Natural Gas Fracking
Until
Hydraulic Fracturing is considered unsafe and not just maligned by
radical environmentalist playing upon the fears of the public we fully
support and condone fracking. While there are some minor risks involved,
the process has a proven record of safety and the resulting Natural Gas
that is produced if burned in automobiles will actually help keep our
water supply clean by not placing toxins in the air such as gasoline does. Most of the negative media hype surrounding natural gas
fracking can be linked backed to Middle Eastern interests and/or George
Soros front companies. It is in these companies interests that America
does not develop it's own resources. All we can say is to not believe
the hype.
Hydraulic fracturing -- Hydraulic fracturing is a practice used to coax oil and natural gas
from hard rock formations. It involves forcing large amounts of
pressurized water, a proppant (usually sand), and very small amounts of
chemicals down the wellbore to create tiny fissures in the rock so the
oil and gas can flow through the wellbore to the surface. Hydraulic
fracturing has been used in more than one million wells during the past
60+ years. National Geographic produced an animation
illustrating the practice and as you'll see, the fracturing occurs
well below the aquifer and is separated from groundwater and drinking
water supplies by hundreds or thousands of feet of solid rock.
A list of the chemicals used in the fracturing fluid is available at EnergyInDepth.org.
(This information appears on an oil and natural gas-sponsored website
but it comes from the Department of Energy and the Ground Water
Protection Council.)
Drinking water contamination -- U.S. government studies have found no evidence of drinking water contamination from hydraulic fracturing. In 2004, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a study
to assess the contamination potential of underground drinking water
sources (UDWS) from the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluid into
coalbed methane (CBM) wells. EPA found "the injection of hydraulic
fracturing fluids into CBM wells poses little or no threat to USDWs and
does not justify additional study at this time." EPA also reviewed
incidents of drinking water well contamination believed to be associated
with hydraulic fracturing operations. It found "no confirmed cases
linked to fracturing fluid injection of CBM wells or subsequent
underground movement of fracturing fluid."
In 1998, the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) and a team of state agency representatives conducted a survey
of state oil and natural gas agencies to establish an accurate
assessment of the number of active CBM wells associated with hydraulic
fracturing. Based on the survey of 25 oil and natural gas producing
states, the GWPC concluded, "there was no evidence to support claims
that public health is at risk as a result of the hydraulic fracturing of
coalbeds used for the production of methane gas."
EPA is developing a study
plan now for a congressionally-mandated review of the relationship
between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water. The study is expected
to be finished in 2012.
A recent documentary about
hydraulic fracturing implies that fracturing has contaminated water
wells in Pennsylvania. However, John Hanger, secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) recently told Reuters,
"It's our experience in Pennsylvania that we have not had one case in
which the fluids used to break off the gas from 5,000 to 8,000 feet
underground have returned to contaminate ground water." Hanger's comment
appears in this Reuters article.
The Safe Drinking Water Act - Despite claims to the contrary, hydraulic fracturing has never been regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA). This act was enacted in 1974 to ensure water supply systems
serving the public meet appropriate health standards. It was
specifically designed to establish a federal-state partnership to
"protect drinking water from contamination by the underground injection
of waste," not the use of hydraulic fracturing fluids used to enhance
oil and natural gas production. Fracturing fluids were never included
under the act. To clarify this point, Congress included language in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 making it clear once and for all that underground injection fluids or propping agents were excluded from the SDWA.
Critics
have alleged that hydraulic fracturing was "exempted" from the SDWA and
have mischaracterized the language in the 2005 law as a "loophole."
These statements are not accurate.
State vs. federal regulation
- Some members of Congress have introduced legislation to regulate
hydraulic fracturing under federal law, rather than allow the states to
continue to have regulatory authority. The GWPC examined this issue in
2009 and issued a report
concluding that the regulation of oil and natural gas field activities
is best accomplished at the state level where regional and local
conditions are understood and where state regulators are on-hand to
conduct inspections and oversee operations.
Benefits of hydraulic fracturing
- It's estimated that 80 percent or more of new oil and natural gas
wells drilled in the United States will require hydraulic fracturing to
enhance production. New wells provide energy for all Americans,
revenues for local, state and the federal governments, lease and
royalty payments for landowners, as well as create well-paying jobs,
improve U.S. energy security, and encourage economic growth. About 9.2 million U.S. workers
are supported by the oil and natural gas industry, and tens of
thousands of additional jobs could be created if the industry were
allowed to increase its U.S. operations and drill for more domestic
energy for U.S. consumers.
Finally, industry best
practices and existing state regulations have proven effective in
protecting water resources from impacts related to drilling and
production activities, including hydraulic fracturing. API continues to
develop industry guidance specific to this topic, including documents on
well construction, water use and management, and surface environmental
considerations.
Have surface spills occurred? Yes. Mistakes
have happened, and the responsible parties have been held accountable.
The vast majority of oil and natural gas wells have been drilled,
fractured, and managed appropriately.
Debunking Gas Land
Josh Fox makes his mainstream debut with documentary targeting natural gas – but how much of it is actually true?
For an avant-garde filmmaker and stage director whose previous work has been recognized by the “Fringe Festival”
of New York City, HBO’s decision to air the GasLand documentary
nationwide later this month represents Josh Fox’s first real foray into
the mainstream – and, with the potential to reach even a portion of the
network’s 30 million U.S. subscribers, a potentially significant one at
that.
But with larger audiences and greater fanfare come the expectation of
a few basic things: accuracy, attention to detail, and original
reporting among them. Unfortunately, in the case of this film, accuracy
is too often pushed aside for simplicity, evidence too often sacrificed
for exaggeration, and the same old cast of characters and anecdotes –
previously debunked – simply lifted from prior incarnations of the film
and given a new home in this one.
“I’m sorry,” Josh Fox once told
a New York City magazine, “but art is more important than politics. …
Politics is people lying to you and simplifying everything; art is about
contradictions.” And so it is with GasLand: politics at its worst, art
at its most contrived, and contradictions of fact found around every
bend of the river. Against that backdrop, we attempt below to identify
and correct some of the most egregious inaccuracies upon which the film
is based (all quotes are from Josh Fox, unless otherwise noted):
Misstating the Law
(6:05) “What I didn’t know was that the 2005 energy
bill pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney exempts the oil and natural
gas industries from Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe
Drinking Water Act, the Superfund law, and about a dozen other
environmental and Democratic regulations.”
- This assertion, every part of it, is false. The oil and natural gas industry is regulated under every single one of these laws — under provisions of each that are relevant to its operations. See this fact sheet for a fuller explanation of that.
- The process of hydraulic fracturing, to which Fox appears to be
making reference here, has never in its 60-year history been regulated
under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). It has, however, been
regulated ably and aggressively by the states, which have compiled an
impressive record of enforcement and oversight in the many decades in
which they have been engaged in the practice.
- Far from being “pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney,” the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 earned the support of nearly three-quarters of the
U.S. Senate (74 “yea” votes),
including the top Democrat on the Energy Committee; current Interior
secretary Ken Salazar, then a senator from Colorado; and a former junior
senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. In the U.S. House, 75 Democrats joined 200 Republicans in supporting the final bill, including the top Democratic members on both the Energy & Commerce and Resources Committees.
(6:24) “But when the 2005 energy bill cleared away
all the restrictions, companies … began to lease Halliburton technology
and to begin the largest and most extensive domestic gas drilling
campaign in history – now occupying 34 states.”
- Once again, hydraulic fracturing has never been regulated under SDWA
– not in the 60-year history of the technology, the 36-year history of
the law, or the 40-year history of EPA. Given that, it’s not entirely
clear which “restrictions” in the law Mr. Fox believes were “cleared
away” by the 2005 energy bill. All the bill sought to do was clarify the
existing and established intent of Congress as it related to the scope
of SDWA.
- Interest in developing clean-burning natural gas resources from
America’s shale formations began to manifest itself well before 2005.
The first test well in the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, for example,
was drilled in 2004. In Texas, the first wells in the prolific Barnett
Shale formation were spudded in the late 1990s. But even before natural
gas from shale was considered a viable business model, energy producers
had been relying on hydraulic fracturing for decades to stimulate
millions of wells across the country. The technology was first deployed
in 1948.
- The contention that current energy development activity represents
the “largest … drilling campaign in history” is also incorrect.
According to EIA, more natural gas wells were developed in 1982 than today. And more than two times the number of petroleum wells
were drilled back then as well, relative to the numbers we have today.
Also, while it may (or may not) be technically true that fracturing
activities take place in 34 states, it’s also true that 99.9 percent of
all oil and gas activity is found in only 27 U.S. states (page 9, Ground Water Protection Council report)
(32:34) “The energy task force, and $100 million
lobbying effort on behalf of the industry, were significant in the
passage of the ‘Halliburton Loophole’ to the Safe Drinking Water Act,
which authorizes oil and gas drillers exclusively to inject known
hazardous materials, unchecked, directly into or adjacent to underground
drinking water supplies. It passed as part of the Bush administration’s
Energy Policy Act of 2005.”
- Not content with simply mischaracterizing the nature of existing
law, here Fox attempts to assert that the law actually allows energy
producers to inject hazardous chemicals “directly into” underground
drinking water. This is a blatant falsehood. Of course, if such an outrageous thing were actually true, one assumes it wouldn’t have taken five years and a purveyor of the avant-garde to bring it to light.
- The subsurface formations that undergo fracture stimulation reside thousands and thousands of feet below formations that carry potable water. These strata are separated by millions of tons of impermeable rock, and in some cases, more than two miles of it.
- Once again, to characterize the bipartisan 2005 energy bill as
having a “loophole” for hydraulic fracturing requires one to believe
that, prior to 2005, hydraulic fracturing was regulated by EPA under
federal law. But that belief is mistaken. And so is the notion that the
2005 act contains a loophole for oil and natural gas. As stated,
hydraulic fracturing has been regulated ably and aggressively by the
states.
(1:32:34) “Diana DeGette and Maurice Hinchey’s FRAC Act
[is] a piece of legislation that’s one paragraph long that simply takes
out the exemption for hydraulic fracturing to the Safe Drinking Water
Act.”
- Here Fox is referring to the 2008 iteration of the FRAC Act, not the slightly longer (though equally harmful) 2009 version
of the bill. The legislation does not, as its authors suggest,
“restore” the Safe Drinking Water Act to the way it was in 2004. It
calls for a wholesale re-writing of it.
- Here’s the critical passage from the FRAC Act: “Section 1421(d)(1)
of the Safe Drinking Water Act is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting:
(B) includes the underground injection of fluids or propping agents
pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil and gas
production activities.”
- Why would you need to “insert” new language into a 36-year-old statute if all you were looking to do is merely “restore” it?
Misrepresenting the Rules
(1:00:56) “Because of the exemptions, fracking
chemicals are considered proprietary … The only reason we know anything
about the fracking chemicals is because of the work of Theo Colborn … by
chasing down trucks, combing through material safety data sheets, and
collecting samples.”
- With due respect to eminent environmental activist and former World
Wildlife Fund staffer Theo Colborn, no one has ever had to “chas[e] down
a truck” to access information on the materials used in the fracturing
process.
- That’s because there’s actually a much easier way to obtain that information: simply navigate to this website hosted by regulators in Pennsylvania, this one from regulators in New York (page 130; it will take a few moments to download), this one for West Virginia, this one maintained by the Ground Water Protection Council and the U.S. Department of Energy (page 63), and this one on the website of Energy In Depth.
(1:03:33) Dr. Colborn: “Once the public hears the
story, and they’ll say, ‘Why aren’t we out there monitoring’? We can’t
monitor until we know what they’re using. There’s no way to monitor. You
can’t.”
- According to environmental regulators from Josh Fox’s home state of Pennsylvania, “Drilling companies must disclose the names of all chemicals to be stored and used at a drilling site
… These plans contain copies of material safety data sheets for all
chemicals … This information is on file with DEP and is available to
landowners, local governments and emergency responders.”
- Environmental regulators from Fox’s adopted state
of New York also testify to having ready access to this information.
From the NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation (DEC) information page:
“The [state] is assessing the chemical makeup of these additives and
will ensure that all necessary safeguards and best practices are
followed.”
- According to the Ground Water Protection Council
(GWPC), “[M]ost additives contained in fracture fluids including sodium
chloride, potassium chloride, and diluted acids, present low to very
low risks to human health and the environment.” GWPC members include
state environmental officials who set and enforce regulations on ground
water protection and underground fluid injection.
Mischaracterizing the Process
(6:50) “[Hydraulic fracturing] blasts a mix of water
and chemicals 8,000 feet into the ground. The fracking itself is like a
mini-earthquake. … In order to frack, you need some fracking fluid – a
mix of over 596 chemicals.”
- As it relates to the composition of fluids commonly used in the fracturing process, greater than 99.5 percent of the mixture
is comprised of water and sand. The remaining materials, used to help
deliver the water down the wellbore and position the sand in the tiny
fractures created in the formation, are typically components found and
used around the house. The most prominent of these, a substance known as
guar gum, is an emulsifier more commonly found in ice cream.
- From the U.S. Dept. of Energy / GWPC report: “Although the hydraulic fracturing industry may have a number of compounds that can be used in a hydraulic fracturing fluid, any single fracturing job would only use a few of the available additives
[not 596!]. For example, in [this exhibit], there are 12 additives
used, covering the range of possible functions that could be built into a
fracturing fluid.” (page 62)
- In the documentary, Fox graphically depicts the fracturing process
as one that results in the absolute obliteration of the shale formation.
In reality, the fractures created by the procedure and kept open by the
introduction of proppants such as sand are typically less than a
millimeter thick.
(50:05) “Each well completion, that is, the initial drilling phase plus the first frack job, requires 1,150 truck trips.”
- Suggesting that every well completion in America requires the exact
same number of truck trips is absurd. As could be guessed, the number of
trips required to supply the well site with the needed equipment and
personnel will vary (widely) depending on any number of factors.
- As it relates to a source for Fox’s identification of “1,150 truck
trips,” none is given – although it appears he may have derived those
numbers from a back-of-the-envelope calculation inspired by a chart on
page 6-142 of this document
from NY DEC. As depicted on that page, the transportation of new and
used water supplies, to and from the wellsite, account for 85 percent of
the trips extrapolated by Fox.
- Unrepresented in this chart is the enormous growth in the amount of
produced water that is currently being recycled in the Marcellus – with
industry in Pennsylvania reusing and recycling on average more than 60 percent of its water, according to the Marcellus Shale Coalition.
- According to GWPC: “Drilling with compressed air is becoming an increasingly popular
alternative to drilling with fluids due to the increased cost savings
from both reduction in mud costs and the shortened drilling times as a
result of air based drilling.” (page 55)
(51:12) “Before the water can be hauled away and
disposed of somewhere, it has to be emptied into a pit – an earthen pit,
or a clay pit, sometimes a lined pit, but a pit – where a lot of it can
seep right back down into the ground.”
- The vast majority of energy-producing states – 27 in total,
including all the ones to which Fox travels for GasLand – have explicit
laws on the books governing the type of containment structures that must
be used for temporarily storing flowback water. A number of producers
today choose to store this water in steel tanks, eliminating all risk of
that water re-entering the surrounding environment.
- GWPC (May 2009) “In 23 states, pits of a certain type or in a
particular location must have a natural or artificial liner designed to
prevent the downward movement of pit fluids into the subsurface. …
Twelve states also explicitly either prohibit or restrict the use of
pits that intersect the water table.” (page 28-29)
- GWPC (April 2009): “Water storage pits used to hold water for
hydraulic fracturing purposes are typically lined to minimize the loss
of water from infiltration. … In an urban setting, due to space
limitations, steel storage tanks may be used.” (page 55)
Flat-Out Making Stuff Up
(53:36) “The Pinedale Anticline and the Jonah gas
fields [of Wyoming] are directly in the path of the thousand year old
migration corridor of pronghorn antelope, mule deer and sage grouse. And
yeah, each of these species is endangered, and has suffered a
significant decline of their populations since 2005.”
- 0 for 1: Three species of the pronghorn antelope
are considered “endangered,” none of which are found anywhere near the
Pinedale Anticline. Those are: the Sonoran (Arizona), the Peninsular
(Mexico), and the Mexican Pronghorn (also of Mexico). According to the Great Plains Nature Center: “The great slaughter of the late 1800s affected the pronghorns … Only about 12,000 remained by 1915. Presently, they number around one million and the greatest numbers of them are in Wyoming and Montana.”
- 0 for 2: Only one species of mule deer is
considered “endangered”: the Cedros Island mule deer of Mexico (nowhere
near Wyoming). The mule deer populations are so significant in Wyoming
today that the state has a mule deer hunting season.
- 0 for 3: The sage grouse does not currently have a place on the endangered species list, according to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
(FWS) – and “robust populations of the bird currently exist across the
state” of Wyoming, according to the agency. Interestingly, FWS recently issued a press release identifying wind development as a critical threat the sage grouse’s habitat.
- That said, producers in the area have taken the lead on efforts to
lessen their impact and reduce the number of truck trips required to
service their well sites. As part of that project, operators have
commissioned a series of independent studies examining additional steps that can be taken to safeguard the Anticline’s wildlife.
(31:32) “In 2004, the EPA was investigating a water
contamination incident due to hydraulic fracturing in Alabama. But a
panel rejected the inquiry, stating that although hazard materials were
being injected underground, EPA did not need to investigate.”
- No record of the investigation described by Fox exists, so EID reached out to Dr. Dave Bolin, deputy director of Alabama’s State Oil & Gas Board and the man who heads up oversight of hydraulic fracturing in that state. In an email, he said he had “no recollection” of such an investigation taking place.
- That said, it’s possible that Fox is referring to EPA’s study of the
McMillian well in Alabama, which spanned several years in the early- to
mid-1990s. In 1989, Alabama regulators conducted four separate water
quality tests on the McMillian well. The results indicated no water
quality problems existed. In 1990, EPA conducted its own water quality
tests, and found nothing.
- In a letter sent in 1995,
then-EPA administrator Carol Browner (currently, President Obama’s top
energy and environmental policy advisor) characterized EPA’s involvement
with the McMillian case in the following way: “Repeated testing,
conducted between May of 1989 and March of 1993, of the drinking water
well which was the subject of this petition [McMillian] failed to show any chemicals that would indicate the presence of fracturing fluids. The well was also sampled for drinking water quality, and no constituents exceeding drinking water standards were detected.”
- For information on what actually did happen in Alabama during this
time, and how it’s relevant to the current conversation about the Safe
Drinking Water Act, please download the fact sheet produced last year by the Coalbed Methane Association of Alabama.
(1:28:06) “Just a few short months after this
interview, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
suffered the worst budget cuts in history, amounting to over 700 staff
either being fired or having reduced hours and 25 percent of its total
budget cut.”
- DEP press release,
issued January 28, 2010: “Governor Edward G. Rendell announced today
that the commonwealth is strengthening its enforcement capabilities. At
the Governor’s direction, the Department of Environmental Protection will begin hiring 68 new personnel
who will make sure that drilling companies obey state laws and act
responsibly to protect water supplies. DEP also will strengthen oil and
gas regulations to improve well construction standards.”
Recycling Discredited Points from the Past
Weston Wilson (EPA “whistleblower”): “One can
characterize this entire [natural gas] industry as having a hundred year
history of purchasing those they contaminate.” (33:36)
- Mr. Wilson, currently on staff at EPA’s Denver office, was not part
of the team of scientists and engineers that spent nearly five years
studying hydraulic fracturing for EPA. That effort, released in the form
of a landmark 2004 study
by the agency, found “no evidence” to suggest any relationship between
hydraulic fracturing and the contamination of drinking water.
- Wilson has a well-documented history
of aggressive opposition to responsible resource and mineral
development. Over his 35-year career, Mr. Wilson has invoked
“whistleblower” status to fight dam construction in Colorado, oil and
gas development in Montana, and the mining of gold in Wyoming.
- Wilson in his own words: “The American public would be shocked if they knew we make six figures and we basically sit around and do nothing.”
Dunkard Creek: Fox includes images of dead fish
along a 35-mile stretch of Dunkard Creek in Washington Co., Pa.;
attributes that event to natural gas development. (01:23:15)
- Fox’s attempt to blame the Dunkard Creek incident on natural gas
exploration is contradicted by an EPA report – issued well before
GasLand was released – which blamed the fish kill on an algal bloom,
which itself was fed by discharges from coal mines.
- EPA report:
“Given what has been seen in other states and the etiology of this
kill, we believe the toxin from this algae bloom led to the kill of
fish, mussels, and salamanders on Dunkard Creek. … The situation in
Dunkard Creek should be considered a chronic exposure since chloride levels were elevated above the criteria for long periods of time.” (issued 11/23/09)
- Local PA newspaper calls out Fox: “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 from a [mine] discharge.” (Washington (Pa.) Observer-Reporter, 6/5/10)
Mike Markham: Fox blames flammable faucet in Fort Lupton, Colo. on natural gas development
- But that’s not true according to the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC). “Dissolved methane in well water appears to be biogenic [naturally occurring] in origin.
… There are no indications of oil & gas related impacts to water
well.” (complaint resolved 9/30/08, signed by John Axelson of COGCC)
- Context from our friends at ProPublica: “Drinking water with
methane, the largest component of natural gas, isn’t necessarily
harmful. The gas itself isn’t toxic — the Environmental Protection
Agency doesn’t even regulate it — and it escapes from water quickly,
like bubbles in a soda.” (Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica, 4/22/09)
Lisa Bracken: Fox blames methane occurrence in West Divide Creek, Colo. on natural gas development.
- That assertion has also been debunked by COGCC, which visited the
site six separate times over 13 months to confirm its findings: “Stable
isotopes from 2007 consistent with 2004 samples indicting gas bubbling
in surface water features is of biogenic origin.” (July 2009, COGCC presentation by Margaret Ash, environmental protection supervisor)
- Email from COGCC supervisor to Bracken: “Lisa: As you know since
2004, the COGCC staff has responded to your concerns about potential gas
seepage along West Divide Creek on your property and to date we have not found any indication that the seepage you have observed is related to oil and gas activity.” (email from COGCC’s Debbie Baldwin to Bracken, 06/30/08)
- More from that email:
“These samples have been analyzed for a variety of parameters including
natural gas compounds (methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane,
hexanes), heavier hydrocarbon compounds including benzene, toluene,
ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), stable isotopes of methane, bacteria (iron
related, sulfate reducing, and slime), major anions and cations, and
other field and laboratory tests. To date, BTEX compounds have not been detected in any of the samples.”
Calvin Tillman: Fox interviews mayor of DISH, Texas; blames natural gas development, transport for toxins in the air, benzene in blood.
- Tillman in the press: “Six months ago, nobody knew that facilities
like this would be spewing benzene. Someone could come in here and look
at us and say, ‘You know what? They’ve sacrificed you. You’ve been
sacrificed for the good of the shale.’” (Scientific American, 3/30/10)
- A little more than a month later, Texas Dept. of State Health
Services debunks that claim: “Biological test results from a Texas
Department of State Health Services investigation in Dish, Texas,
indicate that residents’ exposure to certain contaminants was not greater than that of the general U.S. population.” (DSHS report, May 12, 2010)
- More from the agency: “DSHS paid particular attention to benzene because of its association with natural gas wells. The only residents who had higher levels of benzene in their blood were smokers. Because cigarette smoke contains benzene, finding it in smokers’ blood is not unusual.”