be gained from expanded shale development, groups opposed to natural gas production are now setting their activist sights on a new frontier: liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports.
As quick background, the United States currently has a massive surplus of natural gas, with numerous analyses showing the country actually has enough natural gas to meeting growing domestic demand (for generations to come) and allow for new jobs (and a reduced trade deficit) through gradual exports. This means that the benefits of natural gas in the United States – lower energy bills, declining greenhouse gas emissions – could conceivably be extended to our trading partners overseas. A landmark study commissioned by the U.S. Department of Energy recently concluded that “LNG export has net benefits to the U.S. economy” – every last segment of it.
But most of the natural gas that could potentially be sold to trading partners would come from expanded U.S. production, most notably from shale. For that reason, groups opposed to shale development are becoming active in opposing exports. Just to give you a sense how silly this has become: groups such as the Sierra Club have actually suggested in official agency filings that the reason they oppose exports is out of a concern that selling natural gas abroad may cause an increase in price here at home.
To repeat: Sierra Club, which sees low natural gas prices as a barrier to wind and solar expansion, is apparently concerned that exports will increase prices. Confused? You should be.
Of course, there should be no confusion on one thing: the talking points really have not changed, meaning the opponents’ efforts themselves are still premised on the same baseless arguments (see EID’s previous debunk here). Among the most recent claims, according to a recent advertisement signed by a who’s who list of opposition groups, are the following:
- “Exports will allow the gas industry to make billions of dollars at the expense of our communities and public health.”
- Expanded natural gas production will “release huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere”
- Continuing to produce natural gas means “continuing our reliance on dirty fossil fuels instead of clean energy solutions.”
In an added twist, the latest ad ups the ante on misinformation, suggesting that allowing exports would “clear the way for energy companies to ship more than 40% of America’s natural gas overseas.” Before we get to that, though, let’s examine each of these claims in order.
EID has detailed this in the past (even specifically in the context of exports), but it’s worth reiterating: natural gas development does not come “at the expense of our communities and public health.” Air emissions, as observed by environmental regulators from Pennsylvania to Texas, have not reached levels that would trigger public health concerns. State regulators from across the country have stated that they have never once observed a case where hydraulic fracturing contaminated drinking water supplies. And we all know the threat of earthquakes – a common talking point – is overblown, thanks to analysis from the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Research Council.
As for the “billions of dollars” that these groups think will only flow to natural gas companies, a recent investigation by the Associated Press found that private landowners, including family farmers, are “reaping billions of dollars in royalties each year” thanks to natural gas development. According to the National Association of Royalty Owners, total royalty payments were about $21 billion in 2010.
Regarding greenhouse gases, CO2 emissions in the United States are at a 20-year low today thanks to the increased use of natural gas, which of course has been made possible by expanded shale development. As John Hanger, former secretary of the Pa. Department of Environmental Protection, has observed, “the shale gas revolution, and the low-priced gas that it has made a reality, is the key driver of falling carbon emissions, especially in the last 12 months.”
The EPA’s latest report on GHGs also found that, thanks in large part to utilities using more natural gas, overall emissions in the United States declined three percent from 2010 to 2011. More specifically, methane emissions from oil and gas development were 66 percent lower than what EPA had previously estimated.
The argument that natural gas is “dirty” and runs counter to the expansion of “clean” energy is also equally divorced from reality. Due to its GHG and air quality benefits, the renewable energy industry itself has stressed the importance of natural gas. A couple of notable examples from key trade associations representing renewables in the United States:
- American Wind Energy Association: “A combination of a large amount of renewable energy, combined with flexible natural gas plants and demand-response and efficiency, can ensure that our electric system has sufficient energy, capacity, and flexibility, and operates reliably and cost-effectively.”
- Rhone Resch, CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association: “Natural gas and renewables complement each other very nicely…In the next 30 years we’re going to have 50 percent renewables and 50 percent natural gas.”
Meanwhile, the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) has also stated that natural gas – specifically natural gas from shale – can complement the growth of renewables. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has observed that “natural gas has an important role to play in complementing low-carbon energy solutions by providing the flexibility needed to support a growing renewables component in power generation.”
As President Obama – whom many of the groups making these claims endorsed in the 2012 presidential election – put it so eloquently in his recent State of the Union address, “the natural gas boom has led to cleaner power and greater energy independence.”
Finally, the argument that the United States is going to export 40 percent of its natural gas supplies as LNG is pure invention.
Consider: the global market for LNG is currently roughly 35 billion cubic feet (BCF) per day. Even if we wanted to ship huge volumes of natural gas abroad, here’s a question for you: Exactly where would we send it? Unlike selling additional tennis shoes to, say, Australia, expanding your sales market for natural gas abroad requires the construction of regasification facilities that collectively will require capital investments of literally hundreds of billions of dollars to make possible.
Oh, and one more thing: The United States isn’t the only country in the world competing for export market share. So even if the world market were to expand to 60 BCF a day by 2025 (which is just one of the numbers being thrown out there right now), we’re still talking about a relatively small market over which dozens of countries will aggressively compete.
In other words, the groups suggesting we’ll export 40 percent of our natural gas supplies overseas in big, splashy New York Times ads are hoping you don’t know 1) how small the world LNG market actually is and 2) that the United States isn’t the only country that will be playing in it.
It’s certainly not news that groups like the Sierra Club, PSEHE, Earthworks, and Food & Water Watch – along with Josh Fox, his mother, and the Incredible Hulk – are trying to convince the public to ignore the facts regarding U.S. natural gas development. It is interesting, however, that they’ve expanded their activism into the realm of exports – which, if this latest ad is any indication, appears to suffer from the same lack of evidence, science, and general awareness of reality that has heretofore been the calling-card of their campaign.
*UPDATE* “100% Renewables” for N.Y. Plan Meets Reality; Reality Wins
A new paper from scientists at Stanford, Cornell, and the University of California at Davis suggests the state of New York could generate all of its energy from three sources: wind, water, and solar. This also includes a large scale shift to hydrogen fuel cells (produced by “excess” renewable power generation) to allow for even New York’s transportation to run on renewable energy sources. But before you say, “That doesn’t sound possible,” don’t worry – other credible voices have already suggested as much.
Steve
Spokesman
UPDATE (4/8/2013; 4:18pm ET): How much would this fairy tale plan for New York cost, even if it weren’t hindered by novel concepts like physics and reality? A whopping $382 billion by 2030, according to calculations done by Bloomberg. It would also require an amount of land equivalent to 13 percent of New York State’s total area, which is an interesting plan to endorse by folks who are opposing responsible shale development partially on the basis that it would overtake New York’s majestic landscape!
As Bloomberg further observes:
The findings cast doubt on the ability of the state to eliminate oil, natural gas and coal from its energy supply. The Cornell proposal would require onshore wind turbines covering an area 3.3 times the size of New York City’s five boroughs.
“It’s too ambitious by 2030 to replace all the state’s power with renewables, although big progress could be made,” Angus McCrone, a senior analyst at Bloomberg New Energy Finance in London, said today. The projections, he said, look “unrealistic” for individual technologies. (emphasis added)
At least it was a fun thought experiment while it lasted, though, right?
—Original post, March 14, 2013—
A new paper from scientists at Stanford, Cornell, and the University of California at Davis suggests the state of New York could generate all of its energy from three sources: wind, water, and solar. This also includes a large scale shift to hydrogen fuel cells (produced by “excess” renewable power generation) to allow for even New York’s transportation to run on renewable energy sources.
But before you say, “That doesn’t sound possible,” don’t worry – other credible voices have already suggested as much. Andy Revkin of the New York Times said the paper’s analysis “works best as a thought experiment” (ouch), given what he deems “monumental hurdles – economic political, regulatory and technical – that would hinder such a shift” away from energy sources like oil and natural gas (among others).
Roger Pielke, Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado and a senior fellow at The Breakthrough Institute (a progressive think tank), says that the authors’ claims of having a technically and economically feasible plan is “dubious empirically,” adding that “people are not going to be reordering society along the lines called for here [in the paper].” It appears Dr. Pielke’s central concern is with the authors’ assumption that, under the plan outlined, energy consumption in New York will actually decrease by 37 percent (!) by 2030, even as the population grows by 2.15 percent. For reasons that should already be obvious, Dr. Pielke called the plan a “fantasy” and the product of “magic thinking.”
Also of note: the list of authors includes none other than Cornell activists Robert Howarth and Anthony Ingraffea, whose own research on natural gas development has been debunked categorically throughout the academic community, including on multiple occasions by the U.S. Department of Energy. The Howarth/Ingraffea “findings” nonetheless serve as a linchpin to this latest study’s conclusions, which of course should raise serious red flags itself.
The lead author, Mark Z. Jacobson of Stanford University, has become something of an impresario of the anti-fracking speaking circuit, and is touted by vocal anti-shale activist (and occasional B-list actor) Mark Ruffalo as “America’s real Bruce Banner.” Two years ago, Dr. Jacobson also decided it would be a worthwhile use of his time to hold a strategy session with Josh Fox and Mark Ruffalo, according to the Huffington Post:
In February, 2011, Jacobson, Fox, Krapels, and Ruffalo brainstormed by phone. A consensus developed quickly — the team agreed that if Jacobson could refine his research to address the specific characteristics of New York State’s natural resources and energy potential, his groundbreaking work could provide the alternative energy plan Ruffalo was determined to identify for his adopted state.
Of course, Ruffalo has played a scientist in the movies before, and Fox has been known to make a few movies of his own, so this collaboration seems entirely reasonable to us.
Let’s be real for just a second: this paper really doesn’t have a whole lot to do with renewables, which, truth be told, continue to see their installation numbers increase owing to the abundance and availability of dispatchable, baseload natural gas. The paper’s entire focus (just look at who its authors are!) is aimed at manufacturing a new talking point in opposition to the development of natural gas from shale in the state. But motivations aside, how good is the actual paper? Below, we take a closer look
Bad Science to Justify Ban on Natural Gas
The plan outlined by Jacobson et. al., requires a complete phase out of natural gas, based primarily on research from Cornell professors Howarth and Ingraffea. From the paper:
“Although natural gas emits less carbon dioxide per unit electric power than coal, two factors cause natural gas to increase global warming relative to coal: higher methane emissions and less sulfur dioxide emissions per unit energy than coal.” (p. 7)
The authors also cite research from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the same research that has been debunked and even cautiously marginalized by the Environmental Defense Fund. We’ve outlined many times before why the methane leak accusation is not grounded in credible science (see here, here, here, here, here, here, and here), but the main takeaway is this: Most research shows a leakage rate of one to two percent, and the EPA’s latest data suggests methane emissions could be 66 percent lower than what the agency had previously estimated (EPA’s best guess for leakage, based on its earlier data, was a little over two percent). We also know that natural gas is reducing carbon emissions and cutting air pollution in the United States.
Thus, opposing natural gas on the basis that it is worsening climate change and harming air quality is not a factual argument; it’s a talking point, and a very bad one at that.
Not content to rely solely on discredited theories about emissions, the authors also claim that “the use of electricity for heating and electric motors is more efficient than is fuel combustion for the same applications,” citing a previous study authored by … themselves.
But heating cost data from the Energy Information Administration show the average fuel price per million Btus for electricity is $34.57, whereas the average price per million Btus for natural gas is $6.01. That makes natural gas more than 80 percent cheaper than electricity.
And according to the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, even an electric water heater that appears to have an efficiency rating of 50 percent higher than a comparable natural gas heater will actually use “much more source energy,” because it takes three times as much energy to deliver a unit of electricity instead of gas.
So natural gas is substantially cheaper and more efficient from a total energy use standpoint, yet the authors of this study want to pretend that electricity is “more efficient”? Since calling for more electric heating also means increasing energy use significantly, how can the authors expect total energy demand to decrease by more than one-third?
Retrofitting or Replacing Everything in New York City
You know all those skyscrapers, bridges and scenic walkways in New York City? The plan would require that nearly all of them be either (a) bulldozed or (b) entirely retrofitted from top to bottom. Mark Delucchi of UC-Davis (one of the co-authors) told the New York Times: “Instead of upgrading, maintaining, and replacing deteriorating existing infrastructure, invest in new infrastructure.”
Are we really to believe the local population will cheerfully allow legions of (taxpayer-funded) construction crews to enter Manhattan, tie up traffic in every direction, and displace millions of people while buildings are retrofitted, revamped, or outright razed? For Pete’s sake: Mayor Bloomberg is facing a big enough backlash from his new plan to ban big sodas!
And you know all those natural gas pipelines that crisscross throughout the city, providing heat to families and businesses? They’re going to have to be decommissioned, dug up, and either replaced or removed altogether. If the skyscraper replace-and-retrofit plan wasn’t already going to turn the city into a big enough construction zone, the pipeline work certainly would.
Plus, it’s worth noting: New York City has stated that “80 percent of the buildings that will exist in 2050 are already here today,” which means any suggestion that the buildings in that city (much less the entire state) can be easily replaced is an argument against social, political, and technological realities.
Renewables Seen Through Rose-Colored Glasses
We all love renewables, and no one wants to stand in the way of technological progress. According to the renewable energy industry itself, shale gas is not only a perfect partner for renewables, it’s also facilitating rapid growth of wind and solar – the same technologies that groups like the Sierra Club and NRDC have invested so much of their time and other people’s money promoting.
But we also love facts, and pretending that you can fit a square peg into a round hole just doesn’t measure up. Unfortunately, that’s what the authors of this latest report are trying to do.
For example, the authors state: “Offshore wind, wave and tidal are in water, and so do not require new land.” The claim that offshore wind turbines “do not require new land” may technically be true from a pure, direct-use, look-only-at-onshore-acreage standpoint. Just don’t tell it to the Kennedys, who seem to have an outsized ability to influence energy discussions in New York. The bigger point is that just because a huge offshore wind turbine isn’t built on land doesn’t mean it has zero impact. Nor is this just aesthetic; building out infrastructure to support the offshore turbines (when they produce energy, that energy has to be sent somewhere) means onshore land disturbance.
There’s also the issue of economic impacts. Aside from the direct, taxpayer-borne cost, an economy-wide shift away from affordable energy sources like oil and natural gas means a lot of hardworking men and women will lose their jobs. In New York specifically, a lot of families upstate have been struggling for a long time because the Governor can’t make up his mind on whether to allow responsible shale development, so one could only imagine the backlash to a declaration banning not only natural gas, but also oil, nuclear, and coal.
The authors claim, however, that renewable power actually creates more jobs than conventional fuels, so the net impact will actually be positive in terms of jobs:
“Even if the current electric utility industry plus mining jobs were lost due to a conversion with the present plan, they would be more than made up by with the 58,000 permanent jobs resulting from the present plan.” (p. 37)
As evidence, the authors cite research showing oil and natural gas create 3.7 jobs for every million dollars spent on those resources, but wind and solar create 9.8 and 9.8 jobs, respectively. When you consider how much more expensive wind and solar are, the math would appear to support the authors, especially if you were to produce (theoretically) the same amount of energy from renewables as projected to be generated by oil and natural gas.
But that also raises a serious and more fundamental problem for the report, as it essentially offers an efficiency argument in favor of natural gas over renewables.
For example, let’s look at electricity production. According to the EIA, the total system levelized cost for a conventional, combined cycle natural gas plant is $66.10 per megawatt-hour. For wind, that price is $96, and for solar it’s more than $150. When you add in the capacity factors (87 percent for natural gas, 33 percent and 25 percent for wind and solar, respectively), you’ll see that spending $1 million on natural gas is going to produce a lot more energy than wind and solar. It also means natural gas is more productive from an energy-produced-per-hours-worked basis.
In other words, the authors are essentially admitting that wind and solar require a much larger portion of the labor force just to produce the same amount of energy – and that energy is also substantially more expensive! In fact, since the authors predict New York’s energy production will decline by more than one-third, the plan they’re advocating actually calls for using greater and greater shares of the available labor force to produce less and less energy.
Kevin Bullis from MIT’s Technology Review, while acknowledging that the theory warrants more study, also offers some words of caution about calls for an immediate, full-scale shift to renewables:
“Another key question about costs has to do with financing. When we’re talking about renewable energy, we’re talking essentially about paying for all of the power we’ll use over the lifetime of a solar panel upfront. The cost savings from efficiency measures also require an upfront investment. The cost and availability of financing will have a big impact on the cost per kilowatt hour of renewable energy, or whether battery-powered vehicles pay for themselves in fuel savings.
“And a big unknown is just how much it will cost to integrate huge amounts of intermittent renewable sources of energy to create reliable power. The New York study gestures to this problem, but the methods proposed are untested on a large scale, and the challenge will vary considerably depend on renewable resources in a given region. In some parts of the world, doldrums set in for entire seasons, making wind power a terrible option.”
Conclusion
As Andy Revkin observed, the study is interesting as a “thought experiment.” So is smoking pot, and watching videos like this. But real world facts contradict the authors’ assertions on too many occasions to think that this plan is a viable and legitimate course to take, for New York or anyone else. The fact that the authors had to use some of the worst research available on natural gas emissions – ignoring the climate and air quality benefits that natural gas is delivering and will continue to deliver in the process – to justify their arguments is perhaps the most revealing part of the whole study.
NGLs Key to America’s Energy Resurgence
A recent report from the Brookings Institution describes natural gas liquids (NGLs) as a “critical component of the industrial sector’s ability to take advantage of the U.S. hydrocarbon resurgence.” After all, these NGLs – such as ethane, butane, and propane – are important feedstocks used by America’s manufacturing industry, used to make everything from shampoo to textiles.
Julia
Researcher
A recent report from the Brookings Institution describes natural gas liquids (NGLs) as a “critical component of the industrial sector’s ability to take advantage of the U.S. hydrocarbon resurgence.” After all, these NGLs – such as ethane, butane, and propane – are important feedstocks used by America’s manufacturing industry, used to make everything from shampoo to textiles.
According to the report:
“If the United States is to realize the full potential in its resurgence as a major hydrocarbon producer, NGLs will play a major role. NGLs production will have a direct impact on the competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers and petrochemical producers and play a significant role in any scenario of domestic self-sufficiency in hydrocarbon liquids.” (p. 12)
The good news is that the U.S. supply of NGLs is both abundant and widespread. Held in shale plays across the United States, NGLs make up a significant portion of U.S. energy production, and are increasingly being sourced from anywhere shale development is occurring. According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), total domestic NGL production has increased by nearly a million barrels per day (mmbd) in less than a decade — from 1.7 mmbd in 2005 to nearly 2.5 mmbd in October 2012. In fact, America’s NGL supply now accounts for around 20 percent of the entire global NGL market (p.4). The following chart appears in the Brookings report:
The benefits of this affordable and American supply are already being realized, too. A 2012 report from Pricewaterhouse Coopers highlighted the significant advantages that increased domestic NGLs provides for America’s manufacturing base, most notably chemicals, which are used in an estimated 90 percent of all manufactured products.
As the supply continues to expand, companies around the world are increasingly choosing to relocate their facilities in the United States, where this abundant NGL supply is matched with affordable natural gas power generation. German chemical company BASF has invested more than $5.7 billion in North America over the last four years, and Phillips 66 — a newly formed spin off of ConocoPhillips — just announced plans to build a new fractionator south of Houston to take advantage of this newfound liquid production. According to E&E News (sub req’d):
“Petroleum output from the Eagle Ford, the Permian Basin, and other shale and tight oil and gas formations located near the Gulf Coast is expected to continue at high levels for decades, prompting companies to locate new petrochemical manufacturing capabilities to the region to take advantage of cheap and abundant feedstock…
“‘We see excellent market-facing opportunities to grow the natural gas liquids business, and the chance to supply purity NGLs and liquefied petroleum gas to the petrochemical industry and heating markets,’ said [Phillips 66] CEO Greg Garland in an email.”
Certainly exciting news for American manufacturers and consumers alike.
Yet, as Brookings warns, the need to keep up demand will be critical to this continued excitement. Just as infrastructure has been delayed for dry natural gas in the Northeast, pipeline and infrastructure delays (due in no small part to government bureaucracy and NIMBY activism) are limiting access to NGLs in the market. Increased pipeline capacity in the Marcellus and Utica regions, according to the study, will be key to continued development.
Of course, Brookings explains another key factor for continued growth:
“Exporting NGLs provide producers an incentive to maintain production of both NGLs and, in turn, dry natural gas. Further, many investors see exports as a critical component to smoothing the price volatility that characterizes the NGL market. more important than the current surge in investments in U.S. manufacturing is the assurance of a predictable supply of NGLs something provided by increase NGL export.” (p.14)
By providing infrastructure for both domestic projects and international exports, the United States will ensure the continued development of this important resource, while also continuing to grow the American economy.
Shale Drives Manufacturing Back to the U.S.
The Washington Post recently highlighted a growing trend that holds great economic promise for the United States. Specifically, the Post noted that European industry is moving to the United States to take advantage of lower energy costs, specifically clean-burning natural gas. Of course, this is just the latest in a series of economic good news attributable to the nation’s growth in oil and natural gas development from shale resources. Little wonder, then, why major U.S. investment banks are declaring that “energy is beginning to carry America.”
JD
Communications Director
The Washington Post recently highlighted a growing trend that holds great economic promise for the United States. Specifically, the Post noted that European industry is moving to the United States to take advantage of lower energy costs, specifically clean-burning natural gas. Of course, this is just the latest in a series of economic good news attributable to the nation’s growth in oil and natural gas development from shale resources. Little wonder, then, why major U.S. investment banks are declaring that “energy is beginning to carry America.”
To exemplify the exodus by European manufacturers, the Post highlighted German chemical company BASF, which has invested more than $5.7 billion in North America over the last four years. According to company representatives, the reason behind this significant investment is pretty straight-forward:
“It’s become clear, with the drop in gas and electricity prices in the United States, that we are, at the moment, at a significant disadvantage with our competitors,”
“It’s a very slow process, but it’s a continuous one,” said Harald Schwager, the head of BASF’s European operations, referring to the manufacturing outflow. “Once a customer of ours decides to build a new factory in the U.S., then this customer will request from us to be close by with our production. And so, over time, you see a self-accelerating process, which will move production into the U.S.”
The reason more companies are placing manufacturing facilities in the United States – after a decade’s worth of decline for the industry – is also fairly simple. Affordable natural gas supplies, made possible through the responsible development of shale. This not only translates into lower feedstock costs for manufacturers like BASF, but it’s also caused wholesale electricity prices in the United States to drop by more than 50 percent since 2008.
For these reasons, BASF’s investments are noteworthy — but they are by no means unique. In fact, Austrian steelmaker Voestalpine recently came to a similar decision when its senior leadership decided to locate a new steel plant in Texas, a decision the company reached after examining 17 sites in eight different countries. In explaining his company’s decision, Dr. Wolfgang Eder noted:
”In the USA, re-industrialization is being promoted very consistently, ambitiously and with great conviction,” Eder told Reuters. “Low energy prices gave us the final – and not insignificant – push.”
Of course, these are just a few examples of a much larger trend that’s being witnessed in communities across the United States. The French oil and gas pipeline company Vallourec has opened multiple steel plants in Youngstown, Ohio, providing over $700 million in economic activity for this once struggling Rust Belt city. At the same time, in Louisiana, the South African based company Sasol is building the nation’s first commercial plant to convert natural gas to liquid fuels, thanks to the United States’ newfound abundance of affordable natural gas. This project, which has been billed as the largest manufacturing investment in Louisiana’s history, is expected to provide nearly $14 billion in economic activity and 7,000 well-paying construction jobs.
All of this activity, and more, has led outlets like NPR to run headlines like: “Cheap Natural Gas Pumping New Life into U.S. Factories.” While it would be easy to dismiss such a headline as anecdotal, recent experience and statements by U.S. executives and federal officials show it is indeed true – and perhaps even an understatement.
Drew Greenbelt, owner of Baltimore based Marlin Steel Wire Products, recently noted his company’s orders are rising because his customers are receiving a widening discount in the price of natural gas and electricity. Specifically, he noted the savings are “making U.S. companies that used to be at a price disadvantage now uniquely positioned to win contracts they never won in the past — or haven’t for a while.” He added: “Everyone talks about what’s going on in North Dakota, but it’s filtering down now to conventional factories throughout America.”
Last year John Surma, chairman of U.S. Steel, observed the following: “It has become clear to me that the responsible development of our nation’s extensive recoverable oil and natural gas resources has the potential to be the once-in-a-lifetime economic engine that coal was nearly 200 years ago.”
The aggregate benefits of these investments to the overall U.S. economy were recognized last year by former Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, who told NBC News: “The economy now is actually looking quite resilient,” before adding that two of the biggest reasons for that development are gains in domestic oil and gas production and domestic manufacturing. “If you look at what’s happening in energy, enormous boom,” Geithner said. “In manufacturing, [the country is having] one of the strongest periods in manufacturing revival that we’ve seen in almost a generation.”
All of this supports a report issued more than a year ago by the global consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers. That study, titled “Shale Gas: a Renaissance in U.S. Manufacturing?” predicted that shale development would save U.S. manufacturers nearly 12 billion dollars per year in energy costs. When combined with increased demand for manufacturing products due to oil and gas development, the result of the U.S. energy boom would be an additional one million U.S. manufacturing jobs by 2025. It’s worth noting this activity is all in addition to the $545 billion in economic activity supported by America’s oil and natural gas industry just last year.
As the discussion about U.S. energy policy and shale development continues, we should remember: Just four years after the onset of one of the deepest recessions in U.S. history, shale development is providing millions of jobs, billions of dollars in new investment, and is breathing new life into a vital sector of our economy. Oh, and did we mention it’s giving us cleaner air, too?
*UPDATE VI* On Shaky Ground
Activists opposed to responsible shale development have seized on an as-yet-unreleased U.S. Geological Survey report as "proof" that the hydraulic fracturing process causes the earth to shake off its axis. The problem, though, is that the U.S. Geological Survey didn't actually make that link.
Steve
Spokesman
UPDATE VI (3/28/13, 10:36am ET): New research published in the journal Geology draws a link between a November 2011 earthquake near Prague, Okla., and wastewater injection wells, which in this instance began receiving wastewater from oil wells in the Hunton field during the 1990s. Those facts alone have been enough for many in the media and blogosphere to leap to the conclusion that hydraulic fracturing was responsible, even though — as we’ve detailed extensively — hydraulic fracturing is not the same thing as wastewater injection.
But the other, much bigger problem for those who clearly chose not to read the report they were reporting on is this: The wastewater from the Hunton oil wells was not a result of hydraulic fracturing. Instead, it was wastewater produced from so-called “conventional” oil wells that were not hydraulically fractured. It may be news to some who try so hard to report accurately on oil and gas development, but wastewater is actually produced from oil and gas wells even if “fracking” is not involved.
Thankfully, some folks who are tasked with covering the energy industry actually took the 20 seconds of research necessary to recognize that fact. The headline at Scientific American explicitly read “not fracking” in relation to what the scientists determined as the cause of the earthquake. The write-up at ScienceDaily carefully explained that wastewater is produced from all kinds of oil and gas production, whether the wells are hydraulically fractured or not, and that the wastewater pumped into the Oklahoma wells was not a byproduct of fracking.
NBC News also ran its own report, which included this careful observation:
Now, a new study published Tuesday in the journal Geology confirms that wastewater injected into the ground after oil extraction caused the quake. The quake is the largest wastewater-induced earthquake ever recorded. The wastewater was from traditional drilling, not the controversial hydraulic fracturing method. (emphasis added)
In that same story, NBC added that “the process that caused the Oklahoma earthquake didn’t involve hydraulic fracturing.”
Bloomberg News also separated fact from fiction: “The wastewater behind the earthquakes came from conventional wells in the Hunton formation, said Katie Keranen, assistant professor at Oklahoma and co-author of the report.” (Bloomberg’s original headline said the research linked the earthquakes to “fracking,” but — much to their credit — it was changed immediately.)
Also of note: The Oklahoma Geological Survey has done research of its own, working with state regulatory officials to determine the cause of the seismic activity. Here’s OGS’s main conclusion:
“The interpretation that best fits current data is that the Prague Earthquake Sequence was the result of natural causes.”
Not that it matters to folks who have an insatiable need to shoehorn the word “fracking” into literally every story about oil and gas development, but that makes two separate reports released in the course of a week that show no link between hydraulic fracturing and the Oklahoma earthquakes. Keep that in mind as you search Google for news on this subject.
UPDATE V (6/18/12, 11:57am ET): The National Research Council, part of the prestigious National Academies, delivered yet another nail in the coffin to the idea that hydraulic fracturing poses a serious risk of causing earthquakes. Late last week, the NRC issued a report that concluded “hydraulic fracturing a well as presently implemented for shale gas recovery does not pose a high risk for inducing felt seismic events.” Instead, the researchers found — like the USGS did a few months ago — that injection wells were more commonly the culprit for induced seismicity (as well as underground carbon capture and storage, or CCS). The other good news is that “only a very small fraction of injection and extraction activities among the hundreds of thousands of energy development sites in the United States have induced seismicity at levels noticeable to the public,” according to the NRC.
The upshot? Hydraulic fracturing does not pose a serious risk of inducing earthquakes, and the seismic events triggered by other processes are typically small and certainly not uprooting trees or shaking office buildings off their foundations.
UPDATE IV (4/23/12, 9:25am ET): The lead author of the USGS report is now directly addressing incorrect media characterizations of the report (like this one, for example), which have all-too-often leaped to the conclusion that the earthquakes observed were linked to hydraulic fracturing. E&E News has a great story (subs. req’d) explaining that frustration, partially excerpted below:
Here are the facts: ‘Fracking’ does not cause big earthquakes. The underground injection of industrial wastewater can, and sometimes does.
Bill Ellsworth is frustrated at how difficult it is getting people to understand this.
The senior U.S. Geological Survey geophysicist is on the cutting edge of new research linking earthquakes to the injection of oil and gas drilling waste (EnergyWire, March 29). But at last week’s earthquake conference here, he seemed to spend as much time trying to resolve the ‘fracking’ confusion as he did explaining his findings.
Earlier this month, he even found himself arguing with a cable news host about what his own research conclusions were.
‘I was greatly surprised to see how words were being used in the press in ways that were inappropriate,’ Ellsworth said as the annual meeting of the Seismological Society of America wrapped up. ‘We don’t see any connection between fracking and earthquakes of any concern to society.’
UPDATE III (4/16/12, 10:59am ET): State geologists from two states have criticized the conclusions made by USGS as a “rush to judgment,” specifically by linking oil and gas development with earthquakes. Colorado state geologist Vince Matthews said in an interview with E&E News (subs. req’d): “It’s unfortunate that they’ve jumped to this conclusion.” Meanwhile, Oklahoma state geologist G. Randy Keller pointed out that opponents of hydraulic fracturing seized on the findings — “There’s not a lot of calm reflection,” he said. In fact, Keller received so many inquiries about the report that he issued a position statement [PDF], which noted that “it is unlikely that all of the earthquakes can be attributed to human activities.” The statement also urged caution in too quickly identifying a link between seismic activity and oil and gas operations: “We consider a rush to judgment about earthquakes being triggered to be harmful to state, public and industry interests.”
UPDATE II (4/12/12, 10:06am ET): The U.S. Department of Interior has weighed in on the topic, according to a story from UPI. Here’s what Interior Department Deputy Secretary David Hayes had to say:
“While it appears likely that the observed seismicity rate changes in the middle part of the United States in recent years are man-made, it remains to be determined if they are related to either changes in production methodologies or to the rate of oil and gas production…We also find that there is no evidence to suggest that hydraulic fracturing itself is the cause of the increased rate of earthquakes.” (emphasis added)
Another part of the UPI story worth highlighting is that Mr. Hayes was not only clear about what is and isn’t causing the earthquakes, but also made sure to ding the media for jumping to conclusions:
Interior Department Deputy Secretary David Hayes said the accuracy of recent media reports on the link between fracking and earthquakes “varied greatly.” The Interior Department notes that, despite recent fervor, temblors associated with wastewater injection were first recorded in the 1960s.
UPDATE (4/12/12, 8:41am ET): A new story from NPR takes a look at the earthquake issue as well, noting in particular that while some people lay the blame for the seismic activity on hydraulic fracturing, the actual source is likely wastewater disposal wells. Bill Ellsworth with the USGS once again slaps down the notion that hydraulic fracturing is causing earthquakes, and quite definitively. Ellsworth says: “We find no evidence that fracking is related to the occurrence of earthquakes that people are feeling. We think that it’s more intimately connected to the wastewater disposal.”
—Original post from April 11, 2012—
Call it a natural consequence of a fundraising and advocacy strategy that’s based on continuously coming up with new and creative ways to scare the hell out of the general public. Last week, the watchword happened to be “earthquakes,” with activists opposed to responsible shale development seizing on an as-yet-unreleased U.S. Geological Survey report as “proof” that the hydraulic fracturing process causes the earth to shake off its axis.
Indeed, for those who are professionals at ginning up scary (and usually false) stories about developing natural gas from shale, the story basically wrote itself. After all, the USGS said the quakes were “almost certainly” man-made, so hydraulic fracturing has to be the culprit… right?
Alarmists certainly thought so. The environmental blog Grist ran with the headline: “Shale shocked: USGS links ‘remarkable increase’ in earthquakes to fracking.” Meanwhile, Earthworks activist Sharon Wilson wrote about the “fracking earthquakes” on her blog, linking directly to an Environmental Working Group “analysis” of the USGS findings.
The problem, though, is that the U.S. Geological Survey didn’t actually make that link.
In fact, the lead author of the USGS report, Bill Ellsworth, has made it pretty clear that the findings do not link hydraulic fracturing to earthquakes. As the Associated Press reported earlier this week: “Ellsworth said Friday he is confident that fracking is not responsible for the earthquake trends his study found, based on prior studies.”
To make sure that point was made loud and clear, Ellsworth also appeared on CNBC this week to discuss the question of whether there is a link between hydraulic fracturing and seismic activity. Again, his answer was an unequivocal ‘no’ (start at the 10:23 mark):
BRIAN SULLIVAN: Bill Ellsworth, looking at a very reputable site right now on the web, I’m not going to say it by name because, listen, we all make mistakes. His executive summary point is geologists have made direct links between fracking and recent earthquakes. That sounds like you’re saying that is completely an incorrect statement.
BILL ELLSWORTH: It is incorrect. What we’ve found is there is a link between disposal of waste water and earthquakes. And in many of these cases, it’s been fixed by either shutting down the offending well or reducing the volume that’s being produced. So there are really straight-forward fixes to the problem when earthquakes begin to occur. (emphasis added)
(For his part, former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson (D) said earlier in that CNBC segment: “That connection [between hydraulic fracturing and earthquakes] has not been established.” Richardson, who also served as Secretary of the Department of Energy under President Bill Clinton, also criticized opponents of simply trying to find a “gotcha statement” to advance a political agenda. Well said, Governor.)
This follows what Bill Leith — with the Earthquake Hazards Program in the U.S. Geological Survey — said in an NPR interview late last year and as reported by the Washington Times: “The fracking itself probably does not put enough energy into the ground to trigger an earthquake,” Leith said, who has also noted that the culprit appears to be wastewater wells. For some additional context, wastewater wells aren’t just used by the oil and gas industry, but by just about every other significant industry in the country.
But why let such inconvenient facts get in the way of spinning yet another frightening narrative about hydraulic fracturing upending the natural order of the world? Indeed, as the largest newspaper in Oklahoma observed, the opposition didn’t even need the USGS to issue a “gotcha statement,” because their premise is that correlation trumps causation:
“For the anti-fossil fuel activists, the two things can’t be separated. Earthquakes are increasing. Fracking is increasing. Ergo, fracking is causing earthquakes. To stop the earthquakes, we must stop the fracking!”
Indeed, it may be a lot of things to use the recent USGS findings to link hydraulic fracturing and earthquakes — convenient, sensational, and even scary.
Factual, however, is something it definitely is not.
Shale Development in Michigan Confirms Safety of Hydraulic Fracturing
Open spaces are best preserved when landowners, including the state itself, are able to generate economic rent to pay the holding costs associated with that land. In Michigan, the Antrim Shale experience demonstrates, perhaps better than any other, the positive impact that the partnership between the natural gas industry and landowners has on water quality and overall land preservation.
Erik
Field Director, Michigan
“Located in the northern lower peninsula of Michigan, the Au Sable is known for its high water quality, scenery, recreational opportunities, cold-water fishery, and historic and cultural significance. It may just be the finest brown trout fly-fishing east of the Rockies.”
That line appears as a description of the Au Sable River on the website for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System, speaking to the condition of this river that drains much of Michigan’s Antrim Shale region. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality notes “since the 1960s, more than 12,000 wells have been hydraulically fractured [in the state]. Most of these are Antrim Shale Formation gas wells in the northern Lower Peninsula.”
This relationship is no accident. Open spaces are only preserved when landowners, including the state itself, are able to generate economic rent to pay the holding costs associated with that land. Natural gas development from the Antrim Shale, made possible by hydraulic fracturing, allows landowners to keep land as open space because of the income generated from activities occurring primarily beneath the surface; beneath the open space. The alternative is more development on the surface, with all the associated added impacts. The Antrim Shale experience demonstrates, perhaps better than any other, the positive impact that the partnership between the natural gas industry and landowners has on water quality.
Antrim Shale natural gas production is found in the northern-third of the Lower Peninsula, primarily in Antrim, Kalkaska, Crawford, Oscoda, Otsego and Montmorency Counties. Major parts of the last four are located within the Au Sable River watershed, depicted below.
The Au Sable River is designated as a “blue ribbon fishery.” Yet, it’s also been the location of incredible amounts of natural gas development over a period of decades, including the headwaters of the Au Sable River. A full-scale version of map for the entire county (which may be expanded for better readability) may be found here.
In the map below, each large square is a square mile (640 acres) and each small square is a 40-acre unit. Indeed, the entire headwaters area of the Au Sable River in Otsego County is peppered with natural gas wells, although few of the visitors to the area ever notice them. There are an estimated 3,500-4,000 producing wells in the Au Sable River basin, according to DNR, and it is considered fully developed.
There are roughly 500-600 wells depicted on this map, or roughly 6-7 wells per square mile on average for both developed and undeveloped areas. These vertical wells were generally developed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, before advances in horizontal drilling technology made it economic to utilize it in the Antrim Shale.
The development of the Antrim Shale began with 40 acre units (one well per 40 acres) but was increased to 80 acre units as more efficient drainage occurred due to advances in hydraulic fracturing. The utilization of modern horizontal (lateral) drilling methods has reduced the number of wells needed to efficiently produce from a given area to one well per 640 acres, or, more accurately, a development unit size of 640 acres.
In some cases, such the State Excelsior 3-25 well in Kalkaska County, a unit size of 1,280 acres is utilized. The State Excelsior 3-25 well has an approximately 10,400-foot (nearly 2 miles long) horizontal wellbore that efficiently produces from this large unit. Essentially, the longer the horizontal portion of a well – the lateral leg – the better, as greater access to the producing formation reduces the number of wells needed to efficiently recover the oil and/or natural gas from the area. Not only that, but now numerous horizontal wells can be placed on the same well pad, even further reducing overall impacts.
The use of horizontal drilling and multi-well pads addresses the very issue opponents of Antrim development were concerned about several years ago – ‘fragmentation’ of natural habitat by well pads and their related activities!
There’s something else different about these Antrim wells, however, that’s worth mentioning. The typical well is about 2,000 feet deep, sometimes less. The water table can be very close to the surface, extending to a depth of perhaps only 600-700 feet, meaning there is often less than 1,000 feet of rock separating the hydraulic fracturing operation and the water table.
Keep this map in mind as you consider these evaluations of the Au Sable watershed water quality (emphasis added):
“Water quality in the Au Sable River is generally good, owing primarily to the limited amount of development within the basin.”
Source: Au Sable River Assessment, 2001
“Groundwater quality is generally excellent throughout the watershed, although a number of localized areas have been adversely affected by past and present human activities.”
Source: Au Sable River Assessment, 2001
“Highly stable water flows of very high quality water may be the single most significant trait of the Au Sable River. The coarse sand-gravel composition of the watershed allows rapid infiltration of water and tends to level precipitation into a steady groundwater contribution to stream flow…In addition to a stable flow, the water quality of the Au Sable River system is very high when compared to other rivers in the state. Using the standardized Water Quality Index, the Au Sable River at its mouth is shown to average 85.9…Figure I shows this average compares very favorably with other rivers in Michigan.”
Source: Au Sable Natural River Plan, 1987 (Updated 2002)
“Those involved with the development of the Au Sable Watershed Management Plan recognize the resource is of very high quality, the stakeholders are many and varied and development pressure within the watershed will continue to increase.”
Source: Upper Au Sable River Watershed Management Plan, 2008
“The Au Sable River is an awesome fishery. Trophy brown trout, ‘screamin’ rainbows, dainty brook trout, and acrobatic steelhead are caught in good numbers each year. Hatches are extremely prolific and will challenge those of the Delaware River in New York State. Anglers come to this river for more then just its great angling as it is also a beautiful and serene river. The Michigan woods is home to a diversity of wildlife from hawks and eagles to deer and bear.”
Source: Flyfishingconnection.com
There are four final things worth observing here:
- The Au Sable River is fed by groundwater, and if that groundwater had been polluted by natural gas development, including hydraulic fracturing (virtually all the gas wells in the Antrim Shale were stimulated/completed using this technique), that degradation would be reflected in the stream quality. But it’s not.
- Threats to water quality in this region have come from residential development, particularly second homes – not natural gas. In fact, natural gas development, as a complementary secondary use of many properties, including lands owned by the state itself, has been a source of economic rent to keep those lands in open space, as we detailed in an earlier post.
- Current horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing methods have allowed hydrocarbon resources to be captured in a manner that impacts dramatically less surface area than ever before, which is exactly what the opposition to Antrim Shale development of yesteryear wanted.
- Finally, all these observations – water has not been ruined, surface disturbance has been greatly reduced – came after a period of fairly intense natural gas development in Michigan, including the use of hydraulic fracturing – and at only a fraction of the depth below the water table.
Opponents will claim it’s much different now, but – as usual – they’re mistaken. The only thing “new” is the increased use of horizontal drilling, which significantly increases hydrocarbon capture efficiency and effectiveness. That, in turn, means even less surface disturbance. In fact, horizontal wells being utilized today yield 3.2 times more natural gas per unit than vertical wells, and they generate less wastewater per cubic foot of gas produced than so-called conventional wells.
That means more natural gas produced with less surface impact and less water use. A nice combination, for sure.
Horizontal drilling combined with hydraulic fracturing is safe, and the history of responsible development from the Antrim Shale here in Michigan proves it.
Court Records in Natural Gas Case Reveal No Health Impacts
While some media outlets fairly reported a story about the release of court records in a fabled and now settled case in Southwest Pennsylvania, others painted a picture of hidden contamination from hydraulic fracturing. The only thing being hidden, however, is what was ignored: the fact the plaintiffs agreed their health had not been impacted as they had previously alleged.
Tom
Campaign Manager, EID-Marcellus
Cross-posted from EID-Marcellus.
While some media outlets fairly reported a story about the release of court records in a fabled and now settled case against some natural gas companies operating in Southwest Pennsylvania, others painted a picture of hidden contamination from hydraulic fracturing. The only thing being hidden, however, is what was left out of the story by some of these outlets: the fact the plaintiffs agreed their health had not been impacted as they had alleged.
We cannot help but notice the varied ways media outlets have reported the story about the release of court records in the case where the Hallowich family (the plaintiffs) sued Range Resources, MarkWest Energy Partners and Williams/Laurel Mountain Midstream, three natural gas companies, over alleged contamination of their air and water. The case was settled in 2011 and the court records were sealed at the joint request of the plaintiffs and defendants.
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, among others, challenged the sealing of the records. Upon their release, the newspaper produced a story that left out the central fact: the plaintiffs recanted their claims of having their lived ruined and health compromised. Contrast this with the story from its competitor, the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, which was headlined “Washington County Couple Collects $750K Settlement in Fracking Case with No Medical Evidence to Support Health Claims,” which speaks for itself. It was likewise for the Associated Press, which noted: ”The documents released Wednesday also show the Hallowichs agreed there was no medical evidence that drilling harmed their health or their children’s health.”
StateImpact Pennsylvania, however, filed a recent post headlined Drilling Companies Agree to Settle Fracking Contamination Case for $750,000 that, without explicitly saying so, implied some secret settlement had hidden away supposed contamination resulting from hydraulic fracturing. They, too, never mentioned the reversal of the bigger story. Nonetheless, they did highlight the key points in their released version of the records themselves, and provided any interested reader with all the facts – if they were willing to dig for them.
Bloomberg News reported on the release by issuing a very detailed (and biased) story that failed to mention two DEP studies finding no evidence to support the plaintiff claims. Bloomberg, like the Post-Gazette and StateImpact, failed to mention the affidavit where the plaintiffs reversed their position, offering in its place the following:
In disputes from Wyoming to Texas to Pennsylvania, gas drillers have often demanded homeowners keep quiet about their complaints in exchange for buying their properties, delivering fresh water or paying out a settlement. Without the information about those individual cases, health and environmental groups say they can’t assess the risks of fracking.
Bloomberg also included a “Serious Allegations” subtitle and quote from EarthJustice, as if it was the seriousness of the charge and not the truth that mattered. The truth is a much different story, as it turns out and it’s not really all that new. There is no evidence in the record or elsewhere suggesting a link between any well or operation of Range, MarkWest or Williams and any purported contamination.
DEP Letter Showed No Contamination from Outset
The facts are easily obtainable from documents we’ve previously published. Indeed, we published the facts back in September 2010, some two and a half years ago, in the form of a letter from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Hallowich case. The most basic fact may be taken from this two sentences from the beginning of the letter (emphasis added):
Therein, you allege that Range Resources has contaminated the supply and are requesting that DEP issue an order to the company for the replacement/restoration of the supply. After a review of the information, including primarily water analyses, we cannot affirm your conclusions.
There are another two sentences in the concluding paragraphs that confirm DEP’s position:
In summary, we question your conclusions about the contamination problems to the Hallowich water supply. The only parameter that is clearly above the MCL is manganese, and we cannot clearly link it to the drilling of the Range Resources gas well. Therefore, DEP cannot issue a water supply replacement/restoration order to Range Resources.
These two statements are just the beginning. The plaintiffs accused Range and other companies of contaminating their well, but the evidence they supplied didn’t ultimately change the facts, and the settlement they received was anything but a validation of their claims; it actually served to invalidate them.
The StateImpact Pennsylvania post includes access to the basic court documents, some 971 pages, and helpfully highlights certain key points, although it focused a great deal of attention on the plaintiffs’ claims. The very brief article also includes this paragraph:
StateImpact Pennsylvania has obtained the newly available documents and we’ve posted all 971 pages below. The Hallowich family sued the gas drillers after they say nearby drilling activity, including compressor stations, made their children sick. The mother, Stephanie Hallowich became an outspoken critic of gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale. But the final settlement imposed a strict gag order on the Hallowich family, as well as the gas drilling companies. The Hallowich family has since moved from their home.
Plaintiffs Admit No Health Impacts
The reader is subtlety led by this phraseology to the conclusion the accusation must be accurate because the gas companies settled and then secured a “gag order” to keep the whole thing secret. This narrative is belied by what is later highlighted but not discussed in the post; the words of the plaintiffs themselves from an affidavit they signed in settling the case. Here is the relevant part (emphasis added):
Plaintiffs, Stephanie and Chris Hallowich, hereby submit the following affidavit and attest that:
1. With respect to Plaintiff minors’ alleged claims mvolve nuisance and personal injury claims, there is presently no medical evidence that these symptoms are definitively related to any exposure to the activities of Defendants set forth in Plaintiffs’ [Complaint].
2. The minors have alleged claims for nuisance and personal injury in connection with Defendants’ business operations. There is presently no medical evidence supporting that these claims related to any exposure to Defendants’ business operations as set forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaint.See Exhibit A. And presently, the minors are healthy and have no symptoms that may allegedly be related to Defendants’ business operations.
3. Based upon the facts and circumstances of the case and on behalf of our minor children, we believe and certify that the proposed settlement. as set forth in the Petition, is reasonable and fair.
If you thought a plaintiffs’ admission their complaints were false might be relevant to this story, you’re not alone. Unfortunately, some of our friends in the media operate from a different perspective, where it is the significance of the initial charge that matters, not its validity or expiration date. The StateImpact website, to be fair, did highlight those portions of the court records and provided readers access to all the facts, but gave them no attention in the post itself. The reader only learns of the plaintiffs’ rejection of their own claims after reading through the PDF notes or more than 200 pages of the court documents. Journalism, by some media standards, apparently means putting your reader to the test, rather than simply telling the complete story to the reader.
Other Facts Ignored by Some Media Outlets
These were hardly the only relevant facts ignored by some of the errant media outlets. For example, the “gag order” mentioned far and wide about the case? It was at the mutual request of the parties, including Range Resources, other defendants and the plaintiffs. Given the fact the plaintiffs admitted their complaint was baseless, it’s not hard to imagine why they might have appreciated keeping that affidavit sealed.
The plaintiffs also repeatedly asserted their water supply had been contaminated with elements known as acrylonitrile and styrene, but the DEP analysis evaluated those allegations and found them to be baseless. Here are the relevant excerpts from their letter (emphasis added):
The RT report mentions an impact from acrylonitrile. Again, only the “Hunt” sample reports a number, and RT’ s sampling did not detect this compound. The report identifies acrylonitrile as a possible constituent of the liner and suggests the latter as the cause because there are no other sources in the area. Acrylonitrile is used in the manufacture of plastics, glues, pesticides, ABS pipe (common drain line pipe used in homes; the “A” in ABS stands for acrylonitrile ), synthetic rubber, acrylics, carpets, dinnerware, food containers, toys, luggage, automotive parts, appliance, telephones, among others. It can also be washed from the air by rain and then enter the groundwater system. There is a plastic rock which has been placed over the water well and could be leaching contaminants into the ground during rainfall events, which interestingly enough is when Mrs. Hallowich reports that the acrylonitrile values seem to increase based upon on-going sampling that apparently has been occurring. Unfortunately, a sample could not be taken of the pit contents by RT, which could have helped to determine whether or not acrylonitrile might be leaching from the liner. It should also be noted that there is no established drinking water MCL for this compound, either by DEP or EPA.
…
Concerning styrene, only one of the two analyses reports this contaminant in the Hallowich supply and this at an undetermined concentration. RT’s [the plaintiffs' water testing laboratory] own sampling did not measure any styrene at the reported detection level. How styrene might be related to gas well drilling is not clear. However, the water lines in the Hallowich household, as well as from the water well to the house, are PVC which contains styrene.
Then, there is the interesting matter of what came first. The aforementioned DEP letter states the following (emphasis added):
As a bit of background, the Range gas well in question was drilled in July of 2007. The Hallowich water well was installed in October, 2007. In addition, Range constructed a lined, centralized fresh water impoundment near the Hallowich home in the summer of 2007.
A general problem in reaching conclusions about the source of any Hallowich water supply contamination is the lack of a pre-drill analysis of the water source prior to the drilling of the Range gas well. We acknowledge that the water supply was not installed until after the gas well was drilled, but we are unable to document the quality of the aquifer prior to the drilling of the gas well. Moreover, the results taken at a neighboring property (163 Avella Road), which is also close to the gas well, only shows a lead problem; the other four parameters are either non-detect or within drinking water standards. Mrs. Hallowich alleges that the drilling of the gas well polluted the aquifer. As the following will demonstrate, we are lacking any direct evidence to prove this assertion.
The plaintiffs drilled their water well after gas companies had already established their operations on adjoining properties. According to the court records, the Hallowichs purchased the property in June 2005 and had framed in a home by May 2007, but allege they were unaware that it had been subdivided from another sold to the gas companies for purposes of natural gas development. Apparently, we are supposed to believe the plaintiffs purchased a property, didn’t bother reading the deed, and were completely unaware there was natural gas development occurring around them as they built their home – even though they were a leaseholder!
Washington County Courthouse
As the Observer-Reporter notes: ”The amount, and the fact that the Hallowiches retained oil and gas rights to the property, was part of the public record of the transfer tax on the property.” So, we have plaintiffs who claim surprise and property value devastation over having natural gas wells and associated infrastructure nearby, but who simultaneously insisted on retaining their mineral rights and royalties. Pardon me, but it sounds like they were keenly aware of their gas lease. They are also, obviously, well aware of the resource extraction activity all around them, as Mrs. Hallowich works for a health and safety services provider to the mining industry.
Which Is It?
Hallowiches’ concern for the health and safety of her children is, no doubt, sincere. But she has spun two different stories in that regard: the one she has told numerous media outlets and special interest groups (from National Geographic to the BBC to PennEnvironment, the folks who tried to peddle a photo of a flooded Pakistani drilling rig as evidence of problems in Pennsylvania), and the one she told the court. First, as a plaintiff, she claimed their “property has been the subject of chronic, ongoing, and unceasing environmental contamination (both water and air)” (see p. 67 of court records). Then, on July 25, 2011, she swears in the above affidavit “there is presently no medical evidence supporting that these claims.” And yet, she subsequently allowed her name to be added to this “List of the Harmed” indicating her family suffered “burning eyes, sore throats and other symptoms.”
Which is it? When were the plaintiffs telling the truth? Given the fact the affidavit was effectively supplied under oath, one presumes that’s the real story, but some media outlets didn’t choose to contrast the before and after. Perhaps the plaintiffs will ask for a correction of the List of the Harmed. Perhaps these outlets will expand their stories to provide the necessary background and perspective. One can always hope. Certainly they should, as the DEP did studies of air quality in the immediate vicinity of the facilities adjacent to the plaintiffs’ property over five weeks in 2010 and found this (p. 21):
Even though constituents of natural gas and other associated target compounds were detected, the screening results found during the five-week study, did not indicate a potential for major air-related health issues associated with the Marcellus Shale natural gas activities.
That makes two DEP studies, one of water and one of air, that both found exactly what the plaintiffs admitted in 2012 – there was no evidence to support their originalclaims.
So, settling up, if you will: We have a story of a baseless claim that generated untold publicity for the plaintiffs and the multiplicity of special interests using them as token victims. The gas companies, meanwhile, got 10 acres of property and a home Trulia.com says is still worth $303,094, although the Hallowich’s listed it for $500,000 at one point. Here is how the story is reported by the Star-Telegram:
According to a 2010 National Geographic report, Pitzarella said Range made a verbal offer to buy the Hallowich property for around $200,000, based on a real estate agent’s assessment of fair market value. The Hallowiches, who have since moved from their house, had put it on the market for close to $500,000.
Of the $750,000 paid, nearly $600,000 went to the family, including trust accounts of $10,000 for each of the couple’s two small children.
The settlement says the children’s “alleged claims involve nuisance and personal injury. There is presently no medical evidence that support that these claims are related to any exposure to the activities of defendants as set forth in plaintiff’s complaint.”
The family’s lawyer received 20 percent of the settlement, or $150,000, plus $5,179.63 in expenses.
The Hallowiches, in other words, got something on the order of $600,000 after paying their attorneys, and it wasn’t to compensate them for medical damages they experienced, but, rather, unrestricted funds, as they acknowledged there were no medical bills to pay or reason to have incurred them. Rather, it reflected little more than what they thought their property was worth. Sounds like it was, in fact, a good deal for all parties, and what made it all possible for the plaintiffs and their friends was the affidavit some outlets won’t talk about – the hidden story that should be told, but is ironically sealed beneath the weight of inconvenience.
Sierra Club: We Need and Oppose Natgas
Last year at the Wall Street Journal ECO:nomics conference, Paul Gallay of Riverkeeper stood up and proclaimed a litany of falsehoods about shale development, ranging from claims about smog to benzene concentrations – all of which he said were “facts,” even though they were not. Perhaps in keeping with that tradition, another prominent anti-shale voice – Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Sierra Club – appeared at the conference this year.
Steve
Spokesman
Last year at the Wall Street Journal ECO:nomics conference, Paul Gallay of Riverkeeper stood up and proclaimed a litany of falsehoods about shale development, ranging from claims about smog to benzene concentrations – all of which he said were “facts,” even though they were not. Perhaps in keeping with that tradition, another prominent anti-shale voice – Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Sierra Club – appeared at the conference this year, choosing to make his own series of incorrect (albeit less inflammatory) claims about natural gas.
Before we look at Mr. Brune’s claims, however, it’s worth reminding everyone: The Sierra Club’s position on natural gas is based on ad hoc expediency, not environmental principle. What the national chapter says about natural gas or hydraulic fracturing could be (and often is) the exact opposite of what a state affiliate says to the local news media. In that sense, we all should take Mr. Brune’s latest pronouncements with a grain of salt, lest the Sierra Club’s position tomorrow contradict its Executive Director’s statements today (or yesterday, as is the case here — you get the picture).
–
BRUNE: “We acknowledge that gas is playing — or will play a role in the future as we begin to de-carbonize the power sector…If you had had, and you probably did have folks up on stage five, six, seven years ago you would have had most environmentalists arguing that gas is an important transition fuel, a bridge fuel. And that was based on the assessment that gas, when it’s burned, burns with about half the greenhouse gas emissions compared to coal. And that is still true when gas is burned.” (1:10)
FACT: As odd as it may sound, we’ll admit it: Michael Brune of the Sierra Club is correct. That he’s so forthright about the fact that, just a few years ago, environmentalists were pro-gas is laudable – though it also underscores the problem that today’s opponents of natural gas face. We know credible science still maintains that life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions from natural gas are about half those of coal, so what gives? We’ll get to that in a minute.
BRUNE: “But what we’ve learned over the past five, six, seven years is that the process of extracting natural gas through fracking is much more carbon intensive than previously thought.” (1:30)
FACT: Interestingly, in the course of his remarks, Brune said the most comprehensive study to date on the greenhouse gas impact of natural gas is from the EPA, which estimates that methane leakage is 2.4 percent (in the public discussion about the relative GHG impact of natural gas systems, the topic has primarily been about methane, not carbon).
However, Brune did acknowledge – and rightfully so – that EPA’s data is old and unreliable. What he did not acknowledge is that, based on EPA’s latest GHG inventory, the leakage rate is only about 1.2 percent, or 50 percent less than the EPA estimated. That matches the findings of a study done last summer by URS Corporation, which had a sample size ten times larger than EPA’s and found that emissions were “at least 53 percent lower” than what EPA said they were. Other studies from the U.S. Department of Energy and MIT (and even a study funded by the Sierra Club) have observed that the life-cycle GHG profile of natural gas is roughly half that of coal, which means it’s still in line with what we knew about the relative benefits of natural gas back when environmental groups were singing its praises.
So what has changed? Well, for one, the price of natural gas is a fraction of what it was a half-decade ago, and folks at the Sierra Club want us all to think that’s a threat to the growth of renewables. But since it clearly is not, they have to inflate fears and manufacture storylines about “new science” on environmental impacts. Although, in the case of the Sierra Club, even they have funded studies that contradict their own (new) position. But we repeat ourselves.
BRUNE: “So the fact that we are developing an energy transition that is relying on a fuel – natural gas – about which we have incomplete information about the climate impacts should scare everybody.” (2:50)
FACT: We don’t have incomplete information. The EPA, the Department of Energy (on multiple occasions, including the National Renewable Energy Laboratory), the IPCC, MIT, Carnegie Mellon (paid for by Sierra Club), the University of Maryland, and countless other experts have all observed the life-cycle GHG impact of natural gas is 50 percent less than coal. The only thing “incomplete” is the justification that folks at the Sierra Club are using to suggest the science isn’t settled.
In addition, it’s fitting that Brune chose to say his claim should “scare everybody,” because that’s the essence of the anti-shale playbook. If the public isn’t scared, then they won’t handcuff themselves to the White House gates, and they certainly won’t listen to the Sierra Club when it invents terms like “LNG Fracking.”
BRUNE: “There are some technologies – green completions at the wellhead can do a great to minimize the amount of methane leakage. We can repair and replace natural gas pipelines all across the country and significantly reduce the amount of leakage coming from the transmission system.” (3:22)
FACT: Once again, we have to admit that we agree with Michael Brune here. Problems can and indeed should be fixed. The good news is that the technologies Brune outlined are already being adopted at a much faster rate than what most folks previously thought, according to researchers at MIT.
It’s also good to hear that the Sierra Club recognizes the ability to fix problems instead of merely declaring their existence as a justification to do something else, such as a radical and taxpayer-funded shift away from base load power sources.
BRUNE: “Every billion dollars that’s invested in new gas, fracking, oil pipelines, coal plants is a billion dollars better invested in solar and wind and energy efficiency.” (3:59)
FACT: First of all, the companies investing in natural gas and hydraulic fracturing are unlikely to surrender that capital to another entity to invest in technologies in which they have little or no expertise. Telling a company that it cannot proceed with development doesn’t mean the money that would have been invested goes into some public treasury fund to be dispersed by the bureaucrats – or even worse, the Sierra Club. It simply means the jobs and economic opportunity that development would have facilitated will instead be sacrificed for good.
Second, the premise of Brune’s statement – investing in natural gas means not investing in renewables – simply isn’t true. The reality is that renewables need available, base load power to grow, so investing in natural gas provides the conduit for technologies like wind and solar to flourish. Don’t believe us? Ask the solar and wind industries – which Brune ironically wants to promote at the expense of the industry they both need to grow!
BRUNE: “Our primary goal, from a climate perspective, should be to use as little gas as possible while we’re also phasing out of coal.” (5:35)
FACT: In a world where cause and effect do not exist, the “phasing out of coal” can be achieved without natural gas. In the real world – where most of us reside – the reason coal is losing market share is because of natural gas. Brune is pretending that the cause for the recent shift away from coal is unimportant, and that the effect – less coal use – is some sort of organic, random occurrence that creates a void to be filled.
In classic Sierra Club fashion, Brune’s statement also directly contradicts what happened in Wisconsin, where a switch from coal to natural gas was called “long overdue” by the Sierra Club, and something that would yield significant benefits in terms of public health and reduced emissions.
–
In conclusion, we’ll just caution our readers one more time: Everything Mr. Brune said at the ECO:nomics conference about natural gas should be viewed with skepticism — not just because it was so often at odds with the facts, but because the Sierra Club has an evolving — or perhaps devolving — position on natural gas.
*UPDATE III* EPA Data Show 66 Percent Drop in Methane Emissions from Oil and Gas
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s latest report on greenhouse gases (GHGs) shows a significant drop in methane emissions from natural gas development, as compared to EPA’s prior data. The latest reporting from EPA suggests methane emissions from petroleum and natural gas systems were 82.6 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent in 2011. Last year, EPA’s GHG Inventory – which assessed data for 2010 – estimated that natural gas systems alone emitted more than 215 million metric tons, while petroleum systems added another 31 million metric tons.
Steve
Spokesman
UPDATE III (3/20/2013; 9:06am ET): Our friends at the American Gas Association have done some calculations on methane leakage rates based upon EPA’s latest data and information available from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The result is a leakage rate far lower than what the EPA had previously estimated (2.4 percent). As AGA explains:
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently released its annual GHG inventory public review draft, estimating that only 1.2 percent of produced natural gas is emitted to the atmosphere from wellhead to burner tip, and showing that leaks have been overestimated by more than 50 percent. Natural gas utilities invest billions of dollars each year on infrastructure to help ensure safe and reliable service. These continued investments will help decrease the level of emissions further.
According to an analysis by the Environmental Defense Fund (published last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences), natural gas offers climate benefits if the methane leakage rate is kept below 3.2 percent for power generation, and below 1.6 percent for vehicles. Although the AGA was estimating “from wellhead to burner tip,” the fact that the leakage rate is 50 percent less than what EPA had previously manufactured from old data is reassuring, as it suggests the industry has completed a much more rapid transition to cleaner and more efficient technologies.
UPDATE II (3/11/2013; 2:01pm ET): Yet another reminder of how bad EPA’s previous data was with respect to methane emissions: Devon Energy, a major natural gas producer in the United States, is withdrawing from EPA’s Natural Gas STAR Program. Devon observes that the EPA “irresponsibly and inaccurately” used data collected from the program to justify additional regulations on the industry. From the letter Devon sent to Roger Fernandez, the program’s team lead:
“…information provided in good faith by Devon and other operators has been irresponsibly and inaccurately used to justify costly regulations, taint policy research and, most recently, to provide the basis for the notice by seven northeastern states that they intend to sue EPA to require new methane emission standards for the exploration and production sector. Specifically, EPA has used Natural Gas STAR reported volumes for gas captured to represent gas that would otherwise be emitted. This is a seriously flawed misuse of the data that Natural Gas STAR program professionals should recognize, but have apparently made no effort to call to the attention of other groups within EPA.”
So, not only was the EPA using flawed data, it was also misusing the data actually provided in good faith by the industry (and not invented by EPA computer models).
UPDATE (2/9/2013; 10:45am ET): Bloomberg has granted our request for a headline correction, which now reads “Oil, Gas Production Among Top Greenhouse-Gas Sources.”
—Original post, February 7, 2013—
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s latest report on greenhouse gases (GHGs) shows a significant drop in methane emissions from natural gas development, as compared to EPA’s prior data. The latest reporting from EPA suggests methane emissions from petroleum and natural gas systems were 82.6 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent in 2011. Last year, EPA’s GHG Inventory – which assessed data for 2010 – estimated that natural gas systems alone emitted more than 215 million metric tons, while petroleum systems added another 31 million metric tons.
Taken together, EPA’s latest data on petroleum and natural gas suggest a 66 percent decline in methane emissions from the agency’s prior estimates. Here are some other noteworthy findings from EPA:
- Oil and natural gas systems now emit fewer methane emissions than waste facilities, which include landfills and water treatment plants.
- NOTE: EPA previously said petroleum and natural gas systems “are the largest source of CH4 [methane] emissions from industry in the United States.” That obviously has changed.
- Total GHG emissions from petroleum and natural gas systems are roughly ten times smaller than the largest source: power plants.
- Emissions from power plants declined from 2010 to 2011, due in large part to the increased use of natural gas.
- Overall GHG emissions in the United States declined by about three percent from 2010 to 2011.
It is worth noting, however, that it’s difficult to make an exact apples-to-apples comparison between EPA’s previous estimates of total methane emissions from oil and gas and the data released this week. The agency’s latest data represent “85-90 percent of total U.S. GHG emissions,” according to the EPA, as they exclude smaller sources in the existing categories. The data also exclude agriculture, which can be a significant source of methane: EPA’s prior inventory of GHGs, released in 2012, showed enteric fermentation from livestock and manure management were two of the top five sources of methane in the United States.
Nevertheless, the bigger picture is certainly good news: greenhouse gas emissions are falling in the United States, led in part by an affordable and abundant fuel like natural gas. And given all of the attention on methane emissions, it’s great to see that the current data suggest a significant decline from the agency’s previous estimate.
Of course, you’d probably never know many of these facts if you accepted the media’s take on EPA’s data.
E&E News said the report revealed “massive methane emissions” from the oil, natural gas, and coal sectors, identifying only the methane-as-CO2-equivalent number for petroleum and natural gas systems – 82.6 million metric tons. As mentioned above, 82.6 million metric tons is two-thirds less than EPA’s prior estimate, some helpful context that was unfortunately ignored. Scientific American re-posted the E&E story, adding that methane emissions are “on the rise” in the United States, apparently unaware of the actual data related to oil and natural gas.
A separate piece for E&E led with the statement that petroleum and natural gas systems “accounted for 40 percent of the methane emissions reported to the U.S. EPA in 2011.” Again, no mention of the drop in EPA’s estimates, nor the acknowledgment that landfills, treatment plants, and other waste facilities had overtaken oil and gas with higher methane emissions.
But the worst offender was Bloomberg, which ran with the headline, “Fracking Seen by EPA as No. 2 Emitter of Greenhouse Gases” – a demonstrably false characterization. (That’s disappointing, too; the story that followed the bogus headline was actually decently written and captured a lot of the critical details from EPA’s report.)
Petroleum and natural gas systems were listed by EPA as the second largest GHG emitter, although the difference in emissions between number one (power plants) and number two was enormous: 2.2 billion tons versus 225 million tons. Petroleum and natural gas systems also include things like LNG import facilities, offshore oil and gas wells, pipelines and compressor stations – none of which could ever accurately be described as “fracking.”
In fact, several facilities studied were in places like the North Slope of Alaska and even Hawaii, where no hydraulic fracturing is even occurring. Additionally, some of the midstream infrastructure analyzed throughout the country has been in operation for decades and was constructed long before the “shale boom” ever began.
Even worse for Bloomberg is that EPA’s page explaining all of the components of its “petroleum and natural gas systems” category never once mentions the words “hydraulic fracturing” or “fracking.” That means the EPA said nothing about emissions specifically from hydraulic fracturing, rendering absurd Bloomberg’s suggestion that the process was somehow “seen by EPA” as the number two emitter.
But don’t just take our word for it. John Quigley, the former Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, said of Bloomberg’s headline: “Imprecise language misinforms and clouds the discussions we should be having and the actions we should be taking.” A reporter for SNL Energy tweeted: “Bloomberg appears to be labeling ALL oil and gas activity as #fracking. Kind of a stretch, dontcha think?”
Interestingly, FuelFix.com (a blog for the Houston Chronicle) ran Bloomberg’s story and even used the same headline. A few hours later, however, the blog changed the headline to “Houston companies among top polluters on federal list” – not exactly a sparkling gem, but certainly a far cry from the previous misappropriation of emissions to hydraulic fracturing. It’s also telling that even a news outlet running a Bloomberg wire story was not comfortable using Bloomberg’s designated headline on its website.
Despite the media’s penchant for alarmist headlines and what often appears to be an insatiable need to link every aspect of oil and gas development to hydraulic fracturing, the facts are clear: EPA’s latest report on greenhouse gas emissions made several reassuring observations, including declines not only in greenhouse gases across the entire country, but also in methane emissions from oil and gas systems specifically.
*UPDATE III* Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Use: Get the Facts
Given that large portions of our nation are facing serious drought conditions, there are justifiable concerns about our water supply. Some groups interested in blocking oil and gas development have preyed on these concerns, claiming hydraulic fracturing uses extraordinarily large volumes of water and, by extension, will cause water shortages all across the country. Unfortunately for the public, the whole truth about industries’ water usage – who uses water, how much they use, and where they use it – is not commonly discussed, which is exactly what opponents of development want.
Dana
Staff Geologist
UPDATE III (5:30 pm ET, 3/18/2013): An article in the Jamestown Sun looks at water usage by the oil and natural gas industry in North Dakota – a state that is redefining North American energy output and experiencing an unemployment rate of just 3.2 percent because of it. As the article points out, while the water use may appear large from a total volume standpoint (5.4 billion gallons), it actually represents a mere fraction of the state’s overall water use. According to the article:
“For example, North Dakota used 37.9 billion gallons of water in 2011 for irrigation, a wet year when less irrigation was needed, [Mike Hove, water resource manager with the State Water Commission] said. Typical daily water use of a Midwestern city with 50,000 people is 10 million gallons, [Beth Kurz, senior research manager] said.”
That means oil and natural gas development — in the second largest oil producing state in the country – uses about 87 percent less water than irrigation. As Beth Kurz of the University of North Dakota describes it, “really this is not such a high volume use of water for a very important benefit…What you get out of that water usage brings a lot of benefits to the state and to the country.’”
UPDATE II (3:22 pm ET, 3/7/2013): Not only does hydraulic fracturing use less water than numerous other industrial processes, oil and natural gas companies are also continuing to reduce their water-use footprint. That’s great news for the environment, consumers, and industry alike. This week, Bloomberg reported that Halliburton Co., one of the largest providers of hydraulic fracturing services across the globe, is using more recycled water and sea water, which means reduced consumption of freshwater. As E&E News (sub req’d) also highlighted:
“Halliburton believes the system can revolutionize the way operators are developing the United States’ booming shale oil and gas reserves, and the company is eager to market and sell its wares. …‘We’ve changed the formulations,’ {Walter Dale, a business manager for water solutions at Halliburton} added. ‘It significantly changes the price point, and we hope it will drive further recycling in the industry to less freshwater use.’”
According to Bloomberg, Halliburton’s goal is for industry is to use an average of 25 percent less freshwater in hydraulic fracturing by the end of 2014.
UPDATE (5:00 pm ET, 12/19/2012): A recent post by Hart Energy takes another look at hydraulic fracturing and water use in response to a report by Accenture Consulting on the role of water in shale developments across the globe. Author of the report Melissa Stark notes that “the perception of fracing as a water hog is likely to prompt changes for the shale industry and cost operators.” Yet as we’ve asked before, does hydraulic fracturing really require that much? As Hart Energy highlights, almost all industries—be it energy and manufacturing or agriculture and irrigation—require the use of water. Take Coca-Cola for instance: the company used 81.6 billion gallons of water to produce 34.3 gallons of beverages in 2009. That’s over 2,000 hydraulic fracturing jobs. And as Accenture’s report highlights, water use in many areas isn’t quite deserving of the negative hype. In Pennsylvania, “state annual consumption totals about 3.6 trillion gallons. The shale gas industry uses less than 0.2% of that for hydraulic fracturing.” Meanwhile, advances in industry are promoting the use of less water and in many cases 100 percent reuse. Good news for the environment, good news for American energy.
—Original post, October 8, 2012—
Given that large portions of our nation are facing serious drought conditions, there are justifiable concerns about our water supply. Some groups interested in blocking oil and gas development have preyed on these concerns, claiming hydraulic fracturing uses extraordinarily large volumes of water and, by extension, will cause water shortages all across the country. Unfortunately for the public, the whole truth about industries’ water usage – who uses water, how much they use, and where they use it – is not commonly discussed, which is exactly what opponents of development want.
To fully understand this issue, it’s important to analyze real-world data relating to water consumption.
For example, let’s look at Pennsylvania: Power plants in the state use 6.43 billion gallons of water every day. As a state well-known for its farms, the Commonwealth also uses 86.1 million gallons per day for agriculture and irrigation, and private water wells use 152 million gallons per day.
A hydraulic fracturing job, by comparison, only requires about four million gallons of water, spread out over several days.
Here are a few other contextual examples:
- Four million gallons of water is approximately the amount that is emptied every second from the Mississippi River into the Gulf of Mexico.
- New York City consumes four million gallons of water every 6 minutes.
- Four million gallons is about 1.3 percent of the amount of water used in car washes every day.
- Just one of the 15,889 golf courses across the United States uses four million gallons of water in less than one summer month.
Gee, hydraulic fracturing doesn’t seem to have the large water-use-impact it is often prescribed, does it?
Still, water is water and certain regions are more susceptible to shortages than others. From water withdrawal limits to recycling standards, the use of water is strongly regulated throughout numerous industries. Many river basin commissions and authorities overseeing water withdrawals set protective limits in low flow periods to ensure enough passby flow to support wildlife and other water uses. And when our nation is in a period of drought it is of even greater importance that these types of regulations and guidelines are properly carried out.
But how does the practice of hydraulic fracturing factor in to water use in these states?
Let’s look at Colorado, certainly no stranger to oil and gas development, and where water scarcity is of constant concern:
- Agriculture and irrigation are two of the largest users of water, consuming 85.5 percent of the state’s supply.
- As the New York Times reported in September, “Oil and gas companies estimate that they will use about 6.5 billion gallons of water in Colorado this year, and that figure makes up only 0.1 percent of overall water use, according to state data. Their consumption represents more water than is used making snow on the ski slopes or greening the state’s golf courses. But it is paltry compared with the deluge needed for irrigation and agriculture, which accounts for 85.5 percent of Colorado’s water use.”
In Texas, a state well known for oil and natural gas development, the use of water for production is minimal – which is good, because large portions of the state are dealing with drought or near-drought conditions.
- According to the Tarrant Regional Water District, oil and natural gas development represents 0.5 percent of total water demand.
- Darrell Brownlow, geologist and member of the South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group, states that “for every one acre-foot of water used in fracking, 280 acre-feet acre used for other purposes in South Texas.” (San Antonio Express, 11/2/2011)
- According to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB), water use for mining activity (which includes oil and gas) was only 0.5 percent as compared to other water use categories such as municipal demand, manufacturing, steam electric, irrigation and livestock.
Similarly, Oklahoma has found energy development plays a relatively minor role in its overall water usage:
- The Oklahoma Water Resources Board states that many if not most of their permits issued, “including those specified for hydraulic fracturing, range from one to about thirty acre-feet of water. Regular permits issued for public water supply, irrigation, and other large-scale uses often authorize hundreds to thousands of acre-feet annually. And while significant growth is anticipated in the state’s oil and gas industry, that particular use sector is projected to account for only five percent of Oklahoma’s total water demand in 2060.” (Oklahoma Water Resources Board, May 2012)
In the Northeast, development of the Marcellus shale has brought countless benefits to communities, including jobs, revenues and clean-burning energy. And compared to the state’s rich agricultural business, water demand is comparatively low:
- According to the Pennsylvania Fish and Game Commission, irrigation and aquaculture practices alone account for over 500 million more gallons of water use each day than all natural gas development in the Marcellus Shale. In fact, daily water consumption rates for drilling activities in the Marcellus shale rank below the amounts used for nuclear power generation, agriculture, livestock, irrigation, mining and all public and domestic use.
- According to a report for the U.S. Department of Energy, “Estimates of peak drilling activity in New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia indicate that maximum water use in the Marcellus Shale, at the peak of production for each state, assuming 5 million gallons of water per well, would be about 650 million barrels per year. This represents less than 0.8 percent of the 85 billion barrels per year used in the area overlying the Marcellus Shale in New York, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.” (DOE, June 2010)
- John Arway, Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, noted in 2011 that the Marcellus Shale used 1.9 million gallons of water per day. (PFBC, January 2011)
- The Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC) indicates total Marcellus Shale water use “represents a little more than half of the amount currently used consumptively by the recreation sector (golf courses, water parks, ski resorts, etc.)” (SRBC, February 2009)
- According to the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, “peak activity high-volume hydraulic fracturing would result in increased demand for fresh water in New York of 0.24%.” (NY SGEIS, p. 6-10 [p. 20 in PDF], September 2011)
All energy sources require water, and natural gas development is no different. But how do natural gas and hydraulic fracturing stack up to other energy sources?
- According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, a typical 500-megawatt coal-fired power plant draws about 2.2 billion gallons of water each year from nearby source to create steam for turning its turbines – the equivalent of 550 hydraulic fracturing jobs.
- By nature of its design, solar energy is the most effective in regions where the sun is most intense. As a result, it tends to be most effective in areas with scarce water supplies. In California, disputes over solar projects in the Mojave Desert, the city of Bakersfield and elsewhere have been delayed due to massive water needs in areas with little access to natural sources. The Mojave solar farm being built by Abengoa Solar plant will require 705 million gallons of water annually to operate – equivalent to more than 176 hydraulic fracturing jobs.
- Similar concerns over water use are seen in the production of biofuels. According to the Arizona Water Institute, “A significant potential issue with biofuels, especially in an arid state such as Arizona, is that they require large amounts of water to produce feedstock. With an average annual evapotranspiration rate of between 3 and 8 feet, there are very few locations within the state that receive enough rainfall to get by with no or even little irrigation.”
- According to the USDA, when the feedstock in biofuels is corn or soy (used to make ethanol and biodiesel, respectively) and grown on irrigated land, then the water consumption per gallon of fuel produced can exceed the water consumption for refining by a factor of one thousand.
As Tisha Schuller, president of the Colorado Oil and Gas Association, noted in the New York Times this September, “This is an important use of our water — to produce energy, which is the foundation of all we do.” Schuller continued: “Think about the big users of water — agriculture, industrial development. All these things require energy.”
As technological advancement continues, industry is reducing the use of freshwater sources, enhancing recycling efforts and decreasing the natural gas industries footprint on America’s precious water resources. Along the way, the development of natural gas from shale has created immense benefits across the nation while providing an affordable and clean burning fuel for American consumers.
So yes, hydraulic fracturing uses water. And when opponents present the total volume used – millions of gallons – without any context, it can sound frighteningly large. But the public should be made aware of facts like relative use and total demand, because when the whole story is told, water needed for hydraulic fracturing sounds a lot less scary. That might not make great fundraising emails for groups opposed to oil and gas development, but it’s the truth.
READ MORE:
- COGA: Water Use Fact Sheet [Link]
- COGCC: Water Sources and Demand for the Hydraulic Fracturing of Oil and Gas Wells in Colorado from 2010 through 2015 [Link]
- USGS: Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2005 [Link]
- Chesapeake: Water Use in Deep Shale Gas Exploration [Link]
California Gov. Jerry Brown Rejects Activists’ ‘Ideological Bandwagon’
When someone with Governor Brown's long record on renewable energy and environmental regulation speaks favorably about domestic oil and gas production, it shows just how extreme the anti-hydraulic fracturing activists really are.
Simon
Research Director
For several months now, ideologically motivated environmental activists have been waging a scare campaign in California aimed at pressuring state lawmakers and Gov. Jerry Brown to ban hydraulic fracturing. The activists are targeting this technology because it could be used to produce oil from California’s Monterey Shale, which according to a new study from the University of Southern California, could create as many as 2.8 million jobs and generate almost $25 billion in new annual tax revenues by the end of the decade.
So is the fear campaign working? Not on Gov. Brown, apparently. Here’s how Reuters covered some remarks from Gov. Brown at a March 13 press conference:
California governor Brown says state needs to look at “fracking”
California Governor Jerry Brown, a prominent environmentalist, said on Wednesday the state should consider the use of “fracking” technology to develop its massive shale oil reserves and reduce reliance on imported oil. …
“We want to get the greenhouse gas emissions down, but we also want to keep our economy going. That’s that balance that’s required,” he said at an event to announce the approval of three new renewable energy projects. …
Some groups have called for an outright ban on the practice in California, and state lawmakers have introduced a flurry of bills that seek to regulate the industry.
Brown said any decisions on fracking would be based on science and common sense, and on a process that “listens to people but also wants to take advantage of the great opportunities we have.”
“The fossil fuel deposits in California are incredible, the potential is extraordinary,” he said. “But between now and development lies a lot of questions that need to be answered.”
But when you listen to the State of California’s recording of the press conference, the news is much worse for the activists, and much better for those interested in a rational, fact-based discussion about the role of domestic oil and gas production in meeting the nation’s future energy needs.
(The full press conference can be accessed here, and a shorter, edited audio clip of Gov. Brown’s remarks on hydraulic fracturing can found here.)
Gov. Brown first got a question about his position on hydraulic fracturing in California and whether he supports “new regulations on that practice.” California’s Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources has proposed updated rules that would allow the continued use of hydraulic fracturing, but with tougher oversight and disclosure requirements. Here’s Gov. Brown’s answer:
“I support our Division of Oil and Gas. They are excellent people and I look for them to navigate the issues as we go forward. The fossil fuel deposits in California are incredible. The potential is extraordinary. But between now and development lies a lot of questions that need to be answered, and I feel confident that the people are in place in my administration to handle the issues as they come up. And they’ll be decided based on science, based on common sense, and based on a deliberative process that listens to people, but also wants to take advantage of the great opportunities we have in this state.”
Later, Brown was asked by a reporter to “reconcile your desire to fight climate change [and] your enthusiasm for renewable energy with what seems to be support for fracking in California and an expansion of it.” The reporter noted that some people who voted for Brown “would like to see an outright ban on fracking in California.” Here’s an edited transcript of Brown’s answer:
“Do you know how much oil is imported to keep our cars going? … [When people in California] can get around without using any gasoline, that’s the time for no more oil drilling. Maybe. Because they’ll be many other people still driving. We’re importing oil from many places. It means you’ve got to bring it in by ship or by truck or by pipeline – by something.
So taking care of our own problems is a good thing. So if we need to have everybody driving around, as we do … we’ve got to get some oil. Now, do you want to get the oil from Venezuela [or from] 100 miles away? … By the way, oil off the City of Long Beach has put hundreds of millions of dollars into building necessary facilities at our Cal State University. Very important. In the Kern Basin, lots of oil resource. So we want to get the greenhouse gas emissions down, but we also want to keep our economy going. And that’s that balance that’s required. …
We have 30 million vehicles in California. That’s a lot of oil. So I think we have room to supply our need even as we reduce oil consumption. We should be reducing it much faster than we are, and hopefully we can get some national policies to do that, but that still doesn’t mean that in the meantime there isn’t oil under the ground in California that can’t be made very useful.”
In his closing remarks, Brown mentioned hydraulic fracturing once more in a broader answer about energy and environmental issues:
“Whether it’s fracking, or whether it’s a low-carbon fuel standard, or anything else, we keep our eyes open and we’re not jumping on any ideological bandwagons.”
When someone with Governor Brown’s long record on renewable energy and environmental regulation speaks favorably about domestic oil and gas production, it shows just how extreme the anti-hydraulic fracturing activists really are. These activists occupy the fringes of the energy policy debate in this country, and to answer Gov. Brown’s question, they really would prefer that we get more oil from countries like Venezuela.
Hypocrisy, Thy Name is Sierra Club
With the near-daily news stories explaining the air quality and climate benefits of natural gas, the Sierra Club’s opposition to natural gas undermines its stated goal of protecting the environment. In response, the Sierra Club has come up with a bold and fascinating strategy: Say whatever the heck they want, regardless of whether it contradicts their statements elsewhere.
Steve
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.
Natural Gas and Renewables: Friends Not Foe
Those of us who pay attention are well aware of the environmental benefits of natural gas, ranging from cleaner air to reduced greenhouse gas emissions. And yet, there are some in the environmental community who have turned against this job-creating fuel, suggesting its expanded use represents some sort of attack upon renewable energy use. Yet as the Associated Press highlights this week, “…experts note that even renewables need conventional backup, since the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow.”
Dana
Staff Geologist
Those of us who pay attention are well aware of the environmental benefits of natural gas, ranging from cleaner air to reduced greenhouse gas emissions. And yet, there are some in the environmental community who have turned against this job-creating fuel, suggesting its expanded use represents some sort of attack upon renewable energy use. Yet as the Associated Press highlights this week, “…experts note that even renewables need conventional backup, since the sun doesn’t always shine and the wind doesn’t always blow.”
Which of course brings us back to natural gas.
Michael Shellenberger, head of the Oakland-based environmental think tank Breakthrough Institute, states that the rejection of natural gas by celebrities and other activists is deeply flawed. Says Shellenberger:
“It demonstrates the ignorance of renewable power advocates to suggest that renewables can run without gas. We don’t get to say, ‘I only want solar and wind.’”
Clearly, to say there is no role for natural gas in the renewables story is flawed at best – especially if you want to keep your lights on at night, heat your home in the winter, and fuel American steel mills to keep manufacturing those wind turbines. In fact, many people on both sides of the aisle recognize the link between renewable energy growth and natural gas, including President Obama’s new nominee for Secretary of the Department of Energy, Ernest Moniz.
According to a landmark study Moniz co-chaired while at MIT:
“In broad terms, we find that, given the large amounts of natural gas available in the U.S. at moderate cost … natural gas can indeed play an important role over the next couple of decades (together with demand management) in economically advancing a clean energy system.” (7/19/11)
Rhone Resch, CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association, also stated earlier this year that natural gas and renewables are a great match. The Climate Desk reports:
“’Natural gas and renewables complement each other very nicely,’ Rhone Resch, CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association, said this morning at a press conference for the release of Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s 2013 Factbook, an exhaustive analysis of the state of clean energy in America…
“The report, based on a blend of original and existing government research, is unequivocal in placing natural gas in the same ‘clean energy’ boat as renewables, a new arrangement Resch and Dave McCurdy, head of the American Gas Association, agreed they were happy to see. ’…Natural gas can fill the gap when renewables go intermittant,’ he said, ‘ramping up when the wind stops or the sun goes down.’” (1/31/13)
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) also highlighted the importance of natural gas from increased shale development in the renewable energy story. Bloomberg reports:
“’Shale gas at low cost can help to create a hybrid system,’ whereby more gas-fired power is fed to the grid, supplanting coal, and augmented by wind and solar, {Adnan Amin, director-general of IRENA, said}.”
As the Business Council For Sustainable Energy’s 2013 Factbook also states, “Gas generators, which are inherently flexible technologies that can be easily ramped up and down to meet demand, are natural counterparts for variable resources such as wind and solar.”
Need proof? Just take GE’s new gas turbine. The flexibility and efficiency of natural gas enables it to support other fuel sources which are not always available. According to Vice President of GE Power & Water Paul Browning, natural gas is ideal for baseload and fast ramping, and “it’s that combination that makes it a great partner with renewables.”
So why the negative hype? Despite the natural synergy between natural gas and renewable technologies like solar and wind, some groups have stood in the way of natural gas, particularly when it’s produced from shale. The Sierra Club, who just a few years ago was advocating for natural gas as the cleanest-burning fossil fuel and a partner in renewable energy growth, has changed its tune with the “Beyond Natural Gas” campaign — which of course has been highly criticized as hypocritical and damaging, for both consumers and American energy development.
After all, who really loses when we turn our back on secure, American energy of any kind? As CEO of the Solar Energy Industries Association Rhone Resch puts it, we are all working towards something uniquely important for our nation. “I think it’s important to recognize that these industries, although we do compete, are working together to address some of the most pressing energy needs in the country.”
So the next time a vocal critic of shale development says we should stop producing natural gas and focus exclusively on growing renewables, perhaps the best thing to say is, “Even the renewables industry doesn’t agree with that!”
Putting to Rest the Silly Theories about Parker Co.
In recent weeks, several news outlets have attempted to rewrite the narrative about EPA’s December 2010 endangerment order against Range Resources in Parker County, Texas. The theories have run the gamut, from industry allegedly “pressuring” EPA to drop the order to the availability of “scientific analyses” that EPA supposedly discarded or ignored. What ties all of these theories together? They change literally nothing about the facts of the case, which show that Range’s operations were not responsible for water contamination in Parker County.
Steve
Spokesman
In recent weeks, several news outlets have attempted to rewrite the narrative about EPA’s December 2010 endangerment order against Range Resources in Parker County, Texas. The theories have run the gamut, from industry allegedly “pressuring” EPA to drop the order to the availability of “scientific analyses” that EPA supposedly discarded or ignored.
What ties all of these theories together? They change literally nothing about the facts of the case, which show that Range’s operations were not responsible for water contamination in Parker County.
The stories are based solely on “new information” about the case, which is unfortunately being conflated with “relevant information.” Nothing that has been uncovered changes the fact that there was a lack of scientific merit in EPA’s original order. Additionally, none of this “new information” provides a credible alternative to the scientific testing that exonerated Range’s activities. In some cases, the “new information” isn’t actually new at all, but rather a rehash of what regulators already examined and refuted based on the evidence.
Let’s explore these theories in depth, shall we?
—
THEORY: Range Resources pressured the EPA into dropping the endangerment order in exchange for granting the agency access to its wells.
- Associated Press: “Range Resources told EPA officials in Washington that so long as the agency continued to pursue a “scientifically baseless” action against the company in Weatherford, it would not take part in the study and would not allow government scientists onto its drilling sites, said company attorney David Poole.” (Jan. 16, 2013)
FACT: It’s difficult to get past the sheer ridiculousness of the claim itself, but several outlets have seen fit to advance this theory as if it is a credible explanation – including the venerable Associated Press – so let’s examine the facts.
As we’ve explained before, the crux of this argument is that the EPA wanted access to Range Resources’ well sites for its ongoing study on potential water impacts from hydraulic fracturing. (With thousands of companies able and willing to participate, why the EPA would be insistent on gaining access to Range’s is never explained by adherents to this theory.) Since the EPA was involved in a legal dispute with Range Resources over the endangerment order in Parker County, Tex., the theory contends that Range didn’t want to work with EPA while that dispute was ongoing, so they offered to cut a deal behind closed doors: EPA drops the order, and Range allows access to its wells.
First of all, notice how this theory assumes – by a priori means – that the original endangerment order was scientifically justified? Let’s look at why that’s absurd:
- We know, thanks to a mountain of evidence, that the source of natural gas in Steven Lipsky’s water wells was not the Barnett Shale (from which Range was producing), but was rather naturally occurring and originated from the shallower Strawn formation.
- A water analysis presented to state regulators in January 2011 – during a regulatory hearing to which the EPA was invited but refused to attend – used geochemical gas fingerprinting to trace the source of the gas to the Strawn. Gas from the Barnett is very similar in composition to gas from the Strawn formation, but the presence of nitrogen provides a distinguishing characteristic, which the geochemical fingerprinting analysis showed conclusively.
- According to EPA Region 6 official John Blevins, the EPA knew nitrogen was a distinguishing factor, but somehow failed to consider it. “It’s a factor, yes,” Blevins said, just before admitting: “I don’t believe that I could say EPA has an expert to opine on the nitrogen levels within any gas source.”
- We also know that naturally occurring methane in water wells was a well-known phenomenon in the region, another fact presented at the January 2011 hearing. The EPA also knew of this phenomenon, but agency officials “do not believe those facts were…germane or relevant to the issue at hand,” according to Blevins’ court-ordered deposition from early 2011.
These facts – convenient omissions by the EPA, scientific tests exonerating Range – would conceivably undermine the case that EPA had against Range, and yet they get little to no attention in the reports suggesting Range pressured EPA to drop the case. Why let facts get in the way of a great story?
Second, for this theory to be plausible, the EPA would have had to seek access relatively quickly after the order was withdrawn. After all, if this were a quid pro quo, wouldn’t you expect each party to at least try to get what the other promised? Instead, all we have is a letter from Range Resources, sent after the endangerment order was dropped, saying it can work with the EPA again. Is it really so alarming that a company, after recognizing that a government agency — with which it is involved in a legal dispute — has changed its policies to focus on sound science, would embrace the idea of working with that agency in the future?
And nearly a year later, guess what? The EPA has not taken up Range on its offer of access to its wells.
Legal disputes, regardless of the industry, typically involve a variety of negotiations along the way. Both parties have an interest in justifying their actions, but they often see little value in a costly and prolonged affair. But the bottom line, regardless of the circumstances or details of those discussions, is that if the EPA were so motivated by a give-and-take backroom negotiation, it wouldn’t wait a year or even several months before trying to get its end of the “deal.”
And remember, the EPA tried to justify its order on the basis that “there were at least two families whose homes were in immediate danger of explosion and who had no safe household water from the aquifer.”
Would the EPA really toss aside something it viewed as protective of public safety just to gain access to a few well sites – which, of course, it never tried to access anyway? There are literally thousands of companies with whom the EPA could work on its study, but we are to believe the agency absolutely had to gain access to Range’s sites?
The agency did not do that, because the theory is as baseless as the endangerment order itself.
–
THEORY: A previously unreleased study suggests Range Resources was responsible for methane in Parker County water wells.
- Associated Press: “Now a confidential report obtained by The Associated Press and interviews with company representatives show that the EPA had scientific evidence against the driller, Range Resources…” (Jan. 16, 2013)
FACT: This “scientific evidence” was actually little more than a draft report that did not even credibly examine the possibility that the gas could have come from other formations. It was also authored by someone unfamiliar with the scientific analyses delivered to the Texas Railroad Commission that exonerated Range.
The draft report, authored by Geoffrey Thyne, looked essentially only at the possibility that the gas could be originating from the Barnett Shale – one of many facts left out of the AP story that first highlighted it. As explained earlier, the composition of gas from the Barnett is similar to what’s in the Strawn, so if you’re looking only at gas in the Barnett and the methane found in the affected wells, you’ll notice a lot of similarities. This is why it’s crucial to look at multiple formations in the region, and closely examine distinguishing features like the presence of nitrogen. That’s what the scientists did in the reports that exonerated Range, but it’s not what Dr. Thyne (or the EPA) did.
Thyne’s report relied on hydrogen and carbon isotopic fingerprinting to suggest that Range’s activities in the Barnett Shale were impacting Lipsky’s water, because the isotopic readings in the water well were similar to what is encountered in the Barnett Shale. But as geochemist Mark McCaffrey (B.A., Harvard; Ph.D., MIT) of Weatherford Labs determined in his investigation:
“The geochemical parameter used by the EPA to determine a thermogenic origin of the Lipsky gas (e.g., the C isotopic composition of methane) does not differentiate gas in the Barnett Formation from gas in the Pennsylvanian reservoirs.” (emphasis added)
In other words, carbon isotopic fingerprinting (which Thyne used) will not correctly determine the source of the gas; instead, nitrogen content must be used to distinguish between Barnett gas and shallower (Pennsylvanian) formation gases.
As Dr. McCaffrey noted during the January 2011 Railroad Commission hearing:
“Specifically high nitrogen, low CO2 samples are characteristic of gasses produced from the shallower Pennsylvanian reservoirs. The natural gas component of the most recently collected Lipsky well headspace gas samples, which is the two that were shown in the previous table on the previous slide, contain higher nitrogen than is in Barnett gas.”
Interestingly, Thyne’s draft paper found that Barnett gas “has low nitrogen content of about 1%,” whereas the impacted water wells had nitrogen readings “between 4 and 31%.” Although Thyne was relying more on the carbon isotopic readings (which was a flawed model), even his tests showed that the nitrogen content in Lipsky’s water wells was at least four times higher than Barnett gas.
Given the centrality of nitrogen fingerprinting in determining the source, one could even suggest that Thyne’s findings validated the reports that exonerated Range – albeit unintentionally.
After examining all of the evidence in the case, in early 2011, the Texas Railroad Commission concluded:
“The EPA’s investigation compared gas produced from the tubing of the Butler well (Barnett Shale gas) to gas found in the Lipsky water well. The carbon isotopic finger print analysis of the gases were found to be very similar and both gases were determined to be thermogenic. Range demonstrated that use of the carbon isotope in the EPA analysis was inappropriate because the Barnett Shale is the source rock for all gas bearing zones above the Barnett Shale, including the much shallower Strawn formation. All gas produced from the same source rock would be expected to have a similar carbon isotope. The EPA did not attempt to identify any other potential source of the gas produced from the Lipsky well. Range further showed the appropriate geochemical parameters to use for fingerprinting in this case are nitrogen and carbon dioxide. Published literature confirms that Pennsylvanian age gases, including the Strawn, have higher nitrogen and lower carbon dioxide than Barnett Shale gas.
“…The fingerprinting analysis performed by Range demonstrates that gas found in all of the water wells had elevated nitrogen concentrations, indicating Pennsylvanian gas, not Barnett Shale gas. Additionally, gas produced from the Barnett Shale in the Butler and Teal wells contained no microbial gas, but the bradenhead samples from each well did contain microbial gas. These differentials confirm that the Barnett Shale is not in communication with any other zone, including the much shallower Strawn.” (emphasis added)
Finally, it’s worth noting that Thyne’s draft report – by the author’s own admission – was assembled without any knowledge of the scientific tests using nitrogen as the distinguishing characteristic (see Range Resources’ letter to EPA Region 6 administrator Ron Curry for more details). Given how science builds upon prior research, a lack of knowledge of what was essentially the most definitive scientific analysis of the affected wells to date is a significant and newsworthy fact.
It’s unfortunate that every recent report has failed even to consider this fundamental flaw, in addition to the other failings described above.
–
THEORY: A former employee of the Texas Railroad Commission found that Range’s activities forced Strawn gas into Steven Lipsky’s water well.
- E&E News: “Thomas ‘Buddy’ Richter, hired by attorneys for one of the homeowners, said that state inspectors had found a leak and that Range failed to seal its well bore with cement deeply enough to protect the neighbors’ underground water supplies. Richter, a petroleum engineer, said other companies drilling shale in the area sealed their wells significantly deeper.” (Feb. 20, 2013)
FACT: Richter’s theory is absurd – based not only on the facts about Range’s activities, but also what Richter previously said about the case. (This latest “news,” by the way, is also just a retread of the same theory that was reported on more than a year ago.)
On November 9, 2011, Richter testified that he was aware of other water wells in close proximity to Steven Lipsky’s, all of which contained naturally occurring methane – one that had so much that it was actually flaring gas in 2005. Yet, he also admitted that he had seen no baseline data regarding the presence of methane in the Lipsky’s well prior to Range’s activities:
Q: Have you made any study about whether there was actually methane in the Lipsky water well as far back as 2005, in some amount?
RICHTER: I haven’t made such a study.
Q: You don’t have any water tests or head space gas tests from the Lipsky water well going back prior to 2010 that you’ve seen, correct?
RICHTER: I have not seen any such data.
Q: As you sit here today, you don’t know for a fact whether or not the Lipsky water well had any amount of methane in it prior to 2010, do you?
RICHTER: I do not know that as a fact because I have seen no data.
So, despite the prevalence of naturally occurring methane in virtually every other well in the region (a fact confirmed by Railroad Commission findings), Richter wants us to believe that the methane in Lipsky’s water is there because of Range’s activities – even though he has “no data” on what Lipsky’s water contained in the past. Was there methane in Lipsky’s water before Range drilled its wells, just like the dozens of other water wells in the area? Richter doesn’t know.
Richter further speculates that by drilling through the Strawn formation (before reaching the Barnett), Range Resources “possibly” created a pathway by which gas in formations between the Strawn and the Barnett, which could then travel up the annulus of the well and through thick drilling mud. After accomplishing that feat, according to Richter’s analysis, the gas would have had to exit the annulus and enter the Strawn formation, then create such significant new pressure in an underground rock layer that the gas already located in the Strawn formation was pushed toward the Lipsky’s property a half mile away. En route, somehow the gas also bypassed every other water well located between Range’s wells and Lipsky’s water well, and only impacted Lipsky’s well.
And what ultimately created this chain of highly unlikely events? According to Richter, Range Resources did not case and cement the well below the water aquifer, and thus Range did not comply with the state law (known as “Rule 13”) for setting surface casing.
The only problem with that? State regulators said Range was in compliance with Rule 13 for both of its wells – which Richter himself admitted in his deposition.
According to his testimony, Richter acknowledged that official state documents showed Range’s wells were in compliance (see p. 59-60). But he contends that Range was actually not in compliance because the wells were not cemented below the base of the formation containing groundwater (Cretaceous), which supplies water to Lipsky’s well. Richter alleges regulators were wrong to declare Range’s wells in compliance because the base of the water aquifer was actually deeper than official records stated.
Yet in his deposition, Richter admitted that, in Parker County, the distance between the surface and the base of the Cretaceous can vary, and he wasn’t even sure what the depth was. “I don’t know what the various elevations are,” Richter testified (p. 63).
In other words, Richter admits that regulators found the company in compliance with Rule 13, and the only basis for his disagreement is pure speculation about what the depth of the groundwater formation may or may not be.
But wait, there’s more.
According to E&E News, Richter says the Texas Railroad Commission determined Range was not at fault without even considering other arguments:
“Richter also noted the Railroad Commission made its decision based on information presented by Range, which went unchallenged at the hearing. That essentially made it a default judgment. Since it was an ‘unprotested’ case, Richter said, the agency assigns the decision less value than it would to a ‘protested’ case.”
From later in that same story: “But Range drilled through other gas-producing formations on its way to the mile-deep Barnett, and [Richter] said the commission didn’t account for that.”
First of all, remember: The EPA was invited to that hearing and refused to attend. Interestingly, the EPA even tried to prevent Range from gathering testimony on why the EPA issued its order, but a court thankfully denied the EPA’s request. If EPA had a credible scientific argument, it certainly could have presented it at the Railroad Commission hearing to which it was invited – and it wouldn’t have tried to squelch the company from investigating the events that led to the order. In any event, the lack of EPA’s presence at the Commission hearing is not the Commission’s fault; if anything, it speaks volumes about the case the EPA actually had against Range, and reflects unwillingness on the part of EPA to defend its own position.
Second, and more importantly, the claim that Range’s evidence went unchallenged by the Railroad Commission is simply untrue. In fact, one of the arguments considered at the hearing was the exact same theory Richter now espouses, and it was raised by the none other than a representative from the Texas Railroad Commission.
At the hearing in January 2011, Range’s witnesses were cross-examined by an attorney, David Cooney, who represented the Railroad Commission’s Oil and Gas Division. Cooney asked John McBeath, a petroleum engineer and well integrity expert, whether “the actual surface casing [for Range’s wells] was through the base of usable quality water as the conditions occurred in the field.” McBeath’s response?
“That is right. The Cretaceous is protected by the surface casing and the cement.” (Hearing transcript, Vol. II; p. 25)
McBeath also testified that the base of the Cretaceous was 324 feet deep at the location of the two Range wells in question. According to official records, surface casing for each well was set at approximately 400 feet, which Richter also confirmed in his deposition (p. 258).
This directly contradicts Richter’s theory that the wells (cased at around 400 feet by his own admission) were not cased deep enough to run past the base of the Cretaceous (depth: 324 feet). It also debunks his claim that the Railroad Commission failed to consider that possibility.
Indeed, according to the Railroad Commission’s determination after that hearing:
“Surface casing on both wells exceed the requirements of the TCEQ. Range’s experience in the area is that the Cretaceous generally extends to approximately 320 feet.”
The Commission added:
“The surface casing in each well is set below the base of the Cretaceous and is cemented to surface. The surface casings and production casings of both wells were tested when set during the drilling process. Further, Range performed a mechanical integrity test on the Butler well at the request of the RRC to demonstrate that the low bradenhead pressure on the well was not related to any type of casing problem. The cement behind the production casing is verified by a cement bond log in both wells.”
And yet despite all of this, we’re supposed to believe a guy when he says that Range’s wells weren’t cased and cemented deep enough to isolate themselves from the base of an aquifer, the depth of which he even admitted he did not know?
Finally, it’s worth noting that Richter’s theory is not that Barnett gas was reaching Lipsky’s water – as the EPA contended and Mr. Thyne’s draft report alleges – but rather gas from some other formation. This contradicts EPA’s John Blevins, who said the agency’s order was based on gas found in Lipsky’s water being “sufficiently similar to the gas that we found in the Butler [well] production stream.” The Butler well was producing natural gas from the Barnett Shale, which means EPA’s order was based on a supposed link between Barnett Shale gas and the gas found in Lipsky’s water.
And yet E&E News says Richter’s theories “make the most coherent case for EPA’s accusations,” a claim that by definition cannot be true.
EPA, Thyne, and Richter can’t all be right. In fact, the evidence shows that they’re all wrong. If Richter’s theories make “the most coherent case” for EPA’s actions, then the endangerment order was quite clearly baseless from the beginning.
—
In withdrawing the order against Range Resources, EPA never said that it was doing so based on a lack of scientific basis, even though anyone who has being paying attention knows that to be the case. Nor did the agency ever truly admit that the actions leading up to issuance of the order (including working closely with local activists) compromised the integrity of its actions.
But it’s also that refusal to admit the obvious that has created a vacuum, which has been filled with “alternate explanations” based on literally anything – regardless of its merits – that has since become public. As stories have come out, a consistent pattern of manufactured timelines also emerges, where intervening periods are selectively cast aside or punctuated in order to retroactively fit a particular narrative.
Range offered EPA access to its wells after the agency withdrew the order? Proof of industry pressure – even though nearly a year elapsed and the EPA never took them up on the offer.
A draft report that suggests a link between Range’s activities and methane contamination in water wells? Proof that Range was at fault – even though the report did little more than repeat EPA’s original argument, which was debunked by nitrogen fingerprinting at a hearing more than two years ago.
A former state employee who said his former agency didn’t consider an alternate theory? EPA’s case is validated – even though the agency did consider that theory back in 2011, and tossed it aside due to a preponderance of evidence proving otherwise.
What is interesting, however, is that in all of the recent reporting on this case — much of it derived from emails obtained in various FOIA requests to EPA — the most striking details were either buried or left unreported.
In an email sent more than a year after EPA issued its endangerment order against Range, then-administrator of EPA Region 6 Al Armendariz was still searching for data to validate EPA’s claims and even discussing the possibility that Range was not at fault. That’s notable in and of itself, but it’s even more significant when you consider what EPA scientist Dr. Doug Beak said about EPA’s data in November 2010, before the endangerment order was ever issued:
“[T]his is not conclusive evidence because of the limited data set…The only way now to compare the data would be to make assumptions to fill in data gaps and I don’t believe we have enough experience at this site or data to do this at this time.” (emphasis added)
So, prior to the issuance of the order, a geochemist within EPA had concluded there was a limited data set and not enough to make a connection to Range’s activities without filling in gaps based on “assumptions,” which he explicitly said the agency did not have the experience or data to do. More than a year later, the EPA was still looking for data to validate its case against Range Resources — which of course aligns with the concerns Dr. Beak raised in the weeks leading up to EPA’s order.
Shouldn’t EPA have had that data in hand before imposing a significant order of endangerment? If they didn’t have it, then on what was the order based? And why have a grand total of zero of the recent stories rehashing EPA’s endangerment order given this anything more than a passing mention?
Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinions about the events that transpired in Parker County in 2010. But if we’re interested in the truth, the facts should be what guide us – not the latest shiny object that can make for a great headline and increased site traffic.
It’s time to put an end to the silly theories and conspiracies. The facts speak for themselves.
IPAA and EID Explain to Feds Why LNG Exports Make Sense
As part of the federal government’s review process for approving exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), the U.S. Department of Energy has solicited two rounds of comments regarding its recent macroeconomic study on the economic benefits of allowing such exports. During the initial round, environmental groups raised a series of concerns regarding alleged impacts, focusing chiefly – wait for it – on hydraulic fracturing. Luckily, the talking points submitted to DOE have been employed unsuccessfully so many times by now that refuting them wasn’t the toughest thing in the world to do.
Jeff
Executive Vice-President
As part of the federal government’s review process for approving exports of liquefied natural gas (LNG), the U.S. Department of Energy has solicited two rounds of comments regarding its recent macroeconomic study on the economic benefits of allowing such exports. During the initial round, environmental groups raised a series of concerns regarding alleged impacts of allowing LNG exports, focusing chiefly – wait for it – on hydraulic fracturing.
Of course, in order to liquefy natural gas, first you have to produce it, and we know folks at the Sierra Club absolutely cannot stand the thought of that. So, they naturally tried to pollute the entire DOE review process with misinformation about shale development in general and hydraulic fracturing in particular, apparently unable to conjure up a credible case that actually seeks to address the real issue at hand (um, exports).
Luckily, the talking points submitted to DOE have been employed unsuccessfully so many times by now that refuting them wasn’t the toughest thing in the world to do. Below are a few examples of the kinds of claims that activist groups made in their comments to DOE, as well as a version of the response that IPAA and EID provided. Be sure to check out the full comments on IPAA’s webpage.
–
CLAIM: The Sierra Club argues that LNG exports would increase air pollution, and thus harm public health for residents living near gas wells.
FACT: The Sierra Club’s source was a study from the Colorado School of Public Health, a study that was so flawed from the very beginning that it was decommissioned by officials in the county where the data were collected. The study inflated the duration of industry operations by as much as 900 percent (and thus inflated the air emissions associated with those operations); used data known to be out of date; and its data on benzene emissions were taken from a monitoring station closer to a major interstate highway than the control sample.
What’s more is that, according to assessments by Texas and Pennsylvania regulators, air emissions from shale development do not reach levels that would be harmful to public health.
CLAIM: The Delaware Riverkeeper Network says shale development “presents an unparalleled level of harm to drinking water,” and the Sierra Club references casing failure rates as an example of a major risk.
FACT: Looking at actual data, casing failure rates are actually quite low. In more than 34,000 wells drilled in Ohio over a 25 year period, the failure rate was less than one-tenth of one percent – 0.03 percent to be exact. In Texas, the failure rate was even less: 0.01 percent. Federal and state regulators, meanwhile, have repeatedly stated that hydraulic fracturing does not pose a serious risk of contaminating drinking water supplies.
CLAIM: The Sierra Club references EPA’s report on water quality in Pavillion, Wyo., to suggest that expanded shale development is too dangerous.
FACT: Assessments by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Bureau of Land Management raise considerable doubts about the EPA’s methodology in Pavillion. The USGS, for example, conducted its own sampling, the results of which differed from EPA’s tests in at least 50 instances. USGS also effectively disqualified one of EPA’s two monitoring wells for being poorly constructed. The Bureau of Land Management said EPA’s techniques could have introduced “bias” into the samples, and that the data collected by EPA “should not be prematurely used as a line of evidence” supporting the claim that the EPA made; namely, that oil and gas activity caused chemical migration into groundwater.
On a more fundamental, even the EPA said its draft findings regarding Pavillion’s water quality “should not be assumed to apply to fracturing in other geologic settings” – which is exactly what the Sierra Club is trying to do!
–
Read the full comments here.
For Natural Gas in the Northeast, First You Need the Pipe
Northeastern states are suffering from a “natural gas trap,” The New York Times reported last week -- one in which residents are forced to weather not only the winter chills, but also the wildly unpredictable market for natural gas supplies. Electricity prices are rising, and to The Times, the blame for that rests squarely on the region’s “extreme reliance on natural gas.” But if we dig a little deeper into the Times’ report, we find a pretty important fact: the need for additional infrastructure, including “the inadequacy of existing pipelines,” is actually the biggest problem.
Steve
Spokesman
Northeastern states are suffering from a “natural gas trap,” The New York Times reported last week — one in which residents are forced to weather not only the winter chills, but also the wildly unpredictable market for natural gas supplies. Electricity prices are rising, and to The Times, the blame for that rests squarely on the region’s “extreme reliance on natural gas.”
Of course, we know low natural gas prices have allowed folks across the country to spend less of their hard earned money (billions of dollars, in fact) on heating and electricity. Heck, even President Obama, in his recent State of the Union address, said that we’re producing abundant supplies of clean natural gas, and “nearly everyone’s energy bill is lower because of it.”
Why is the Northeast so different, then?
If we dig a little deeper into the Times’ report, we find a pretty important fact: the need for additional infrastructure, including “the inadequacy of existing pipelines,” is actually the bigger problem. The much bigger problem.
It sounds so darn simple, but it’s worth explaining: To get natural gas to market, we have to build pipelines. And in order to build those pipelines, companies must gain approval from several different regulatory authorities. The most notable of these is the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which requires a very public process that solicits comments from all interested parties. During these comment periods, the commission considers a range of issues, including potential environmental impacts.
It’s also worth noting that the industry is proposing – right now – to build pipelines with literally billions of cubic feet per day of new natural gas capacity. Some of these have gained FERC approval, but others have fallen victim to delays, which in turn postpone construction of the infrastructure necessary to deliver natural gas to consumers.
What causes these delays is really a variety of factors, ranging from all-too-common bureaucracy and institutional stasis within regulatory agencies, to the always challenging task of raising the capital required to finance the projects. But pipeline companies are also met with opposition, typically led by well-funded environmental groups, to literally every project they propose.
Often times, this opposition goes beyond simple NIMBYism and manifests itself in courtrooms, with groups like Earthjustice bringing lawsuits on behalf of a coterie of activists to stop construction. Part of the FERC approval process also includes public comment periods, during which environmental groups flood submission boxes with form letters and assertions of future impacts, regardless of whether those theoretical damages are even plausible.
Indeed, the same groups that have led the charge to stop shale development are also trying to block the pipelines necessary to get that fuel to Northeast families. Their reasoning? If they can’t stop companies from producing natural gas, maybe they can at least prevent them from actually selling it to consumers who want to buy it.
For example, the Northeast Supply Link, proposed by Transcontinental Gas Pipeline Co., would bring natural gas to Pennsylvania, New York, and New Jersey. It has a capacity of 250 million cubic feet (MMCF) per day. But in 2011, as reported by a local newspaper, the Sierra Club did its level best to stop the project:
“Many area residents in attendance as well as a representative from the Sierra Club’s New Jersey Chapter said they are skeptical that there is sufficient demand for natural gas, especially in a weak economy, to warrant construction of the proposed pipeline.” (emphasis added)
Although the project was eventually approved by FERC, this example is instructive. A major environmental organization suggested there was not sufficient natural gas demand in the region to warrant construction of a pipeline. But we know demand has been increasing in the Northeast; in fact, increasing demand is what prompted the latest New York Times report. Right?
Here are some more:
- The MARC I Pipeline, which would be built by the Central New York Oil and Gas Company, has a stated capacity of 550 MMCF per day. It was also approved by FERC, but not before being challenged by Earthjustice and other environmental groups.
- The Northeast Upgrade Project, with approximately 630 MMCF per day of capacity, is facing efforts by environmental groups to get a federal court to halt construction. Perhaps bowing to those special interests, U.S. Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) is also trying to force a reroute.
- During a hearing last fall about the Constitution Pipeline (capacity: approximately 640 MMCF per day), one local opponent went so far as to suggest the project would destroy the United States:
“Kristina Turechek of Oneonta, N.Y., told the panel approval would consign portions of America to a ‘third-world nation’ and turn the nation backward. Other opponents yelled, cursed or called for the arrest of gas industry executives.”
- Spectra Energy is also in the process right now of constructing a $1.2 billion pipeline (capacity: 800 MMCF/d) that, once finished (Nov. 2013 is the current target), will help feed growing demand in New York City and elsewhere across the metro region. Estimates suggest the pipeline would help save customers more than $650 million per year in energy costs. Amazingly, the project has even earned the full-throated support of the League of Conservation Voters, in addition to picking up Mayor Bloomberg’s endorsement and the support of a dozens of other local civic and labor leaders. Playing to type, and right on cue, the Sierra Club, Food & Water Watch and others of that ilk continue to file lawsuits (all to this point have failed) aimed at stopping construction from moving forward.
These are, of course, only a snapshot of projects and the efforts to oppose their construction. Once in operation (if they are not tangled up in lawsuits), these pipelines alone would increase the region’s capacity by nearly 2.9 billion cubic feet (BCF) per day. To put that in perspective, in 2009, the two large natural gas distribution companies that serve New York City delivered a combined average of about 1.3 BCF per day to the city’s customers.
FERC also maintains a list of major pipelines awaiting approval, and demand is large enough in the Northeast that companies are constantly making new plans to grow regional infrastructure.
This is not to say that environmental groups are necessarily the biggest contributor to the region’s energy woes. To be sure, a diverse energy mix is important, much like the wisdom we gained from our parents that we should not “put all of our eggs in one basket.” The Times report indicates that the same mentality should be adopted by the Northeast.
Nor is it the case that utilities are uninterested in having a diversity of supply, either. Remember, New York has been delaying a decision about whether to allow responsible shale development for four years. A report for New York City, meanwhile, found that “Marcellus Shale gas production will have a significant effect on pipeline flows across the United States and in the Northeast.” Delaying shale development, by extension, places even more unnecessary constraints on the supplies of energy that consumers demand.
Who’s also leading the fight against diverse energy supplies? The same folks who have avoided culpability in delaying, opposing, or even blocking progress throughout the region.
To wit: Riverkeeper, an environmental organization in New York, wrote in the New York Times in 2010 that the state should shut down the Indian Point nuclear plant and replace it with a natural gas-fired plant. Ironically, Riverkeeper is also leading the charge to oppose responsible natural gas development in New York, and has even dispatched people across the country to try to undermine the safety record of hydraulic fracturing. As you probably could have guessed, Riverkeeper has also voiced opposition to natural gas pipelines.
Nationwide, natural gas and nuclear power generate approximately 50 percent of our electricity. But with environmental groups trying to take both of those off the table (along with coal, which generates the bulk of the remaining electricity), how can we possibly expect to meet growing energy demand?
Regardless of the source of the delay, areas such as the Northeast that need new pipelines are not getting them. That’s not because natural gas is a flawed energy option, and it’s certainly not due to a lack of interest in building pipelines. Companies are continuing to explore options for additional capacity – all the while dealing with irrational activist opposition. And given the fluctuating regulatory framework in New York, the barrier of uncertainty also casts an enormous shadow over future investment.
To understand the effect, we need to understand the causes. Unfortunately, The Times chose not to examine the latter, even though that story is clearly worth telling.
*UPDATE XX* EPA Official: “Crucify” Operators to “Make Examples” of Them
According to a recently released video, EPA Region 6 administrator Al Armendariz told an audience during a city council meeting in DISH, TX, that his philosophy of enforcement was, to put it nicely, less than objective.
Steve
Spokesman
UPDATE XX (2/22/2013, 9:33 am ET): As part of his last desperate defense of the baseless endangerment order against Range Resources, then-EPA Region 6 administrator Al Armendariz circulated a list of alleged casing problems due to Range’s operations — in Pennsylvania. Why a regional administrator would seek to highlight potential issues of a company operating in a different geological formation (and in a different EPA region) is unclear, although Armendariz’s comments about wantonly “crucifying” operators suggests a personal animosity could have been a factor. How else could one explain his decision to tarnish the company’s reputation in a manner that had absolutely nothing to do with operations in Parker County, Texas?
The list was uncovered in the latest EnergyWire report (subs. req’d) on the Parker County case, although it was buried several paragraphs deep in the story.
UPDATE XIX (2/8/2013, 10:51am ET): New emails obtained by EnergyWire show that then-administrator of Region 6, Al Armendariz, was discussing with others inside the EPA the possibility of Range not being at fault for methane concentrations in the Parker County water wells. Here’s how Mike Soraghan summarized the correspondence in his story earlier this week:
On Dec. 27, 2011, Armendariz outlined a position to take to Washington officials. His “least preferable” option included settling without requiring Range to provide water. But EPA would reserve the right to go after Range again with penalties if testing showed the company had contaminated the aquifer. (emphasis added)
So, a little over a year after Armendariz gleefully emailed local activists to “Tivo channel 8″ to see his agency impose a baseless endangerment order against Range Resources, and 11 months after clear scientific evidence was presented to state regulators confirming Range was not at fault, the EPA finally began quietly and confidentially discussing the possibility that their order was without merit.
This also raises important questions: Shouldn’t the EPA have had clear testing results showing contamination from Range’s activities before issuing its endangerment order against the company? And what does that say about the EPA’s own case against Range if the agency itself didn’t have enough evidence even a year after the fact? Of course, given Armendariz’s stated willingness to “crucify” gas companies solely so he could more easily control them, perhaps this strategy was bizarrely consistent with his method of enforcement.
UPDATE XVIII (1/15/2013, 9:02am ET): EnergyWire has obtained data from the EPA — made available through a FOIA request, full story here — showing naturally occurring methane in the water wells that now-former EPA Region 6 administrator Al Armendariz had claimed beyond all doubt were contaminated by natural gas development. The data came from tests conducted by Range Resources as part of an agreement with the EPA, and the specific findings suggest water quality is consistent with historical conditions in Parker County. Put differently, data obtained directly from the EPA even show that Armendariz’s endangerment order against Range Resources was baseless, a fact already strongly suggested by nearly all scientific evidence that was available to the EPA when the order itself was issued in 2010.
Perhaps Armendariz, who now works for the anti-natural gas Sierra Club, should have paid more attention to credible evidence instead of working behind the scenes with local activists to “crucify” oil and gas companies.
UPDATE XVII (10/31/2012, 10:45am ET): At a recent event sponsored by the Society of Environmental Journalists, Al Armendariz doubled down on his baseless finding of water contamination in Parker County. In response, Range Resources has sent a letter to the former EPA official, reminding him that his recent comments are “contradicted by facts, science, independent expert analysis, the final adjudicated decision of the Railroad Commission of Texas, the EPA’s internal documents, and sworn testimony from EPA’s sole witness to testify about [his] order.” The letter further requests that Armendariz stop making “false and disparaging comments” about the company that he wrongfully maligned.
UPDATE XVI (6/7/2012, 3:11pm ET): This week, Al Armendariz was scheduled to testify on Capitol Hill, but canceled his appearance at the last minute. No one really knew why — until today:
It’s not clear why Al Armendariz, recently removed from a top post at the Environmental Protection Agency for saying that the government should “crucify” bad actors in the energy industry, abruptly canceled plans to testify before a House panel on Wednesday.
But it is clear that he was in Washington that day and met with someone — at the Sierra Club, the nation’s largest environmental organization.
On Wednesday afternoon, when a reporter visited the Sierra Club’s Washington headquarters just a few blocks from Capitol Hill, Armendariz’s name was written on the sign-in sheet as having been the last person to visit the office. The visit apparently came only a few hours after Armendariz had infuriated Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee when he canceled his scheduled testimony on EPA enforcement issues without offering a reason.
So, just to recap: Prior to becoming Region 6 administrator for the EPA, Al Armendariz’s claim to fame was authoring a study about air emissions that, even at the time, air quality regulators for the state strongly disavowed, and since then have definitively debunked. As administrator, he maintained a close relationship with anti-shale activists, said his method of enforcing regulations was to “crucify” oil and gas companies, and even issued an endangerment order against Range Resources that was so lacking in scientific merit that the EPA itself had to withdraw the order. And now, instead of attending a hearing in front of a House committee at which he had agreed to appear, he chooses to meet with the Sierra Club, an activist organization that has made no apology for being for natural gas before it was against it.
Tough day for those who claim Mr. Armendariz has never been improperly swayed by professional opponents of oil and gas development.
UPDATE XV (5/4/2012, 8:21am ET): A must-read editorial from the Washington Post says the EPA is “earning a reputation for abuse,” citing the Sackett case and the events surrounding Al Armendariz. The final two sentences are particularly apt:
The agency’s officers must have a clear sense when to deploy its mighty power and when to exercise discretion. That’s true for the sake of the economy and to ensure that the EPA will be able to continue its necessary work for years to come.
Also be sure to check out Kim Strassel’s piece in the Wall Street Journal today, which has much more on the preceding events in Parker County than what most other outlets have included in their stories.
UPDATE XIV (4/30/2012, 3:42pm ET): Armendariz’s replacement will be Sam Coleman, who served as EPA’s point man in New Orleans during the response to Hurricane Katrina. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, meanwhile, issued the following statement: “I respect the difficult decision he made and his wish to avoid distracting from the important work of the agency. We are all grateful for Dr. Armendariz’s service to EPA and to our nation.”
UPDATE XIII (4/30/2012, 12:04pm ET): The Dallas Morning News reports that Al Armendariz has resigned, and has posted his letter of resignation (which is also below):
Dear Friends,
I have been honored to serve as your regional administrator for EPA’s region 6 office the last 2 and 1/2 years. I never once forgot that the reason I was appointed was to serve you, to act as your voice, and to work day and night to better protect the environment and your safety.Today I am resigning my position as regional administrator. This was not something that was asked of me by Administrator Jackson or the White House. It is a decision I made myself. I had become too much of a distraction, and no one person is more important than the incredible work being done by the rest of the team at EPA.
I leave with an incredible sense of pride for the things the Agency accomplished and it was fantastic to be a part of the effort. Administrator Jackson has overseen a renaissance in the Agency and it is again the global leader in environmental protection. President Obama has been incredibly supportive of me and my work and the Agency. He’ll undoubtedly go down as the most environmental president we have ever had.
Thank you all for letting me into your homes and communities, and showing me the challenges you face every day from pollution and lack of infrastructure. Your stories are now part of my fabric and the fabric of the Agency.
Best always,
Al Armendariz
UPDATE XII (4/27/2012, 3:50pm ET): EPA Region 6 covers five states — Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Texas, and New Mexico — and now more than half of the U.S. Representatives from those states are calling for Armendariz to “be relieved of his position” as administrator. In a letter signed by 29 of the 42 U.S. Representatives from Region 6, as well as by Iowa Rep. Steve King and Arizona Rep. Trent Franks, the members of Congress also state: “We are deeply disappointed in not only the statements of Mr. Armendariz, but also the abrasive, hostile posture that his office has struck during his tenure.”
UPDATE XI (4/27/2012, 12:12pm ET): EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has now weighed in, calling Armendariz’s comments “inflammatory,” “disappointing,” and “not representative” of the Agency. She also declined to say whether any disciplinary actions would be taken, noting only that she and the EPA “will continue to review” the situation.
This once again begs an important question, though: Armendariz described his comments as “my philosophy of enforcement,” so if those comments are “not representative” of the EPA, then how does the Agency continue to reconcile two diametrically opposed views by allowing Armendariz to remain as Region 6 administrator?
UPDATE X (4/27/2012, 9:39am ET): The case of the missing video just got a little more interesting. Apparently the video was originally uploaded by a gentleman named David McFatridge, who posted the video to a YouTube page called “Citizen Media for We The People.” But McFatridge cited a copyright infringement, so the website yanked the video. It’s little wonder why McFatridge wanted the video pulled down, though: he’s apparently a member of the Sierra Club Activist Network. And when it comes to opposing oil and gas development, the Sierra Club is one of the largest and most active organizations, so it wouldn’t want to have its fingerprints on this at all. Too late? (h/t Lachlan Markay)
UPDATE IX (4/27/2012, 8:33am ET): Some pretty big developments overnight, starting with former Obama White House economic adviser Jared Bernstein calling Armendariz’s comments “absolutely reprehensible” on CNBC (his comments begin around the eight minute mark). Later in the segment Bernstein even brags, “I used to work for President Obama.”
Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) has also joined the growing chorus (subs. req’d) calling for Armendariz to resign.
And in another interesting twist, YouTube has taken down the video of Armendariz making his inflammatory comments, citing a copyright issue. More to come on that development, for sure.
UPDATE VIII (4/26/2012; 9:18pm ET): Four more U.S. Representatives are now calling for Armendariz’s resignation: GOP Congressmen Steve Scalise, Rodney Alexander, and Charles Boustany (all from Louisiana), as well as Rep. Pete Olson from Texas. That brings the running total to seven total members of the U.S. Congress calling publicly for Armendariz to step down or even be fired.
UPDATE VII (4/26/2012; 9:04pm ET): Add U.S. Rep. Ted Poe to the list of members of Congress calling for the resignation of Al Armendariz. The Texas Republican took to the House floor to condemn the Region VI administrator this evening by saying, in part: “He needs to be replaced with someone that cares more about the environment than personal crusades against industry.” Both the Wall Street Journal and Investor’s Business Daily have also called for Armendariz to step down.
UPDATE VI (4/26/2012; 4:42pm ET): “Unacceptable and embarrassing.” That’s the way the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) is characterizing Mr. Armendariz’s remarks in a joint statement issued just now by TCEQ chairman Bryan Shaw, Ph.D, and commissioners Carlos Rubinstein and Toby Baker.
Their statement in full: “The EPA’s ‘crucifixion’ philosophy and agenda is unacceptable and embarrassing. The EPA Region 6 director’s outlandish comments significantly cheapen the role of the state and federal regulators who strive to ensure that sound environmental rules and policies are promulgated and enforced. Furthermore, such a philosophy flies in the face of the sound science, the law, and common sense that TCEQ regularly utilizes in pursuing legitimate enforcement actions where violations do in fact exist.
“We believe the way to protect human health and the environment is through vigorous enforcement, utilizing the state’s administrative procedures that are afforded to the public and the regulated community.”
UPDATE V (4/26/2012; 4:14pm ET): Simon Rosenberg, former staffer to President Clinton and Michael Dukakis and now the president of the New Democratic Network, a leading progressive think tank in D.C., told FOX News this afternoon that Al Armendariz needs to go. According to Rosenberg: “First of all, I think this EPA official should be fired, immediately. He’s clearly not fit to be serving the country, talking the way that he is.” Clip is available here – Rosenberg’s comments come in at minute 3.
UPDATE IV (4/26/2012, 3:33pm ET): At least two members of Congress, Reps. John Fleming and Jeff Landry (both from Louisiana), are publicly calling for Armendariz to resign or be fired. This follows in the wake of comments last month from Texas Railroad Commissioner David Porter, who cited Armendariz’s use of “fear mongering, gross negligence and severe mishandling” of the Parker County case as a reason for him to be removed from his position as Region VI Administrator. We’ll be monitoring the news to see if any additional members of Congress or other officials make similar requests, so stay tuned.
UPDATE III (4/26/2012, 2:20pm ET): Ed Henry, previously with CNN but now the White House correspondent for FOX News, just asked Jay Carney, the President’s press secretary, if the administration had a response to Armendariz’s inflammatory remarks.
Henry, citing President Obama’s promise to foster and promote a “new tone” among members of his administration, posed the following question to Carney: “If somebody’s saying we should crucify the industry, why is that person still working at the EPA as a political appointee?” Carney responded: “He apologized, and what he said is clearly not representative of either this president’s belief in the way that we should approach these matters, or in the way that he has approached these matters, either from this office here in the White House or at the EPA.”
Carney’s response still begs the question, though: If what Armendariz described as “my philosophy of enforcement” is, in fact, “not representative” of what the president (who appointed him, and whom he represents) believes, then how does the White House reconcile the fact that Armendariz is still representing the administration as its EPA Region VI administrator?
UPDATE II (4/26/2012, 9:51am ET): U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who is demanding an investigation into Armendariz’s comments, is not buying the Region VI Administrator’s apology. “His apology was meaningless,” Inhofe said. “You’re going to treat people like the Romans crucified the church? Get real.” The Senator also noted, as EID did below, that Armendariz has never apologized for grabbing headlines by (wrongly) accusing oil and gas companies like Range Resources of harming the environment, only to withdraw those complaints once the EPA realizes its accusations are, in fact, completely unfounded. Such actions certainly appear to reinforce the strategy Armendariz articulated in the video.
UPDATE (4/26/2012, 8:48am ET): Armendariz has issued a statement apologizing for the comments he made in the video. However, Cynthia Giles, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, didn’t exactly deny the philosophy Armendariz articulated, noting in a statement: “Strong, fair and effective enforcement of the environmental laws passed by Congress is critical to protecting public health and ensuring that all companies, regardless of industry, are playing by the same rules” (full statement can be found here). Armendariz still has not apologized for his emails to activists urging them to “Tivo channel 8″ prior to his office issuing what turned out to be a scientifically baseless charge against Range Resources in 2010.
—Original post from April 25, 2012—
EID has followed closely the actions of EPA’s Region 6 office in Dallas, and specifically its decision to issue an endangerment order against Range Resources back in 2010 despite clear scientific evidence in contradiction of its charges (embarrassingly for the agency, EPA had to withdraw that order earlier this year). This includes pointing out how the Administrator for that office, Al Armendariz, gleefully emailed activists in the area (prior to the official announcement) that EPA was “about to make a lot of news” and that it was “time to Tivo channel 8.”
That news, of course, was that EPA “determined” Range Resources had contaminated drinking water in Parker County, Texas. Local anti-shale activist Sharon Wilson cheerfully responded, “Hats off to the new Sheriff and his deputies!”
But as it turns out, the story behind Mr. Armendariz’s actions is much deeper, and indeed much more troubling.
According to a recently released video, Armendariz – who also appeared in Josh Fox’s infamous film Gasland – told an audience during a city council meeting in DISH, TX, that his philosophy of enforcement as an official public servant was, to put it nicely, less than objective.
Here’s a breakdown of what Armendariz said in May 2010, a few months before Region VI issued its endangerment order against Range Resources:
“But as I said, oil and gas is an enforcement priority, it’s one of seven, so we are going to spend a fair amount of time looking at oil and gas production.”
Nothing too inflammatory there, really…other than the fact that an EPA administrator — tasked as a public servant to operate objectively in his capacity as a regulator — was essentially putting a bulls-eye on a particular industry. But the next part of what Armendariz said is where things got really interesting. And shocking:
“I was in a meeting once and I gave an analogy to my staff about my philosophy of enforcement, and I think it was probably a little crude and maybe not appropriate for the meeting but I’ll go ahead and tell you what I said. It was kind of like how the Romans used to conquer little villages in the Mediterranean. They’d go into a little Turkish town somewhere, they’d find the first five guys they saw and they would crucify them. And then you know that town was really easy to manage for the next few years.”
Armendariz went on to explain more about how this works with the oil and gas industry specifically, stating “you hit them as hard as you can and you make examples out of them” and that one should “go aggressively after them.” Of course, Armendariz knew that taking such an aggressive course would also sock it to the industry financially, adding: “Compliance can get very high, very, very quickly.”
Strangely enough, Armendariz had initially described this as his own philosophy, but after he finished explaining how to “make examples” out of hardworking oil and gas workers, he said “that’s our general philosophy.”
One U.S. Senator has already sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson asking (among other things) if Armendariz’s statements about sacking Turkish villages are, in fact, reflective of EPA’s “general philosophy” when it comes to regulation and enforcement.
So, not only was Armendariz working closely with ideological opponents of oil and gas development before issuing a scientifically-baseless endangerment order against a particular oil and gas company, he was also operating under a broader philosophy that sees the industry as villagers who can and indeed ought to be crucified, for the sole purpose of making an example out of them.
But the story, tragically, doesn’t end there.
One of Armendariz’s original claims to fame — or infamy, perhaps — was his paper in 2009, which found that “the oil and gas sector likely has greater emissions than motor vehicles” in the five counties comprising the Dallas-Fort Worth region (“emissions,” in this case, referred to nitrogen oxides [NOx] and volatile organic compounds [VOCs]). That paper, written while Armendariz was a professor at Southern Methodist University, was widely celebrated by activists, who — possibly as a “thank you” to the professor — actively pushed for Armendariz to be appointed Administrator of EPA’s Region VI office. Upon assuming office, groups like the Sierra Club celebrated, calling it “great news” because the industry was “having an ‘oh sh–’ moment” about the appointment. Other shale opponents, including area resident Sharon Wilson, appeared happily in pictures with Armendariz.
To this day, opposition groups still cite the talking point that oil and gas production generates more emissions than all the cars and trucks in the DFW region, a claim that ultimately gets traced back to Armendariz’s paper.
But as it turns out, Armendariz’s original claim to fame — that snazzy talking point about cars and trucks — is just as dubious as the headline-grabbing endangerment order his office issued against Range Resources.
According to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), Armendariz’s conclusion that oil and gas operations emit more smog-forming emissions than mobile sources is simply not true. In 2009, TCEQ wrote that Armendariz’s paper provided “an incomplete picture” of emissions in the area, adding that several critical flaws contributed to “misleading conclusions” in the paper. In addition, the Barnett Shale Energy Education Council (BSEEC) took a hard look at the Armendariz paper and dismantled its underlying premises, noting along the way that Armendariz’s conclusions were based on “an inaccurate and flawed interpretation of the facts.”
Furthermore, TCEQ recently responded to an inquiry about regional emissions levels (the full response was obtained by EID and can be found here), which included an updated assessment of sources of emissions in the DFW area. TCEQ pointed out that VOC emissions from oil and gas production are less than half those from mobile sources (63 tons per day [tpd] vs 129 tpd). For NOx, TCEQ states that mobile source emissions “are approximately 15 times higher” than those generated from oil and gas production.
Sure, TCEQ’s latest findings are much more current than what Armendariz published back in 2009. One would expect (and, frankly, hope) that technological developments over time would facilitate more accurate readings.
But it’s also difficult to lend much credence to the argument that Armendariz’s findings were simply due to a methodological or technological difference, especially in light of the fact that his two most significant actions in attempting to “crucify” and “make examples” of the oil and gas industry have been rendered completely and unequivocally bogus by actual scientific inquiry.
The question is, with Al Armendariz’s troubling and offensive “philosophy of enforcement” no longer a secret kept by activists, but rather a part of the public record, does the Region VI office — and indeed the entire EPA — have any credibility as long as he remains in his current position?
*UPDATE* Illinois Lawmakers: Let’s Move Forward with HF
Today, two downstate lawmakers introduced legislation into the House that would regulate high volume hydraulic fracturing in Illinois, the product of literally months of negotiations between industry, labor and business organizations, environmental groups, and numerous other stakeholders.
Kyna
Field Director, Illinois
UPDATE (Feb. 22, 2013; 8:21 am ET): Illinois Governor Pat Quinn (D) has released a statement praising the legislation as a measure that will ensure protection of the environment and bring thousands of new jobs to Illinois. His full statement is below:
“Today’s proposal is good news for Southern Illinois and our entire state’s economy. This legislation has the potential to bring thousands of jobs to Southern Illinois, while also ensuring that Illinois has the nation’s strongest environmental protections.
“I am committed to creating jobs and economic growth in every part of Illinois, and always making sure our water and natural resources are protected for future generations.
“I want to thank everyone who’s been working hard in good faith on this issue. While there is more work to be done, this proposal moves us forward.”
—Original post, February 21, 2013—
Today, two downstate lawmakers introduced legislation into the House that would regulate high volume hydraulic fracturing in Illinois, the product of literally months of negotiations between industry, labor and business organizations, environmental groups, and numerous other stakeholders.
The bill (HB2615) which would create the “Illinois Hydraulic Fracturing Regulatory Act,” establishes new standards for things like water quality, fluid disclosure, air emissions and well construction. The legislation enjoys support from the industry, but also from groups like the Natural Resources Defense Council, which had previously supported a two-year moratorium on hydraulic fracturing in the state.
It’s worth noting, however, that the bill is not perfect by any means, as it includes significant new requirements for hydraulic fracturing that could serve as a barrier to future operations. The industry’s proposal would have created a strong but fair regulatory program in the state, matching the benchmarks set by environmental groups on what would be necessary to ensure public safety, including for critical issues like fluid disclosure, baseline water testing, public notifications and well pressure tests, among others. The legislation released today, however, went above and beyond those recommendations.
Imperfect as it is, the alternative to today’s IHFRA bill would be far more destructive: a moratorium. The moratorium bill SB1418 in the state senate would impose a two-year ban on hydraulic fracturing, which essentially amounts to a two-year time out on new investment in a state suffering from an 8.7 percent unemployment rate and the worst bond rating in the country. As we’ve described before, misinformation and activist talking points form the entire basis for a moratorium, highlighting the fundamental flaw with imposing such additional economic hardship on hardworking Illinois families.
Of course, today’s news also shows how out of touch groups opposed to hydraulic fracturing truly are.
Folks like SAFE and Food & Water Watch, among others, have desperately tried to convince the public that hydraulic fracturing is inherently dangerous and must be banned entirely. They argue no amount of regulation could ever guarantee safety, and that the only “responsible” decision is to prevent hydraulic fracturing from ever occurring again.
This sort of head-in-the-sand argument is not only disproven by safe operations in other states, where tight regulations guarantee protection of both the public and the natural environment, but also by the sheer diversity of the coalition now supporting a path forward in Illinois. Ideological opponents of hydraulic fracturing, meanwhile, have chosen to operate outside the mainstream, and have thus been marginalized by their own actions and statements. Even President Obama, in his recent State of the Union address, stressed the need to expand domestic energy production, including oil and natural gas.
Although today’s bill is still a long way from becoming law, and much can change as the legislative process unfolds, it is certainly reassuring that Illinois lawmakers are making the truly responsible choice of casting aside the hyperbole and talking points, and making a genuine effort to allow shale development to move forward.
RFF Survey Destroys Myth of Shale-Specific Risk
To hear opponents of shale development tell it, the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing is a new and “dangerous” technology – so “inherently risky” and full of threats unique to the process that we should just shut the whole thing down and call it a day. But a recent survey of experts turns this carefully crafted talking point on its head by noting risks associated with developing oil and natural gas from shale are no different than the ones that industry and regulators have been managing well for over 100 years
JD
Communications Director
To hear opponents of shale development tell it, the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing is a new and “dangerous” technology – so “inherently risky” and full of threats unique to the process that we should just shut the whole thing down and call it a day.
The talking point about shale as being new and different and inherently unsafe is actually part of a sophisticated messaging strategy by activists to separate in folks’ minds the relatively uncontroversial act of drilling an oil well with the virtually identical act of drilling an oil well and then turning the drill bit horizontally. Technically, they may be the same. But because the public isn’t scared of vertical wells, opponents have worked very hard to convince them that shale is an entirely different enterprise – and a much scarier one than they may think. To wit:
“Fracking has been around for decades, but the techniques, technologies and chemicals used to reach new, remote gas reserves are more intensive and riskier than conventional gas drilling.” – Food and Water Watch, the case for a ban on gas fracking
“This approach is far bigger and riskier than the conventional fracking of earlier years.” - Cornell study author Robert Howarth, “Should fracking stop?” (Nature, September 15, 2011)
“In January, I will introduce legislation to create a statutory moratorium on all fracking activity in Maryland. This moratorium will stay in place until and unless we have a science-based review of all the safety risks involved.” – Maryland State Del. Heather Mizuer (D), “No study? No fracking” (Baltimore Sun, September 12, 2012)
“Fracking,” or hydraulic fracturing, is a dangerous drilling technique that endangers our state’s water, air, wildlife and public health. – Center for Biological Diversity, California protect yourself from a fracking explosion
“Everyday the facts of fracking become clearer. The process is inherently contaminating, and no amount of regulation can make it safe for people living near or downriver from it.” – Josh Fox, “Ban fracking now” (USA TODAY, May 6, 2011)
But what if the risks associated with developing oil and natural gas from shale were no different than the ones that industry and regulators have been managing well for over 100 years now in the context of traditional vertical oil and gas development? What would that do the opposition’s talking point?
Well, could be we’re about to find out. Earlier this month, the environmental research group Resources for the Future – certainly no shill for oil and gas – released a survey of experts’ opinions on the “risks” associated with developing oil and natural gas from shale. In the end, experts with varying backgrounds identified 12 consensus items of concern, the vast majority of which, the experts declared, not only weren’t unique to shale – but not even unique to oil and gas development in general.
According to RFF director Alan Krupnik, “only 2 of the consensus risks identified by the experts are unique to the shale gas development process … The remaining 10 consensus risks relate to practices common to gas and oil development in general, such as the construction of roads, well pads, and pipelines and the potential for leaks in casing and cementing.”
In case you were wondering, the two risk activities RFF identified as being unique to shale were “the storage of fracing fluids onsite before they’re used and after they flow back.” Of course, that’s not technically accurate either, as plenty of vertical, non-shale wells are also fracture stimulated every day and thus generate wastewater that needs to be properly managed on site. But hey, at least they’re trying!
For just one example of how the “unique” risks from shale are already being addressed, look no further than the industry’s use of closed-loop drilling systems. These systems reduce impacts to the environment by completely separating waste materials where development takes place and capturing drill cuttings, flowback fluids and other materials at the point of extraction. Those materials are then channeled directly to sealed containment systems. Even well-known (if lightly regarded) anti-energy groups such as Earthworks have stated that closed-loop systems “isolate waste products from the environment” and “can greatly reduce or eliminate the discharge of toxic drilling wastes on site.”
For these reasons, regulators across the country have recognized the technology as an approved “best management practice,” and many states require their implementation. As a result, the use of closed-loop systems has increased significantly in states like Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Alaska, Pennsylvania, New Mexico and Ohio – just to name a few. Cabot Oil and Gas uses the technology in all of its operations. Chesapeake Energy uses the technology extensively in its Utica and Marcellus Shale operations, as does Chief Oil and Gas – among many others.
The fact that currently available technology is already being used to reduce and manage risk is, everyone can agree, very good news – especially when you combine it with the fact that water recycling is also being used increasingly nationwide. Recent reports highlight that operators in the Marcellus, as one example, are using water recycling to treat over 90 percent of the water used in their operations. Additionally, a recent study from Duke found that natural gas development from shale produces less wastewater than so-called “conventional” wells on a per-unit basis. These factors not only reduce the likelihood of spills from the storage of fracturing fluid additives and flowback on-site, but also significantly reduce the freshwater needed to fracture a well – another common concern listed by the experts polled.
Taken together, a pretty clear picture emerges: shale development utilizing hydraulic fracturing is not a “new” and “dangerous” technology with unknown and unmanageable risks. Rather, the risks are well-understood, carefully managed and tightly regulated. In fact, the only risks “unique to shale development” – notwithstanding that they’re not actually unique — are being addressed effectively by industry and state regulations.
In the end, the RFF survey confirms what most objective observers already recognize: Shale development, which is made possible through the combined use of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling (among many other things) doesn’t pose unique risks to the public, but does provide unique benefits – like jobs, revenue and opportunity for places and people that can certainly use the boost.
*UPDATE* On Flaring and North Dakota
By now, you’ve probably read some of the recent stories about two things that the vast majority of Americans will never see in person: 1) North Dakota, and 2) flaring at the wellhead. But what is actually happening out there in the Peace Garden State -- aside from the virtual full employment and state budget surpluses that tight oil development from the Bakken continues to deliver? EID takes a look at the facts.
Steve
Spokesman
UPDATE (2/15/2013, 11:27am ET): During a sparsely covered House hearing earlier this week, Rep. Marc Veasey (D-Tex.) asked U.S. EIA Administrator Adam Sieminski about flaring in North Dakota, as well as any potential related concerns in the Eagle Ford shale in south Texas. Veasey wondered if there were “any technology on the horizon” that would allow us to reduce flaring in places like Texas, North Dakota, and even Alaska.
Here is Sieminski’s response (his remarks begin at the 1:01:05 mark in the archived webcast):
“Although there’s a significant amount of flaring taking place in the Bakken formation right now, I think the latest statistics from North Dakota suggest that it’s actually coming down. It had been as high as 35 or 36 percent of the gas. It’s now down slightly below 30 percent. This is usually indicative of infrastructure build-out needed in a new area.
“The gas is associated with the oil production in North Dakota. I suspect that over time, the pipeline networks will be built out in North Dakota and those numbers will come down even further. Although it seems like a lot of gas, when you just look at the percentage in North Dakota, the amount in North Dakota is less than one-third of one percent. So less than one-third of one percent of total U.S. gas production. And so it’s actually a very small number.
“You’re correct, sir, in that there actually has been some flaring in the Eagle Ford, essentially for the same reason. Eagle Ford is in a part of Texas that’s actually not heavily populated, it doesn’t have the same pipeline infrastructure that you see in other parts of Texas. It’ll just take a little bit of time, and companies are working on that.
“On the technology side, there has been an effort to look into small LNG liquefaction facilities that might be put in place in some of these remote areas where you could turn that natural gas that’s being flared into a liquid, which would be easier to transport. So I think there is a lot of thinking going on in the industry, and although those satellite pictures showing the sky at night and the amount of light being given off in some of these new producing areas seem startling, it is I think relatively small proportion. It’s fairly normal in the course of development in new areas.
“Very quickly, in Alaska, there is a lot of gas that comes up in Alaska with the oil, but it’s re-injected back into the formation. So there’s very little flaring taking place in Alaska.” (emphasis added)
—Original post, February 5, 2013—
By now, you’ve probably read some of the recent stories about two things that the vast majority of Americans will never see in person: 1) North Dakota (which is too bad; it’s a beautiful place with great people), and 2) flaring at the wellhead.
Flaring is a tightly controlled, closely regulated process — one that’s used both as a safety mechanism to regulate and control pressure levels, and as means of converting methane gas into CO2, especially in those cases where there’s not enough natural gas to produce in commercial quantities from the well. Of course, in a perfect world, you wouldn’t need to flare any natural gas – you’d direct every bit of it into a pipeline, and then send it out for sale. But transport infrastructure takes time to build, and it’s tough to build a pipeline out to a wellsite if you don’t even know if there’s enough natural gas out there to produce.
Most of the big national stories on the flaring phenomenon haven’t really focused on any of that stuff, though. Much more intriguing to them is that some flaring sequences can apparently be seen from space. National Public Radio – apparently puzzled that any lights were present in that part of the country at all – links flaring to everything from air pollution to rising tempers. A feature piece for New York Times Magazine also mentions flaring in North Dakota – just before the author describes the state as a place “where winters are brutal and culture is thin.” (Geez, New York — tell us how you really feel about the Midwest…)
So then, notwithstanding NYT’s dim and completely misguided view of North Dakota’s cultural scene: what is actually happening out there in the Peace Garden State? You know, aside from the virtual full employment and state budget surpluses that tight oil development from the Bakken continues to deliver? Below, EID takes a closer look at the facts.
Regulations and Infrastructure
As with any process related to oil and gas, the first (and almost always false) assumption put forth is that flaring is unregulated. How else to explain those bright lights that NASA has photographed from space? How could the state allow that?
Well, in reality, the entire system is heavily regulated and closely monitored, and a sober explanation of the facts should prove useful – even for us temper-prone and uncultured flat-staters.
As noted by the North Dakota Department of Mineral Resources (DMR), the oil and gas division of the state’s Industrial Commission “implements and enforces rules and regulations to limit the production of oil produced from wells that are not yet connected to a gas-gathering system.” After a well is completed, a period of time must be allowed to assess flow rates and stabilize production, and the state limits the total amount of oil that can be produced during that process. This helps operators and regulators determine what, if any, added infrastructure will be needed. During this period, when gas is produced as a byproduct, it is flared off.
The alternative would be to either vent the gas or force a serious incident to occur. The state could also theoretically require costly new pipelines to be built before a well is even proven, but as mentioned, not every well drilled will produce commercial quantities of hydrocarbons. There’s also a fundamental economic problem: Why would any company underwrite millions of dollars in pipeline infrastructure without knowing that it will have a product to deliver to consumers?
Now, you might be saying, “That makes sense. But what about all these wells in the Bakken that are clearly proven?” The DMR has some reassuring words about that, too:
“Now that the size of the natural gas resource is proven, operators in the state are rapidly planning and building the gathering pipelines and processing plants as well as access pipelines to the large interstate pipelines that cross the state.”
In other words, before the infrastructure can be put in place, operators need to prove their wells will produce enough product to justify the expense. Remember, it was just a few years ago when North Dakota barely ranked in the top 10 of oil-producing states (it’s now ranked second, behind only Texas). Now that it’s known there are sufficient quantities of gas and its associated liquids, the industry has been investing billions of dollars in new pipeline and processing infrastructure.
Here’s how North Dakota’s governor, attorney general, and agriculture commissioner described it to members of the U.S. Congress a little over a year ago:
“Industry also plans to invest over $3 billion in natural gas gathering and processing infrastructure in 2011, 2012, and 2013. As this investment is made and gas gathering infrastructure is built, policy can be expected to focus even more toward preventing waste in the natural gas arena. By year end 2012, natural gas processing capacity is expected to increase 389% from 2006. North Dakota’s natural gas processing plants will have the capacity to process one billion cubic feet of natural gas per day.”
In his 2013 State of the State Address, Governor Dalrymple provided an update on the progress:
“Our production of natural gas has also more than doubled from two years ago. We have encouraged the gathering of natural gas and have also doubled processing capacity since the end of 2010. By 2014 we expect to have capacity to process 1.36 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day. We are also promoting the use of natural gas at the well site instead of diesel fuel, and today we are seeing a leveling off of the percentage of natural gas that is being flared.”
However, even with these facts – clear regulations in place, growing investment in pipelines and other infrastructure – there’s still plenty more to the story.
Energy Context
Two other questions people ask about flaring are: “If we’re burning off all of that gas, aren’t we wasting a lot of energy? And what’s flaring mean in terms of air emissions?” Let’s address the first question…well, first.
The Financial Times recently reported on flaring and provided this nugget of information:
“More than 1,000 wells were connected to the gas-gathering system in 2012, but that has not been enough to cut the proportion of the state’s gas being flared, which has remained stuck at about 30 per cent.”
Flaring 30 percent of all gas produced sounds high, but it leaves out an important fact: the overwhelming majority of energy produced from North Dakota wells comes out in the form of oil or other liquids. Let’s look at flared gas as a percentage of the total energy produced in North Dakota, as highlighted by the state’s governor, attorney general, and agriculture commissioner:
Shale development in general – and hydraulic fracturing in particular – is typically discussed in the context of natural gas. That’s to be expected, especially when you consider all of the economic and environmental benefits that increased supplies of affordable natural gas have provided the United States. But in North Dakota, the story is clearly a bit different, and it’s important to recognize the amount of energy being harnessed and utilized by operators in the state, especially compared to the amount that’s being flared – which, as explained earlier, is clearly preferable to most of the alternatives.
As for environmental impacts, last summer the World Bank described flaring as a “warning sign” in terms of air emissions, and that the global increase in flared gas was “due largely to increased hydrocarbon production in Russia and shale oil and gas operations in the US state of North Dakota.”
That could be cause for alarm, but again, context is helpful.
First of all, despite the World Bank’s rush to judgment in its mentioning of North Dakota alongside Russia in terms of global flaring, just a few paragraphs later the Bank states that “Russia still tops the world’s flaring countries, followed by Nigeria, Iran and Iraq.” The United States – as a whole, not just North Dakota – is fifth.
Additionally, global flaring accounts for about 360 million tons of GHGs, according to the World Bank. In 2010, General Electric estimated that global flaring accounted for about 400 million tons of CO2 equivalent GHGs, equal to approximately two percent of global CO2 emissions from energy sources.
So, after we do a little arithmetic, we find the U.S. share of global flaring is actually incredibly low. The World Bank estimates global flaring at 140 billion cubic meters (bcm) of natural gas, while the United States flared 7.1 bcm. That means the United States accounts for about five percent of all flaring worldwide – even though we’re now the largest natural gas producer in the world and are projected to overtake Saudi Arabia in oil production by the end of this decade.
As for North Dakota specifically, in 2011 the state produced approximately 156 billion cubic feet (bcf) of natural gas, and the U.S. Energy Information Administration notes that in May 2011, 29 percent of that gas was flared, or 45.2 billion cubic feet. Converting back to cubic meters, that’s approximately 1.28 bcm, or 18 percent of the total amount of gas flared in the United States. We’ll let you decide whether that’s good or bad, especially considering the fact that North Dakota is the second largest oil producing state in the country.
What does this mean in terms of emissions? Recall that the World Bank found 140 bcm of flared gas equated to 360 million tons of GHGs. Based on that ratio, GE’s estimates, and some additional basic math, flaring in North Dakota accounts for just 0.017 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions – less than two one-hundredths of one percent.
Conclusion
It’s not surprising that North Dakota’s new role as a major oil supplier to the U.S. energy portfolio is receiving the spotlight, nor is it unexpected that some folks would begin questioning a practice they don’t fully comprehend. The fact that we’re talking about a state that most NYT employees would have trouble finding on a map only adds to the confusion and sense of hyperventilation.
Examined in a vacuum, flaring in North Dakota might be seen as an escalating environmental problem – a “prairie fire” with no extinguisher in sight. Of course, the reality is quite the opposite. With billions of dollars being invested in new infrastructure and clear regulations on the books, it’s clear that continued development of the Bakken Shale will not only yield additional economic and energy security benefits, but also advance along an increasingly efficient and responsible path.
