Link to the WSJ OpEd >

The agency's groundwatercontamination finding is undermined by the U.S. Geological Survey.

It has been four decades since Richard Nixon launched "Project Independence" with the goal of making the United States energy independent. All presidents since then have said they shared that goal, yet never has it been within reach as it is today—thanks to domestic natural gas and especially to the extraction method known as hydraulic fracturing. The International Energy Agency estimates that such technologies could allow the U.S. to supplant Saudi Arabia as the world's largest oil producer by 2020. But, as ever, government regulation may stand in the way.

Hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," uses water and trace amounts of chemicals to create tiny fissures in deep-rock formations and coax energy-laden molecules to flow toward the surface. Fracking technology is driving America's oil and shale-gas boom, yet a White House executive order from April directs no fewer than 13 federal agencies to consider new regulations on fracking—even as it is already regulated by the states.

In recent years the federal Environmental Protection Agency has investigated fracking in three locations. In Texas and Pennsylvania, the EPA was unable to establish a link between fracking and groundwater contamination, the main ill effect that critics warn against. (Fracking contamination is the theme of "Promised Land," a movie starring Matt Damon that opened last week.)

But the agency claims to have found a smoking gun at its third test site, in Pavillion, Wyo. There, according to draft findings, EPA investigators found "compounds likely associated with gas production practices, including hydraulic fracturing" appearing at levels "below established health and safety standards."

The Pavillion study involves two water wells drilled by the agency in 2010 to test groundwater quality. Experts from the Wyoming Water Development Commission and elsewhere sharply criticized the EPA's results on several grounds, including that EPA investigators didn't follow their own guidelines on the timeliness of the testing and the purity of the water samples. The federal Bureau of Land Management said that "much more robust" testing would be needed to properly draw conclusions.

So the EPA agreed to test the wells again, in April and May of last year 2012. In October, it claimed again to have found contaminated water. But this time there was a new wrinkle: The U.S. Geological Survey had conducted tests alongside the EPA, and its investigators reported different results. Unlike the EPA, the USGS failed to find any traces of glycols or 2-butoxyethanol, fracking-related chemicals that could cause serious health issues if they entered the water supply at levels the EPA considers contamination.

Meanwhile, the USGS found significantly lower concentrations of other materials identified by the EPA—including phenol, potassium and diesel-range organics—which might not have resulted from the fracking at all. The phenols were likely introduced accidentally in the laboratory, for example, and potassium might be naturally occurring or the result of potash contained in the cement used to build the EPA wells.

The USGS also noted that in constructing the monitoring wells, the EPA used a "black painted/coated carbon steel casing," and EPA photographs show that investigators used a painted device to catch sand from the wells. The problem is that paint can contain a variety of compounds that distort test results—so it is poor scientific practice to use painted or coated materials in well-monitoring tests.

After initially neglecting to disclose this information, the EPA eventually acknowledged it, but only while attempting to deflect criticism by releasing more test results and claiming that its data are "generally consistent" with the USGS findings. These actions only muddied the matter and postponed the peer-review process until after Jan. 15.

As the Tulsa-based energy and water-management firm ALL Consulting concluded: "Close review of the EPA draft report and associated documents reveals a number of concerns about the methodology, sampling results, and study findings and conclusions. These concerns stem from apparent errors in sampling and laboratory analysis, incomplete information that makes it difficult to assess the validity of the results, and EPA's failure to seriously consider alternative explanations for the results of its investigation. . . . Taken together, these concerns call into question the validity of EPA's analytical results and their conclusions regarding the sources of the reported contamination."

With no clear connection between fracking and groundwater contamination, it is premature and counterproductive to propose new federal regulations on the practice. Shoddy science should not form the basis of federal policy.

The fracking-facilitated development of shale gas and oil could create two million new jobs and billions in tax revenue over the next two decades, according to the research firm IHS Global Insight. Rather than look for reasons to stand in its way, the federal government should embrace hydraulic fracturing and take full advantage of its economic and security benefits.

 

Mr. Mauck is publisher of GoMarcellusShale.com.

 

 

A version of this article appeared January 2, 2013, on page A15 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: The EPA's Tainted Fracking Tests.

Views: 2436

Comment

You need to be a member of GoHaynesvilleShale.com: The Haynesville, Tuscaloosa & LSBD to add comments!

Join GoHaynesvilleShale.com: The Haynesville, Tuscaloosa & LSBD

Comment by DrWAVeSport Cd1 on January 5, 2013 at 12:02pm

Bravo...

Comment by Dion Warr on January 4, 2013 at 4:16pm

Keith:

Given the comments posted on WSJ.com re: your op-ed, this subject can stir up as much of a $#!%storm on their website as it does on this one.

 

Irrespective of the politics surrounding this issue in particular and E&P development technologies in general, I find your exposition of the apparent "difference in results" based on methodology, protocol and analysis as instructive to those who would choose to line up behind a particular faction and accept their "scientific results" as definitive.  As it is, two different departments of the government can't seem to agree on a particular set of ground rules for analysis of the same purported problems in the same locations.

 

Also, the fact that the EPA used "painted/coated steel" casing in the construction of their wells as well as in the equipment used to catch or screen sand from their wells was nearly jaw-dropping and highly pertinent to include in your op-ed.  You would think that these folks (above anyone else) would have red-flagged that in their procedures if they were screening for trace and low-level volatile organics, metal compounds, glycols, or traces of epoxides; I would like to think that the inclusion of such materials was entirely boneheaded and/or accidental.

 

On balance, very well written op-ed, and congratulations to you in being  included as a "featured opinion" in such a widely read publication. 

Comment by Jim Lavin on January 3, 2013 at 7:48am

well, well, well (no pun intended)! WHODATHUNK the EPA would have "skewed" the test results? If this isn't indicative of the current administration trying to LIE their way to have us import more oil from "the Muslim Brotherhood" and others (Like Chavez), then I don't know what is! Hey Matt, stick this article where the sun don't shine!

Comment by MJW on January 2, 2013 at 8:06pm

Keith:

Excelent point of discussion!  I have been in Water Management for 30 years and am very familiar with protocols for testing.  We have always had a problem with EPA testing protocols.  Since they are a governmental agency they get to do their own thing and call it accurate or indisputable. 

I would like to know if you know who within the EPA or the USGA was involved with the testing at this well site.  I would really like to have more detail if it is available.  I have a vested interest in frackwater remediation as well as groundwater testing and insuring that drilling operations do not contaminate fresh water aquifers.  I appreciate your work!

Comment by James H Duke on January 2, 2013 at 6:26pm

The epa is a goverment  agency tring to keep their job.

podspods

Comment by Dats Oil Brother on January 2, 2013 at 4:36pm
Very well done Keith. Although there is no excuse for "shoddy science" or political reasons for the EPA's position, I disagree with your conclusion. The Federal Government should not embrace hydraulic fracturing just because it is the economic boon du jour. They should do their job which includes protecting both the environment and the people.

Let's step back and remember that the industry didn't help things by resisting any efforts to help determine the safeness and impact of fracking. Some originally declined to even share the chemicals that were being put into the ground.

What we should all demand is a unified effort by the industry and EPA to come to sensible conclusions based on accurate information provided by the industry and fair,impartial conclusions by the EPA. Then we can all embrace the economic security that fracking offers.
Comment by courtney oliver on January 2, 2013 at 4:01pm

Great article, well done

Comment by Mike P on January 2, 2013 at 3:11pm

A well written article. Even armed with the truth, it will be difficult to overcome all the negative propaganda that is being spewed, by the present administration. Mr. Obama has an agenda, and all his federal agencies, will fall in place to promote that agenda.  

Comment by 4HTSG on January 2, 2013 at 2:21pm

A well-written and informative article. Well done!

Comment by julie nelson on January 2, 2013 at 2:18pm

Nicely written, Keith!  Keep up the good work.    Julie Anne 

advertisements