One Well Does Not a Study Make

according to some folks, this is A-OK water

Just ten days ago, on July 19, AP reported that fracking chemicals didn't contaminate drinking water. That article was supposedly based on a "landmark federal study on hydraulic fracturing" conducted by the Dept. of Energy at their National Energy Technology Lab (NETL).

There's only one problem a couple problems:
1. The study, which has been going on for nearly a year, is incomplete. In fact, on the same day that AP broke its story, NETL released a statement to the press  noting that they are still in the "early stages" of this ongoing study. "While nothing of concern has been found thus far, the results are far too preliminary to make any firm claims."
Which seems to be what the AP article was trying to do: make firm claims. Claims that fracking doesn't pollute groundwater would be great news for the gas industry - and hundreds of landowners who'd like to lease their land on the chance of getting rich off gas.

2. The more important problem is that the study is based on one single well. A well that the gas drillers chose, and allowed DOE researchers to use in their study. Not only is the sample size too small but, as Duke University scientist Rob Jackson pointed out, the drilling company may have consciously or unconsciously taken extra care with that particular site, since they knew it was being watched. Jackson, who was not part of that study, makes an important point: this study was neither representative nor unbiased. A true scientific study is designed to avoid sample bias (such as a drilling operator choosing one well over another because it has fewer problems). And a sample size of just one... the less said, the better.

One week to the day of the AP report, scientists at the University of Texas at Arlington released news that their peer-reviewed study of 100 private water wells in and near the Barnett Shale shows elevated levels of contaminants including arsenic, barium, selenium,  and strontium at levels exceeding  EPA's maximum contaminant limit.

One day after news of the UT study was released, the LA Times reported that EPA may have curtailed their investigations of contaminated water in Dimock, PA and Pavillion, WY prematurely due to political pressure. Seems some of the PA staffers in the agency had data showing that there were contaminants in local water wells and had lobbied their superiors to continue with the study.

Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Thomas Reed, from upstate NY which sits atop the thin edge of Marcellus shale, recently testified that the biggest threat to Marcellus Shale development isn't the spills, broken casings, or methane migration - it's the anti-fracking movement.

National Energy Technology Laboratory

National Energy Technology Laboratory

National Energy Technology Laboratory

Applied Frackonomics

What's good for the goose is good for the gander... here's how one restaurant owner puts "fracking" regulations - and regulatory exclusions -  into context. A bit of light-hearted commentary for those of us who've heard again and again from earnest industry reps that the chemicals they use to drill through rock and break shale "are the same as what you've got under your kitchen sink".

Industry Still Fracking With Diesel

Nobles Hill, Van Etten, Frank Patterson

clarification added Feb 4

On Monday Representatives Henry A. Waxman, Edward J. Markey, and Diana DeGette informed EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson that drilling companies are still using diesel fuel in hydraulic fracturing. An investigation by the House Energy and Commerce Committee found that oil and gas companies injected 32.2 million gallons of diesel fuel to frack wells in 19 states – despite an industry pledge to discontinue the use of diesel in fracking.

In 2003 EPA signed an memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the three largest providers of hydro-fracking services to eliminate the use of diesel fuel in their drilling. Two years later, in 2005, Congress exempted fracking from the Safe Drinking Water Act – except when fracking fluids contain diesel. At that point, many people assumed that the industry had stopped using diesel altogether.

However, when Congressional investigators sent letters to 14 companies requesting details on the type and volume of fracking chemicals they used, they learned that some companies were still using diesel.  A number of gasfield service companies said they had eliminated or were cutting back on use of diesel - but 12 companies reported that between 2005 and 2009 they used a total of 32.2 million gallons of diesel fuel, or fluids containing diesel fuel, in their fracking processes. They are:

Company                                  gallons of diesel injected

Basic Energy Services             204,013

BJ Services                             11,555,538

Complete                                 4,625

Frac Tech                                 159,371

Halliburton                               7,207,216

Key Energy Services               1,641,213

RPC                                          4,314,110

Sanjel                                        3,641,270

Schlumberger                            443,689

Superior                                    833,431

Trican                                        92,537

Weatherford                               2,105,062

The diesel-laced fracking fluids were used in a total of 19 states. Nearly half was injected into wells in Texas, and 589 gallons found their way into eastern frack jobs, ending up in Pennsylvania gas* wells.

The industry isn’t denying the accusation, but they are arguing that the EPA never fully regulated the diesel-based fracking. Although they signed the MOA’s they told ProPublica that there was no clear law prohibiting the use of diesel in fracking fluids.

Congressman Waxman and his colleagues disagree. The Safe Drinking Water Act, they say, made it clear that diesel-based fracking was regulated under EPA’s Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. And the UIC regulations require permits, which the companies have not obtained.

Diesel Fracking in States from 2005 – 2009

State                                    Volume (gallons)                        

           

AK                                    39,375                                               

AL                                    2,464                                               

AR                                    414,492                                   

CA                                    26,466                                               

CO                                    1,331,54                                    

FL                                    377                                               

KS                                    50,304                                               

KY                                    212                                               

LA                                    2,971,255                                   

MI                                    8,007

MS                                    221,044

MT                                    662,946

ND                                    3,138,950

NM                                    605,480

OK                                    3,337,325

PA                                    589

TX                                    16,031,927

UT                                    404,572

WY                                    2,954,747

Total                                    32,202,075

You can read the full text of the Congressional letter to EPA here.

* clarification: the diesel fuel was used to frack gas or oil wells. The Congressional investigation was unable to draw conclusions about environmental and health impacts of diesel used in fracking, as the drilling companies did not obtain permits nor provide data on how near their wells were to drinking water wells.

Sandra Steingraber on Fracking and Cancer

Google "Sandra Steingraber" and you'll learn that she is an ecologist, author, cancer survivor. An inter-nationally recognized authority on environmental links to cancer and other health problems, Steingraber is currently a scholar-in-residence at Ithaca College. She is also the author of the highly acclaimed book, Living Downstream, which was recently made into a movie.

But when we settle onto the grass near the bridge in Trumansburg it becomes immediately clear that Steingraber sees her most important role as a parent whose responsibility it is to keep her children safe from harm.

As Steingraber keeps one eye on her eight-year old son, Elijah, she talks about her recent trip to Washington DC. She was one of three participants in a congressional staff briefing that focused on the President's Cancer Panel report, “Reducing Environmental Cancer Risk” released in early May. 

There is a disconnect between scientific evidence and regulatory response, Steingraber says. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), for example, regulates the introduction of new or already existing chemicals. But it grandfathered in most existing chemicals and, says Steingraber, “It is so weak that it couldn’t even ban asbestos. Even US industries recognize they are losing market share in the European Union because of this law," she says. The reason? The European Union embraces a precautionary approach to regulating industrial pollutants.

In contrast, the US takes a reactionary approach in regulating chemicals, forcing citizens to bear the burden of proving a chemical causes harm. “Stronger regulation is needed,” Steingraber says, echoing words scribed by the President’s Cancer Panel. 

Industry is, and has been for years, exploiting regulatory weaknesses at a high cost to the nation - $243 billion just from cancers alone, from one single year (2009). Steingraber points to a recent study in West Virginia; it shows that the entire economic benefit to the state from the coal industry is wiped out by the mortality and lost productivity of sick coal miners.

“Cancer is not cheap.” Steingraber speaks from experience. “Forget about having a retirement fund or money in the bank.” Individuals aren’t covering all the bills, she says - it's taxpayers who underwrite the cost of environmental pollution.

The President's Cancer Panel panel urged Obama to use the power of his office to “…remove the carcinogens and other toxins from our food, water and air that needlessly increase health care costs, cripple our Nation’s productivity, and devastate American lives.”

"And that has direct implications for high-volume hydraulic fracturing," Steingraber says. "Fracking means deliberately introducing carcinogens into our land, water and air." Even if there’s not a single chemical spill there will still be problems: diesel exhaust from trucks, emissions from compressors at the well site, emissions from compressor stations and leaks in pipelines.

“Then you have the chemicals themselves.” Steingraber cited the recent revelation of 981 gas and oil spills in Colorado. Frack fluid, combined with produced water (brine) accounted for more than 80 percent of the 5.2 million gallons spilled.

“Spills seem to routinely accompany the process,” Steingraber said. “Maybe we can clean up surface spills. But shattered bedrock – there’s no fixing that.” She looks up at her son. “Industry shouldn’t introduce technologies where, in the worst case scenario there’s nothing to be done.” Reflecting on the BP spill she says, "We go deeper into the ocean, with catastrophic results. We remove mountaintops for coal, with catastrophic results. Now we’re fracking for gas ... with catastrophic results. How far are we willing to go to get this energy?" 

If we fully factored in the true environmental costs of fracking, Steingraber pointed out, it would mean counting the diesel fumes from trucks hauling water and chemical to the site, and frack fluid and well waste from the site. It would mean factoring in the run-off and erosion from drilling pads and access roads, chemical spills and wear and tear on local roads and infrastructure. 

“The only way to get shale gas is through fracking, and the only way to do fracking is to degrade the commons,” Steingraber said. “This is the most urgent environmental issue we now face.”

You can read Steingraber's blogs and articles on her website.
You can read the President's Cancer Panel report here.

This post was excerpted from a longer article in the July 5 issue of Tompkins Weekly

Pennsylvania DEP talks Fracking with Everyone

According to an associated press report this afternoon, the Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection has promised to post a list of fracking chemicals used in PA. Some of these drilling compounds have been associated with neurological problems or other serious health effects. DEP promised to post the list online sometime this week. It may be the first time that residents will be able to see a complete catalog of natural gas drilling chemicals used in the state. DEP officials say they assembled the list using information that drilling companies are required to provide. Let's hope DEP posts it in an obvious place so that people can find it......