If you haven't had the pleasure of seeing a new You Tube Video thats got the anti-fracking world in a frenzy, I suggest you do so you can laugh as hard as I did when I saw it. I'd have added a link here, but Goggle says its illegal for me to do so. Its called "fracking_fluid_dumping_in_pa_video.
For those of you not familiar with the Route 19 corridor of Washington County, PA, please let me explain before you watch. It'll make you appreciate it all the more.
In this "man-on-the-street" (literally) video, a Johnny do-gooder driving down Route 19 on the way to his son's hockey game stops to video tape a truck "dumping frack water" on the side of the road. He walks down to the truck -- actually thinks the truck is pulling out of the area beacuse of him and his camera phone, shows us the entire area, fails to read the sign that explains what's happening before his eyes, and then, to top it all off, takes a "sample" of said frack water using a dirty Deer Parkbottle he finds sitting in the middle of the puddle created by the so called dumper.
The place this poor confused man has stopped at is the site of Al's Water Hauling -- a company that has been operating there for sometime (years). Al hauls fresh water -- mostly for things like filling swimming pools. Perhaps now adays, he's making a few extra bucks hauling some fresh water to drillers, but probably not so much -- most of them permit withdrawl points from waterways or purchase from local water treatment plants. In the video, Al's truck driver overfilled his truck and couldn't close the valve, so he let a little out. Fresh water that is. One of my favorite parts of the video is when this guys looks at Al's sign and says, "Huh, water hauling."
However, beacuse there is a truck on the side of the road, releasing water, it MUST be one of those awful frack truck drivers releasing frack water on the side of a major roadway at 9 a.m. on a Sunday morning. Hysterical. Even if one was going to do something this dumb, why would they do it on the side of a major highway in broad daylight when every one in Washington County without a drilling lease is looking for their chance to cash in on the drillers? Right -- they wouldn't.
But it gets better. The "house" he points out across the street is in fact an old farm house that has been converted into a funerial facility because that beautiful green field he shows you is actually a gigantic cemetary -- for people and animals. Nobody lives there.
The one thing he fails to show as he pans all around Route 19 chattering to himself about why drillers just can't seem to understand why people don't trust them is the monstrous junkyard on the hill behind where he tapes the truck. Its probably been there longer than Al's, and has likely caused more groundwater pollution in that area from leaking gasoline and oil than every natural gas well already drilled in PA. But no one seems to care about those -- junk yards are often impossible to shut down even though they are one of the biggest environmental nusiances in existence.
But I digress.
My absolute favorite part of the video is when this guy picks up a plastic water bottle in the middle of the puddle of this so called "frack water" he's so frightened of, with his bare hands no less, and proceeds to take a sample of the "pollution." He had to have failed every science class he ever took. First, he's using an already contaminated bottle to collect a sample -- major no-no. Then he uses his bare hands -- sorry on that one too. Sample anyone's hands sometime -- you'll get a return on fecal coliform -- if you don't know what that is, look it up. So even if he had used a nice clean sample jar, its already cross contaminated. Later, he actually sticks his finger in the bottle!!! Lets forget about the fact that this is winter, and 19 has already been salted to death by PennDOT. (Streams and aquatic life, by the way, are more likely to suffer from road salt than any frack fluid spill). So to recap -- we have a sample taken in a dirty bottle, from a muddy puddle on the side of a recently salted major roadway, that is now cross contaminated with fecal coliform. When he says its not a great sample, he has no idea how right he is.
This kind of "citizen journalism" is just pathetic. Environmental groups opposed to drilling everywhere are picking it up to show everyone who doesn't understand the intracacies of environmental science how evil those drillers really are. And, judging by its over 400,000 hits on You Tube, people are buying this garbage.
To the man on the video, so untrusting of drillers -- maybe you better start second guessing your environmental group and anti-fracking friends. Its their nasty rhetoric condenming a legitimate business practice that has made you show the entire world how gullible you truly are. Amazing the Internet, isn't it?
Let's just pray Al's Water Hauling doesn't find you and sue you for all you've got for the business he could lose from this kind of stupidity.
Next time you want to post a You Tube video, do your homework.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
Who Needs Facts When There's So Much Drama
John Hanger, Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and company have made some interesting statements in the last few weeks about the so-called "environmental" impacts of Marcellus Shale drilling.
Those who know of Secretary Hanger's past as the executive director of Citizen's for Pennsylvania's Future know neither statement could have sat well with him. After all, he seems to be utilizing the remaining days of the Rendell Administration (and his tenure at DEP) to punish Marcellus drillers for every violation he can apply.
But those are just details, which are apparently easy for the anti-drilling lobby to forget when they don't like the results of the investigations DEP's professional environmental scientists perform.
Hanger's two announcements must have annoyed the anti-drillers, and people like Doug Shields who want to ban drilling anywhere and everywhere. Hanger told us, rather specifically, that DEP has found absolutely no instances anywhere in the state where fracing chemicals have contaminated a water supply, source or aquifer. Not one. Including in the instances where chemicals were spilled -- like in the case of Cabot's three gel spills into wetlands near Dimock last fall.
If that weren't enough to throw the anti-movement into a tailspin, Hanger also reported that, after intense studies, DEP has also determined that there has been no significant change to air pollution levels in the Commonwealth due to drilling activity. In English -- the rest of us are causing more air pollution by idling our cars in traffic and at the ATM than the drilling industry as it taps the mother of all unconventional natural gas reserves. But to be honest, that shouldn't be a surprise. Similar air quality studies in the town of Dish, Texas also failed to show any real change in air pollution levels there -- even though determined anti-drilling interests keep insisting the studies were done incorrectly.
So, straight from the mouth of one of the states most infamous environmentalists -- no water contamination from frac chemicals in Pennsylvania, no change in air pollution in Pennsylvania due to drilling. Despite hundreds of wells already drilled.
What's the anti-drilling community to do with this information? Ignore it of course. Call the state agency, led by the former leader of the state's most powerful environmental group, biased.
In fact, those with an anti-drilling agenda aren't just ignoring it, they're marching full-steam ahead in continuing to spread misinformation. I'm sure more people than I have sensed the change in media coverage, in which the "potential" or "alleged" environmental impacts of natural gas drilling have become the actual environmental impacts of drilling. The tone of newspaper articles and broadcast stories on all three local network affiliates and local radio programs now insinuate actual instances of such environmental contamination exist and are documented, in spite of Hanger's announcements on both water and air pollution.
With media downplaying Hanger's statements, and continuing to refer to contamination that has never occurred, the people of the Commonwealth are understandably spooked. They have nothing else to go on but what they consume in mass media.
Its shameful -- watching the media we depend on for information choosing to ignore the facts in order to boost ratings and sales with the drama created by a misinformed public they have frightened with their yellow journalism. What happens when the people of the Commonwealth realize the truth, discover the facts, and come to understand that the press has used every possible opportunity to vilify the very industry that has kept the area from far more serious economic strife than it has already experienced?
One thing is certain -- fewer reporters will be saying "Just the facts, 'mam."
Those who know of Secretary Hanger's past as the executive director of Citizen's for Pennsylvania's Future know neither statement could have sat well with him. After all, he seems to be utilizing the remaining days of the Rendell Administration (and his tenure at DEP) to punish Marcellus drillers for every violation he can apply.
But those are just details, which are apparently easy for the anti-drilling lobby to forget when they don't like the results of the investigations DEP's professional environmental scientists perform.
Hanger's two announcements must have annoyed the anti-drillers, and people like Doug Shields who want to ban drilling anywhere and everywhere. Hanger told us, rather specifically, that DEP has found absolutely no instances anywhere in the state where fracing chemicals have contaminated a water supply, source or aquifer. Not one. Including in the instances where chemicals were spilled -- like in the case of Cabot's three gel spills into wetlands near Dimock last fall.
If that weren't enough to throw the anti-movement into a tailspin, Hanger also reported that, after intense studies, DEP has also determined that there has been no significant change to air pollution levels in the Commonwealth due to drilling activity. In English -- the rest of us are causing more air pollution by idling our cars in traffic and at the ATM than the drilling industry as it taps the mother of all unconventional natural gas reserves. But to be honest, that shouldn't be a surprise. Similar air quality studies in the town of Dish, Texas also failed to show any real change in air pollution levels there -- even though determined anti-drilling interests keep insisting the studies were done incorrectly.
So, straight from the mouth of one of the states most infamous environmentalists -- no water contamination from frac chemicals in Pennsylvania, no change in air pollution in Pennsylvania due to drilling. Despite hundreds of wells already drilled.
What's the anti-drilling community to do with this information? Ignore it of course. Call the state agency, led by the former leader of the state's most powerful environmental group, biased.
In fact, those with an anti-drilling agenda aren't just ignoring it, they're marching full-steam ahead in continuing to spread misinformation. I'm sure more people than I have sensed the change in media coverage, in which the "potential" or "alleged" environmental impacts of natural gas drilling have become the actual environmental impacts of drilling. The tone of newspaper articles and broadcast stories on all three local network affiliates and local radio programs now insinuate actual instances of such environmental contamination exist and are documented, in spite of Hanger's announcements on both water and air pollution.
With media downplaying Hanger's statements, and continuing to refer to contamination that has never occurred, the people of the Commonwealth are understandably spooked. They have nothing else to go on but what they consume in mass media.
Its shameful -- watching the media we depend on for information choosing to ignore the facts in order to boost ratings and sales with the drama created by a misinformed public they have frightened with their yellow journalism. What happens when the people of the Commonwealth realize the truth, discover the facts, and come to understand that the press has used every possible opportunity to vilify the very industry that has kept the area from far more serious economic strife than it has already experienced?
One thing is certain -- fewer reporters will be saying "Just the facts, 'mam."
Thursday, October 14, 2010
When There Really is Something to Fear, Find Something Else to Worry About
The bizarre reality that is the Marcellus Shale debate continues to produce ironies beyond the realms of logic.
Consider the latest news out of South Fayette Township -- an area southwest of downtown Pittsburgh, not far from the bustling gas fields of Washington County, PA. It seems the South Fayette town fathers are terribly worried about the impacts of gas drilling near schools, and are developing an ordinance that would set up distance boundaries for drilling near school properties.
Sounds reasonable, right? Sure. But for those who know a little about the environmental history of South Fayette and the Chartiers Valley area, it may actually raise a deep belly laugh or two. Not necessarily because they're in favor of Marcellus Drilling, but because the irony of the situation is richer than Midas.
You see, just off Interstate 79 at the Bridgeville exit, where, if you pass now, you'll see construction vehicles busily working on a new mixed use development of shopping , housing and entertainment, there once sat one of the most environmentally destructive chemical facilities in Southwestern Pennsylvania, if not the state.
Mention the old Koppers facility to anyone who's lived in the Char Valley for more than a few years, and they'll likely tell you the story about how once, during an interesting winter in the 1970s, a chemical release from the plant turned the falling snow green.
Koppers made resins, moth balls, and other chemical products and derivatives there. Much of the plant's heyday was happening just as the US Environmental Protection Agency and state level environmental agencies were getting their sea legs, but there was lots going on at Koppers that would likely result in major fines, penalties and enforcement actions today (there have been some retroactive ones). For those who think government is soft on environmental crime, this stuff would be the kind the actually does get prosecuted.
I digress. What makes South Fayette Township's desire to shield children from the evils of the Mighty Marcellus somewhat comical is the fact that it's allowed multiple youth soccer fields to be built on old Koppers property that was likely never really remediated correctly if really at all. Even more amazing, additional portions of this property are currently being bulldozed and designed into a place where families are supposed to live, shop and live long happy lives.
In case that didn't sink in completely, the same township that allows children to play on fields that almost certainly contain at least trace levels of toxic waste (Check the swampy wetland across the road from the entrance. Nothing I know comes naturally in that shade of chartreuse.) is suddenly terribly concerned about their health. The field construction may have been overseen by different supervisors in a different time, but the current construction there is just baffling. I wonder whats uncovered with all that earth moving every time I drive by, and I wonder if its impacting the workers.
But apparently there's much more to fear from the Marcellus Shale, which promises not only jobs, but cleaner energy. Something else ironic? Just one gubernatorial administration ago, natural gas was hailed as the answer to air quality transportation issues in PA. It was actually considered an "alternative fuel." That idea about a natural gas fueling station at every PA Turnpike rest stop? Old news. They tried that in the 90s.
I digress again. The issue is this: why do we center fear on something that offers us more good than bad, and has still not been proven to bring the horrible things some would have us believe it will, and turn a blind eye to problems that truly exist and need fixing?
The former Koppers property and surrounding area is more than likely to present a real toxic threat. Yet we're bulldozing that over to make it a place to live.
In a few years, when overly ambitious local officials who want a broader tax base hear about a little problem called vapor intrusion, or when someone who wasn't an original resident of the development fails to read their deed and plants a vegetable garden in "brownfield" soil, all hell will break loose.
Until then, South Fayette and communities like it will be busy fighting the best thing that's happened to Pennsylvania in years while their children play soccer on fields of toxic waste.
Consider the latest news out of South Fayette Township -- an area southwest of downtown Pittsburgh, not far from the bustling gas fields of Washington County, PA. It seems the South Fayette town fathers are terribly worried about the impacts of gas drilling near schools, and are developing an ordinance that would set up distance boundaries for drilling near school properties.
Sounds reasonable, right? Sure. But for those who know a little about the environmental history of South Fayette and the Chartiers Valley area, it may actually raise a deep belly laugh or two. Not necessarily because they're in favor of Marcellus Drilling, but because the irony of the situation is richer than Midas.
You see, just off Interstate 79 at the Bridgeville exit, where, if you pass now, you'll see construction vehicles busily working on a new mixed use development of shopping , housing and entertainment, there once sat one of the most environmentally destructive chemical facilities in Southwestern Pennsylvania, if not the state.
Mention the old Koppers facility to anyone who's lived in the Char Valley for more than a few years, and they'll likely tell you the story about how once, during an interesting winter in the 1970s, a chemical release from the plant turned the falling snow green.
Koppers made resins, moth balls, and other chemical products and derivatives there. Much of the plant's heyday was happening just as the US Environmental Protection Agency and state level environmental agencies were getting their sea legs, but there was lots going on at Koppers that would likely result in major fines, penalties and enforcement actions today (there have been some retroactive ones). For those who think government is soft on environmental crime, this stuff would be the kind the actually does get prosecuted.
I digress. What makes South Fayette Township's desire to shield children from the evils of the Mighty Marcellus somewhat comical is the fact that it's allowed multiple youth soccer fields to be built on old Koppers property that was likely never really remediated correctly if really at all. Even more amazing, additional portions of this property are currently being bulldozed and designed into a place where families are supposed to live, shop and live long happy lives.
In case that didn't sink in completely, the same township that allows children to play on fields that almost certainly contain at least trace levels of toxic waste (Check the swampy wetland across the road from the entrance. Nothing I know comes naturally in that shade of chartreuse.) is suddenly terribly concerned about their health. The field construction may have been overseen by different supervisors in a different time, but the current construction there is just baffling. I wonder whats uncovered with all that earth moving every time I drive by, and I wonder if its impacting the workers.
But apparently there's much more to fear from the Marcellus Shale, which promises not only jobs, but cleaner energy. Something else ironic? Just one gubernatorial administration ago, natural gas was hailed as the answer to air quality transportation issues in PA. It was actually considered an "alternative fuel." That idea about a natural gas fueling station at every PA Turnpike rest stop? Old news. They tried that in the 90s.
I digress again. The issue is this: why do we center fear on something that offers us more good than bad, and has still not been proven to bring the horrible things some would have us believe it will, and turn a blind eye to problems that truly exist and need fixing?
The former Koppers property and surrounding area is more than likely to present a real toxic threat. Yet we're bulldozing that over to make it a place to live.
In a few years, when overly ambitious local officials who want a broader tax base hear about a little problem called vapor intrusion, or when someone who wasn't an original resident of the development fails to read their deed and plants a vegetable garden in "brownfield" soil, all hell will break loose.
Until then, South Fayette and communities like it will be busy fighting the best thing that's happened to Pennsylvania in years while their children play soccer on fields of toxic waste.
Saturday, September 4, 2010
Fear Factor, Marcellus Edition
I've never been much of a reality tv fan, but I find myself of late missing the show Fear Factor. And trying to come up with a way to convert the concept for public meetings on fracing.
Really, when you think about it, there's no word like "fear" to describe the current shale debates. You've got anti-fossil fuel folks using fear mongering to get people who know no better to believe in their interpretation of things. You've got people who refuse to trust anyone in the energy industry giving in to their fear so they feel like they know something about the Marcellus, and you've got politicians using fear to make themselves relevant to the biggest thing to hit the area in eons. And that's just the last few weeks.
Funny part is, there is plenty to fear -- yet people are attaching fear to the few parts of Marcellus drilling that really aren't that scary.
Hydraulic fracturing, as I've said, may sound scary, but really is the last thing concerned citizens need to be worried about. In fact, the very need for it alone should put us at ease. People are so worried those minimal amounts of additive are going to make it to the drinking water aquifer -- and now to the graves of their loved ones -- but don't seem to realize that if any thing was going to escape the Marcellus through randomly meeting fractures and breaks in the formation, it would be the gas itself. (you know, that whole lighter substances migrate to the surface when they can science thing...?)And yet, after millions of years, and years of us knowing all about it sitting down there, it remains, trapped in nonporous geology. If it can't escape, even now with all the fracing going on out there, how can water? Misplaced fear.
The disposal of flowback water is certainly something that needs thought and good regulation. Yet its still not the thing fouling the Mon with high TDS -- please read up on this people. The idea that TDS from drilling has caused those problems is unfounded. For heavens sake, even DEP people are constantly reminding the world of this in every newspaper article they can -- it sounds something like this --"We have no evidence that water from drilling has caused any of the TDS problems we've experienced." Even the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, way too quick to place the blame for the debacle at Dunkard Creek at the feet of drillers found out the hard way that the problems there were caused by our near and dear benefactor Consol Energy and its coal miner pals. Yet no one questioned the denials and excuses that came from the general direction of Southpointe at that time.
This is how the fear factor works in the Marcellus. People who are either overzealous renewable energy fans, or need to make themselves relevant for whatever reason, make lots of noise about geological science and unstudied incidents related to an industry they know absolutely nothing about. People hear this because screaming and yelling about things that are completely unfounded, without any background data or balance, is how television news gets viewers these days. So when Doug Shields warns the people of Pittsburgh that they'll be turning on their lights at noon again when the gas drillers come to town, people panic. And yet Shields himself is absolutely aware that no such thing will happen. Even if you look at the air emissions that drilling gives off at intervals during the process, its not even a drop in the bucket compared to the sooty, particulate matter pollution that was given off in tons by the historical steel industry. Institutions like ProPublica, which has a publisher with an agenda, interview people out in the field who's water has been tested and studied ad nauseum to no avail (which means there's no evidence that can be used to sue a major oil company for millions) and allow them to tell horror stories about big oil and gas, designed to make us fear for our very lives.
But regardless of all the boogey-men trying, rather successfully I might add, to scare everyone, there REALLY are things to be scared of. First, is the fact that Pennsylvania will completely ruin this amazing chance to rebuild its economy. When's the last time you remember that a rust belt state like ours was given a no-brainer opportunity to put people from nearly every walk of life, level of education, and interest to work in a field that fuels (pun intended) the entire economy of the country? Doesn't happen. Ever. Its a gift. And too many of us are looking the gift horse directly in the mouth.
You know those stories we hear about how while SW PA has felt some recessionary shocks, it hasn't fared as bad as everyone else? Especially in the housing market? That's because people are swarming here to make their fortunes in natural gas. Texas are finding they can get two and a half times the house for what theirs is worth in the Lone Star State, and still have money left over. For that kind of ROI, they can take the cold. Be afraid if you dare imagine what the housing market here could have been like without those well timed discoveries.
And what about international investment? If you're really paying attention to the Marcellus right now, you know that international oil and gas companies are lining up to partner with the acreage owners to get in on the action. Pittsburgh, you've always wanted a return to the world where you were once a player in international business affairs. Don't tell me you are in IT and health care -- you're not. But in natural gas, you surely could be. Just stop and count up the square footage of office space in downtown Pittsburgh used in the pursuit of developing the Marcellus. Yes downtown. You have a Houston law firm that just opened its doors down there. K&L Gates has expanded to a level where it can put its name on a building like the big boys. EQT -- yes they drill the Marcellus too -- is taking over downtown, not to mention bankrolling the Regatta and other charitable events. Real fear is the reality of what will be missed out on if we follow the path of those who cannot comprehend acceptable risk, and real science.
The investments and benefits of Marcellus drilling to our region in terms of business have already been vast. Imagine what's next -- major orders for the remaining local steel operations for all of the steel pipe needed for infrastructure. Cheaper heating and cooling costs because energy doesn't have to travel as far to reach us. Major international investment in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. People who can afford it actually buying stuff in those trendy overpriced Ross Park Mall stores. Impressive donations to science programs at Pitt, Duquesne, West Virginia and Penn State. Heck, we might even see that Pittsburgh to Paris flight return, along with other non-stop international flights out of Greater Pitt. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
For those of you too young to remember, or who choose not to, Pittsburgh used to be a bevy of international manufacturing headquarters. Looking farther back, it was out city that supported the growth of the country (Yes, Mr. Shields, I DO want to see that again.). Pretty soon, we're going to know if people in Pennsylvania, SW PA in particular, really just like to complain about the "loss" of the good old days, or if they truly want to make their city, region and state a real factor in the international community once more.
Based on the short sightedness of Pittsburgh's city council, its regional local government officials, and its leading local newspaper, and the knee jerk reactions of its academics looking for their 15 minutes, its an answer I'm truly afraid to find out.
Really, when you think about it, there's no word like "fear" to describe the current shale debates. You've got anti-fossil fuel folks using fear mongering to get people who know no better to believe in their interpretation of things. You've got people who refuse to trust anyone in the energy industry giving in to their fear so they feel like they know something about the Marcellus, and you've got politicians using fear to make themselves relevant to the biggest thing to hit the area in eons. And that's just the last few weeks.
Funny part is, there is plenty to fear -- yet people are attaching fear to the few parts of Marcellus drilling that really aren't that scary.
Hydraulic fracturing, as I've said, may sound scary, but really is the last thing concerned citizens need to be worried about. In fact, the very need for it alone should put us at ease. People are so worried those minimal amounts of additive are going to make it to the drinking water aquifer -- and now to the graves of their loved ones -- but don't seem to realize that if any thing was going to escape the Marcellus through randomly meeting fractures and breaks in the formation, it would be the gas itself. (you know, that whole lighter substances migrate to the surface when they can science thing...?)And yet, after millions of years, and years of us knowing all about it sitting down there, it remains, trapped in nonporous geology. If it can't escape, even now with all the fracing going on out there, how can water? Misplaced fear.
The disposal of flowback water is certainly something that needs thought and good regulation. Yet its still not the thing fouling the Mon with high TDS -- please read up on this people. The idea that TDS from drilling has caused those problems is unfounded. For heavens sake, even DEP people are constantly reminding the world of this in every newspaper article they can -- it sounds something like this --"We have no evidence that water from drilling has caused any of the TDS problems we've experienced." Even the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, way too quick to place the blame for the debacle at Dunkard Creek at the feet of drillers found out the hard way that the problems there were caused by our near and dear benefactor Consol Energy and its coal miner pals. Yet no one questioned the denials and excuses that came from the general direction of Southpointe at that time.
This is how the fear factor works in the Marcellus. People who are either overzealous renewable energy fans, or need to make themselves relevant for whatever reason, make lots of noise about geological science and unstudied incidents related to an industry they know absolutely nothing about. People hear this because screaming and yelling about things that are completely unfounded, without any background data or balance, is how television news gets viewers these days. So when Doug Shields warns the people of Pittsburgh that they'll be turning on their lights at noon again when the gas drillers come to town, people panic. And yet Shields himself is absolutely aware that no such thing will happen. Even if you look at the air emissions that drilling gives off at intervals during the process, its not even a drop in the bucket compared to the sooty, particulate matter pollution that was given off in tons by the historical steel industry. Institutions like ProPublica, which has a publisher with an agenda, interview people out in the field who's water has been tested and studied ad nauseum to no avail (which means there's no evidence that can be used to sue a major oil company for millions) and allow them to tell horror stories about big oil and gas, designed to make us fear for our very lives.
But regardless of all the boogey-men trying, rather successfully I might add, to scare everyone, there REALLY are things to be scared of. First, is the fact that Pennsylvania will completely ruin this amazing chance to rebuild its economy. When's the last time you remember that a rust belt state like ours was given a no-brainer opportunity to put people from nearly every walk of life, level of education, and interest to work in a field that fuels (pun intended) the entire economy of the country? Doesn't happen. Ever. Its a gift. And too many of us are looking the gift horse directly in the mouth.
You know those stories we hear about how while SW PA has felt some recessionary shocks, it hasn't fared as bad as everyone else? Especially in the housing market? That's because people are swarming here to make their fortunes in natural gas. Texas are finding they can get two and a half times the house for what theirs is worth in the Lone Star State, and still have money left over. For that kind of ROI, they can take the cold. Be afraid if you dare imagine what the housing market here could have been like without those well timed discoveries.
And what about international investment? If you're really paying attention to the Marcellus right now, you know that international oil and gas companies are lining up to partner with the acreage owners to get in on the action. Pittsburgh, you've always wanted a return to the world where you were once a player in international business affairs. Don't tell me you are in IT and health care -- you're not. But in natural gas, you surely could be. Just stop and count up the square footage of office space in downtown Pittsburgh used in the pursuit of developing the Marcellus. Yes downtown. You have a Houston law firm that just opened its doors down there. K&L Gates has expanded to a level where it can put its name on a building like the big boys. EQT -- yes they drill the Marcellus too -- is taking over downtown, not to mention bankrolling the Regatta and other charitable events. Real fear is the reality of what will be missed out on if we follow the path of those who cannot comprehend acceptable risk, and real science.
The investments and benefits of Marcellus drilling to our region in terms of business have already been vast. Imagine what's next -- major orders for the remaining local steel operations for all of the steel pipe needed for infrastructure. Cheaper heating and cooling costs because energy doesn't have to travel as far to reach us. Major international investment in Pennsylvania and West Virginia. People who can afford it actually buying stuff in those trendy overpriced Ross Park Mall stores. Impressive donations to science programs at Pitt, Duquesne, West Virginia and Penn State. Heck, we might even see that Pittsburgh to Paris flight return, along with other non-stop international flights out of Greater Pitt. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
For those of you too young to remember, or who choose not to, Pittsburgh used to be a bevy of international manufacturing headquarters. Looking farther back, it was out city that supported the growth of the country (Yes, Mr. Shields, I DO want to see that again.). Pretty soon, we're going to know if people in Pennsylvania, SW PA in particular, really just like to complain about the "loss" of the good old days, or if they truly want to make their city, region and state a real factor in the international community once more.
Based on the short sightedness of Pittsburgh's city council, its regional local government officials, and its leading local newspaper, and the knee jerk reactions of its academics looking for their 15 minutes, its an answer I'm truly afraid to find out.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Get Your Camera Ready, Josh. It's Gonna Be a Wild One.
I wouldn't call it unprecedented, but its definitely rare. EPA has been forced to cancel a public meeting because the venues that can hold the number of people they'll be attracting are a little too nervous about hosting it.
With three meetings in the can on its quest to gain insight into how to study hydraulic fracturing, EPA has to reschedule its meeting for New York. Originally scheduled for Thursday Aug. 12 at the University of Binghamton, then for Syracuse, its the meeting every anti-drilling activist in New York wants, but no public venue in New York wants to host.
The University of Binghamton actually tried to raise venue rent on EPA from $6,000 to $40,000 to discourage them from holding the hearing on their campus, once they had a reality check about what is likely to transpire when the meeting is held. Public safety folks in Syracuse told EPA it simply could not have enough security ready for this event on such short notice.
Rumor has it EPA, which apparently understands the problem completely, is expecting over 5,000 people. That's not a public hearing. That's a small rock concert.
Many who read my blog know that even in my attempts to be completely honest about my opinion and use my real identity in my discussions on drilling as to avoid anyone telling me I'm hiding my industry ties, I have experienced first hand the rage of many anti-drilling activists. I've been called some pretty ugly names by people I've shared my opinions with. I've had my life threatened by an activist from a prestigious institution. My evilness has been compared to that of the ultimate villain, former Vice President Cheney, in the online comments section of The New York Times. Twitter has blocked people from viewing my tweets on account of their anti-violence policy.
Most pro drilling people I speak with tell me I'm more than cordial and straightforward with my adversaries. At least more than they admit they would ever be. Many jokingly chide me for trying to share what I know with people who don't want to know it. Some former colleagues have been wholeheartedly concerned for my safety.
My point is this. I don't blame EPA a bit for rescheduling. Anti-drilling activists in New York are, to their credit, passionately dedicated to their view point. Quite frankly, without a real security presence, someone is likely to get hurt. Potentially seriously hurt.
I ask everyone planning to attend this meeting (and I know a number of you on both sides) when it is rescheduled to go in the spirit of true democracy -- to share ideas, regardless of how disparate they may be, not to insult those who do not share your view, and to refrain from any kind of violence or outbursts. Don't boo people or heckle them. Respect the liberties we've been given to share our ideas and opinions with our government in a way that would make our forefathers proud.
Finally, please remember what EPA is holding this meeting to do. They are looking for ideas on places to research the alleged impacts of fracturing. Give them what they need. Locations to study. They've heard every argument and theory about how fracing can poison water. That's the reason for the study in the first place.
Everyone -- activist or industry shill like me -- wants to see this study done correctly so this debate can put to rest once and for all.
No one needs to be harmed or demeaned in the process.
With three meetings in the can on its quest to gain insight into how to study hydraulic fracturing, EPA has to reschedule its meeting for New York. Originally scheduled for Thursday Aug. 12 at the University of Binghamton, then for Syracuse, its the meeting every anti-drilling activist in New York wants, but no public venue in New York wants to host.
The University of Binghamton actually tried to raise venue rent on EPA from $6,000 to $40,000 to discourage them from holding the hearing on their campus, once they had a reality check about what is likely to transpire when the meeting is held. Public safety folks in Syracuse told EPA it simply could not have enough security ready for this event on such short notice.
Rumor has it EPA, which apparently understands the problem completely, is expecting over 5,000 people. That's not a public hearing. That's a small rock concert.
Many who read my blog know that even in my attempts to be completely honest about my opinion and use my real identity in my discussions on drilling as to avoid anyone telling me I'm hiding my industry ties, I have experienced first hand the rage of many anti-drilling activists. I've been called some pretty ugly names by people I've shared my opinions with. I've had my life threatened by an activist from a prestigious institution. My evilness has been compared to that of the ultimate villain, former Vice President Cheney, in the online comments section of The New York Times. Twitter has blocked people from viewing my tweets on account of their anti-violence policy.
Most pro drilling people I speak with tell me I'm more than cordial and straightforward with my adversaries. At least more than they admit they would ever be. Many jokingly chide me for trying to share what I know with people who don't want to know it. Some former colleagues have been wholeheartedly concerned for my safety.
My point is this. I don't blame EPA a bit for rescheduling. Anti-drilling activists in New York are, to their credit, passionately dedicated to their view point. Quite frankly, without a real security presence, someone is likely to get hurt. Potentially seriously hurt.
I ask everyone planning to attend this meeting (and I know a number of you on both sides) when it is rescheduled to go in the spirit of true democracy -- to share ideas, regardless of how disparate they may be, not to insult those who do not share your view, and to refrain from any kind of violence or outbursts. Don't boo people or heckle them. Respect the liberties we've been given to share our ideas and opinions with our government in a way that would make our forefathers proud.
Finally, please remember what EPA is holding this meeting to do. They are looking for ideas on places to research the alleged impacts of fracturing. Give them what they need. Locations to study. They've heard every argument and theory about how fracing can poison water. That's the reason for the study in the first place.
Everyone -- activist or industry shill like me -- wants to see this study done correctly so this debate can put to rest once and for all.
No one needs to be harmed or demeaned in the process.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
The PA Land Trust Proves "Trust" has Nothing to Do With It
The Pennsylvania Land Trust released some of its own research last week that should quite frankly embarrass anyone who belongs to the group.
According to the "study," which was hardly scientific, 43 major drillers in PA had 1400 some violations to date since 2008. Or was it 900 some? Or 1500 as the Patriot News reported? I guess it doesn't matter -- like the use of accurate research techniques in this case. Or even accuracy in violation description. Anyway, the media sure couldn't figure out what they were saying -- they reported all of these numbers.
First, JW Operating is not a driller. They're a service company. They can get violations as well, and may have even drilled a well of their own, but its wrong to include them in company with major E&P's like Talisman and Chief. The study calls the companies addressed "major" drillers. JW is not a "major" driller.
Second, not all of these drillers drill the same kind of wells. For instance, MDS drills almost all vertical wells in the Marcellus. Most of the other big guys do multiple horizontals on one pad. Once again, apples and oranges. MDS is a local spin off of another local driller, that mainly does conventional work. I would hardly put them in the same box as Anadarko, Chesapeake or Range Resources.
If you look at the study and read some of the descriptions of of violations, there are major mistakes here. My personal favorite in the description of remediation violations. Here the Land Trust gives a description of well plugging or closing which occurs when the well is no longer producing. In fact, drillers are required to remediate land that's been drilled on when their work putting the well into
production is complete. What that basically means is land where wells are actively producing gas has to be remediated on and around the pad. There is equipment left behind there, like tanks and tending equipment, but there is no rig, the ground is reseeded, and vegetation is regrown there. Here's a picture of what a site like this (worked on by one of the so-called big violators here) looks like.
There's another interesting omission here. Sure there are violations -- no permitted business operates without them. Ask US Steel or Horseheads Co. In fact, its not commonly known, but DEP can actually give a well site operator a violation for doing something BETTER than it told DEP in the permit it would do something. So, if during operations, the well drillers find there is a better, gasp, more environmentally responsible way of doing something, DEP can actually issue a notice of violation to them, if that better practice was not included in the permit in the list of "best practices" the company said it would be using. Stupid, huh? When people should be getting patted on the back for innovation, they get slammed. Anyone who's ever worked in government regulation knows some of these could well be paperwork violations. For instance -- some one pulled the posted permit from the cute little tube at the site entrance and didn't put it back fast enough. Or, as in the early days, some activist with a little savvy stole it from the tube and called DEP to tell them the operator didn't have their paperwork posted.
In reality, violations get listed when inspectors -- particularly the green (not eco/but wet behind the ears) ones, make mistakes or don't know how to properly interpret a reg. Or as I discussed in an earlier entry, just don't communicate well with the people on the site. They go back to the office, send their report off to their supervisor, then, once approved off to the person who's name is on the permit, usually someone in corporate, and then, after someone reads it and alerts the site team to fix it, the inspector is back saying "You didn't do what I said to do."
So take those 900, er, 1400, er 1500 violations with a grain. The Land Trust can't even correctly identify what those violations are.
And just for good measure, there's likely a little bit of sour grapes here, too. Big surprise. If you don't know what a land trust does, it purchases a land owner's development rights to their property to "conserve" green space. Prices are usually not even near what a developer -- or a gas royalty -- would pay. Sounds ok though, until they tell you they'd also like you to set up a fund to sustain (basically upkeep) your property. So in essence, they pay below what someone else would, and then ask you to keep paying for keeping it up, as if you'll ever reap any other benefit from it. Needless to say, they don't do so good with this with average property owners. I know, because I explored it once to conserve a historic piece of property I own.
Funny thing is, drilling, in the last few years, has preserved more small Pennsylvania farms than the Land Trust could hope to. And no one gave up their development rights, or was asked to pay to upkeep something they had no hope of benefiting from any longer. Nope -- they got a first bonus payment, and then for those where wells have made it through cries of "go slowly!" to drilling, a sustaining royalty payment. Check out PIOGA's web site for details: www.PIOGA.org.
According to the "study," which was hardly scientific, 43 major drillers in PA had 1400 some violations to date since 2008. Or was it 900 some? Or 1500 as the Patriot News reported? I guess it doesn't matter -- like the use of accurate research techniques in this case. Or even accuracy in violation description. Anyway, the media sure couldn't figure out what they were saying -- they reported all of these numbers.
First, JW Operating is not a driller. They're a service company. They can get violations as well, and may have even drilled a well of their own, but its wrong to include them in company with major E&P's like Talisman and Chief. The study calls the companies addressed "major" drillers. JW is not a "major" driller.
Second, not all of these drillers drill the same kind of wells. For instance, MDS drills almost all vertical wells in the Marcellus. Most of the other big guys do multiple horizontals on one pad. Once again, apples and oranges. MDS is a local spin off of another local driller, that mainly does conventional work. I would hardly put them in the same box as Anadarko, Chesapeake or Range Resources.
If you look at the study and read some of the descriptions of of violations, there are major mistakes here. My personal favorite in the description of remediation violations. Here the Land Trust gives a description of well plugging or closing which occurs when the well is no longer producing. In fact, drillers are required to remediate land that's been drilled on when their work putting the well into
production is complete. What that basically means is land where wells are actively producing gas has to be remediated on and around the pad. There is equipment left behind there, like tanks and tending equipment, but there is no rig, the ground is reseeded, and vegetation is regrown there. Here's a picture of what a site like this (worked on by one of the so-called big violators here) looks like.There's another interesting omission here. Sure there are violations -- no permitted business operates without them. Ask US Steel or Horseheads Co. In fact, its not commonly known, but DEP can actually give a well site operator a violation for doing something BETTER than it told DEP in the permit it would do something. So, if during operations, the well drillers find there is a better, gasp, more environmentally responsible way of doing something, DEP can actually issue a notice of violation to them, if that better practice was not included in the permit in the list of "best practices" the company said it would be using. Stupid, huh? When people should be getting patted on the back for innovation, they get slammed. Anyone who's ever worked in government regulation knows some of these could well be paperwork violations. For instance -- some one pulled the posted permit from the cute little tube at the site entrance and didn't put it back fast enough. Or, as in the early days, some activist with a little savvy stole it from the tube and called DEP to tell them the operator didn't have their paperwork posted.
In reality, violations get listed when inspectors -- particularly the green (not eco/but wet behind the ears) ones, make mistakes or don't know how to properly interpret a reg. Or as I discussed in an earlier entry, just don't communicate well with the people on the site. They go back to the office, send their report off to their supervisor, then, once approved off to the person who's name is on the permit, usually someone in corporate, and then, after someone reads it and alerts the site team to fix it, the inspector is back saying "You didn't do what I said to do."
So take those 900, er, 1400, er 1500 violations with a grain. The Land Trust can't even correctly identify what those violations are.
And just for good measure, there's likely a little bit of sour grapes here, too. Big surprise. If you don't know what a land trust does, it purchases a land owner's development rights to their property to "conserve" green space. Prices are usually not even near what a developer -- or a gas royalty -- would pay. Sounds ok though, until they tell you they'd also like you to set up a fund to sustain (basically upkeep) your property. So in essence, they pay below what someone else would, and then ask you to keep paying for keeping it up, as if you'll ever reap any other benefit from it. Needless to say, they don't do so good with this with average property owners. I know, because I explored it once to conserve a historic piece of property I own.
Funny thing is, drilling, in the last few years, has preserved more small Pennsylvania farms than the Land Trust could hope to. And no one gave up their development rights, or was asked to pay to upkeep something they had no hope of benefiting from any longer. Nope -- they got a first bonus payment, and then for those where wells have made it through cries of "go slowly!" to drilling, a sustaining royalty payment. Check out PIOGA's web site for details: www.PIOGA.org.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Is Science Debatable?
Growing up, I was more than a pretty good student -- except when it came to science and math. My father, an engineer, used to wonder why that was, and tell me the great thing about science and math was that there was only one answer -- you knew if you were right or wrong for the most part.
When I went to work for the PA Department of Environmental Protection as an adult, I learned that I should have paid more attention. But I also learned, through my interaction with a voluminous number of citizens, that there were more people like me when it came to math and science -- and government, too, but thats another posting.
Looking at the news of late, I'm beginning to wonder why so many people think the various laws of science, physics, chemistry and the natural world are open for debate.
Just today, I was reading about a study done by Cornell University that asked New Yorkers if they believed the environmental risks of gas drilling were worth the economic benefit to the state. Apparently, there is some difference across geographical boundaries when it comes to how New Yorkers answer that question (surprise, surprise, pepole in the city are more likely to believe fracing is environmentally bad). As a marketer, I understand the reason for the poll. But this isn't exactly a consumer question like "Do you like ice cream?" Its a question thats asking people for opinions on things they are not necessarily qualified to make a determination on. Its like asking "Do you believe in gravity?"
Have we regressed so far in our educations that we now believe we can question the laws of nature when they don't suit our needs? Take the gentleman in Avella, PA who claims his water was contaminated by gas drilling. Atlas Energy, the company in question tested his well and found nothing. (Note: the testing isn't actually done by the company, they hire a lab qualified to do the work). DEP came out and tested the well next and found the exact same thing. Spokeswoman Helen Humphries said on KDKA-TV last week that the samples came back as your basic Western Pennsylvania water. Basic PA water doesn't include chemical concentrations that are of concern when it comes to human ingestion. But of course DEP is lying -- they are in cahoots with industry, doctoring the the lab results of two independent laboratories. Yet no one else is forking over the money to have it tested again.
Its no wonder those Asian kids keep beating Americans in science and math. We seem to think we can manipulate scientific law for our own purposes. Or at least make facts essay questions.
One petroleum geologist who testified at the EPA hearing last week wrote in the Post-Gazette this week that he was booed and cursed by the audience for giving a simple scientific explaination of how fracing works, and how its severely unlikely it could cause acquifer contamination. He warned anti-drilling interests who seem committed to doing everything they can to vilify this process that the only way the would ever be able to really do this was to overturn the laws of physics. More letters to the editor telling him that his years of education and experience in science didn't prove a thing ensued.
A gentleman I follow on LinkedIn with a scientific background may be the one who put it best. He noted that this same controversey follows most environmental discussions. Industry finds new technology, puts it to work, and finds out that its a great way to do things. Concerned citizens question the process and ask for explaination. In most cases that brew to this extreme, many in the general public cannot grasp the intricate scientific details of the question they asked, are somewhat concerned that they don't understand, and in their own ignorance, decide that the principal or process in question is wrong or polluting beacuse they don't get it. That and the fact that today people take their environmental science from Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo -- people who know absolutely nothing about science, except that people like them will think they're smart and altruistic and spend $10.50 a piece to see their new movie.
Somewhere along the way we decided that its bad for Exxon to make a profit, and beacuse Dick Cheney (who by the way isn't an oilman -- he was in government his whole life until Haliburton hired him to help get contracts between Republican administrations) isn't Miss Congeniality that there isn't a single trustworthy person in the oil and gas industry. And yet, the majority of people refuse to curtail their energy use to make dependence on these "evil" people less necessary. Lets forget the fact that the people out there risking their lives everyday, and some not risking their lives but working hard for the industry none the less, produce the energy we need to make the world work. Without them, there are not LCD TVS, heating, cooling, Blackberries or Wiis.
These folks have years of experience doing what they do, and prior to that, years of education in science and math and all of that boring, way-over-our-heads stuff none of the rest of us ever wanted to master on our own. And we have the audacity to believe a 21-year-old unemployed kid with a video camera when we want scientific facts.
As my dad, who has been right before, tells me all the time, this little problem of ours is why this country doesn't make anything anymore. Or more acurately, why we are now, and will likely continue depending on people who hate us for energy.
Good thing we got the Industrial Revolution out of the way before the environmental extremism came along. Instead of builiding the modern world through people like Edison, Carnegie, Westinghouse, Ford, and Whitney, we'd still be in public forums asking them to explain how they could possibly be smarter than any of us.
When I went to work for the PA Department of Environmental Protection as an adult, I learned that I should have paid more attention. But I also learned, through my interaction with a voluminous number of citizens, that there were more people like me when it came to math and science -- and government, too, but thats another posting.
Looking at the news of late, I'm beginning to wonder why so many people think the various laws of science, physics, chemistry and the natural world are open for debate.
Just today, I was reading about a study done by Cornell University that asked New Yorkers if they believed the environmental risks of gas drilling were worth the economic benefit to the state. Apparently, there is some difference across geographical boundaries when it comes to how New Yorkers answer that question (surprise, surprise, pepole in the city are more likely to believe fracing is environmentally bad). As a marketer, I understand the reason for the poll. But this isn't exactly a consumer question like "Do you like ice cream?" Its a question thats asking people for opinions on things they are not necessarily qualified to make a determination on. Its like asking "Do you believe in gravity?"
Have we regressed so far in our educations that we now believe we can question the laws of nature when they don't suit our needs? Take the gentleman in Avella, PA who claims his water was contaminated by gas drilling. Atlas Energy, the company in question tested his well and found nothing. (Note: the testing isn't actually done by the company, they hire a lab qualified to do the work). DEP came out and tested the well next and found the exact same thing. Spokeswoman Helen Humphries said on KDKA-TV last week that the samples came back as your basic Western Pennsylvania water. Basic PA water doesn't include chemical concentrations that are of concern when it comes to human ingestion. But of course DEP is lying -- they are in cahoots with industry, doctoring the the lab results of two independent laboratories. Yet no one else is forking over the money to have it tested again.
Its no wonder those Asian kids keep beating Americans in science and math. We seem to think we can manipulate scientific law for our own purposes. Or at least make facts essay questions.
One petroleum geologist who testified at the EPA hearing last week wrote in the Post-Gazette this week that he was booed and cursed by the audience for giving a simple scientific explaination of how fracing works, and how its severely unlikely it could cause acquifer contamination. He warned anti-drilling interests who seem committed to doing everything they can to vilify this process that the only way the would ever be able to really do this was to overturn the laws of physics. More letters to the editor telling him that his years of education and experience in science didn't prove a thing ensued.
A gentleman I follow on LinkedIn with a scientific background may be the one who put it best. He noted that this same controversey follows most environmental discussions. Industry finds new technology, puts it to work, and finds out that its a great way to do things. Concerned citizens question the process and ask for explaination. In most cases that brew to this extreme, many in the general public cannot grasp the intricate scientific details of the question they asked, are somewhat concerned that they don't understand, and in their own ignorance, decide that the principal or process in question is wrong or polluting beacuse they don't get it. That and the fact that today people take their environmental science from Leonardo DiCaprio and Mark Ruffalo -- people who know absolutely nothing about science, except that people like them will think they're smart and altruistic and spend $10.50 a piece to see their new movie.
Somewhere along the way we decided that its bad for Exxon to make a profit, and beacuse Dick Cheney (who by the way isn't an oilman -- he was in government his whole life until Haliburton hired him to help get contracts between Republican administrations) isn't Miss Congeniality that there isn't a single trustworthy person in the oil and gas industry. And yet, the majority of people refuse to curtail their energy use to make dependence on these "evil" people less necessary. Lets forget the fact that the people out there risking their lives everyday, and some not risking their lives but working hard for the industry none the less, produce the energy we need to make the world work. Without them, there are not LCD TVS, heating, cooling, Blackberries or Wiis.
These folks have years of experience doing what they do, and prior to that, years of education in science and math and all of that boring, way-over-our-heads stuff none of the rest of us ever wanted to master on our own. And we have the audacity to believe a 21-year-old unemployed kid with a video camera when we want scientific facts.
As my dad, who has been right before, tells me all the time, this little problem of ours is why this country doesn't make anything anymore. Or more acurately, why we are now, and will likely continue depending on people who hate us for energy.
Good thing we got the Industrial Revolution out of the way before the environmental extremism came along. Instead of builiding the modern world through people like Edison, Carnegie, Westinghouse, Ford, and Whitney, we'd still be in public forums asking them to explain how they could possibly be smarter than any of us.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Correction on that Fence
It seems in my posting yesterday about EPA's Canonsburg meeting, I made a little error.
Apparently, the man who put the fence up around his pond did so not to stop contamination, but to stop his animals from drinking from it. He said he had lost some animals who were drinking from the pond, and that he was no longer losing animals after he fenced the pond.
I got that part wrong -- but that doesn't mean that fracing fluid caused him to lose animals. In order for fracing fluid to have entered that pond, it would have had to climb about 6,500 ft into the water table, through natural geologic barriers and other non-permeable geologic strata.
Some people believe that's possible. If you do, consider this. In order to frac the Marcellus, fluid is pumped at very high pressure. To pull back the produced water, an even higher amount of pressure is used, and even at that rate, drillers are unable to retrieve it all. The point being this: to move fluid out of the Marcellus, which acts something like a sponge, and raise it thousands of feet into the aquifer takes a lot of energy. Something not naturally occuring in the necessary amount at that depth.
Fence or no fence, its likely something else was in that water if animals died drinking it. As a livestock owner myself, I've seen animals die from a variety of causes -- but most commonly on my farm from fertilizers used on neighboring properties. Still thinking frac fluid? Think about the cows recently "quarantined" for study. They have allegedly been drinking frac fluid laced water. They're still alive.
I may have gotten the story a bit confused, but one way or another, something here still doesn't add up.
Apparently, the man who put the fence up around his pond did so not to stop contamination, but to stop his animals from drinking from it. He said he had lost some animals who were drinking from the pond, and that he was no longer losing animals after he fenced the pond.
I got that part wrong -- but that doesn't mean that fracing fluid caused him to lose animals. In order for fracing fluid to have entered that pond, it would have had to climb about 6,500 ft into the water table, through natural geologic barriers and other non-permeable geologic strata.
Some people believe that's possible. If you do, consider this. In order to frac the Marcellus, fluid is pumped at very high pressure. To pull back the produced water, an even higher amount of pressure is used, and even at that rate, drillers are unable to retrieve it all. The point being this: to move fluid out of the Marcellus, which acts something like a sponge, and raise it thousands of feet into the aquifer takes a lot of energy. Something not naturally occuring in the necessary amount at that depth.
Fence or no fence, its likely something else was in that water if animals died drinking it. As a livestock owner myself, I've seen animals die from a variety of causes -- but most commonly on my farm from fertilizers used on neighboring properties. Still thinking frac fluid? Think about the cows recently "quarantined" for study. They have allegedly been drinking frac fluid laced water. They're still alive.
I may have gotten the story a bit confused, but one way or another, something here still doesn't add up.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
EPA's Canonsburg Marcellus Meeting, Uncut
There’s been a lot of discussion about the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) meeting last Thursday on its study of contamination related to hydraulic fracturing in the Marcellus Shale, held in Canonsburg at the Hilton Garden Inn.
And there’s been a lot that’s not been said.
What has been said is mostly a reiteration of stories and concerns we’ve already heard a zillion times. The headline I’ve seen the most, attached to confessed anti-drilling reporter Marc Levy from the Associated Press is “Residents Tell EPA Gas Drilling Poisons Water.” Interesting, considering that most of the people who testified and or attended this meeting are not geologists, water quality specialists or scientists who would actually be able to tell anyone that conclusively.
Such headlines and stories all over the national media – from Pittsburgh to San Diego – have inspired me to share some of the stories from that evening that haven’t been told.
First and foremost, this meeting and the others like it were designed for the concerned to give EPA testimony on specific sites they feel would be worthwhile to study for evidence that hydrofracing has contaminated drinking water. From what I have heard and read, only one person out of over 130 that testified did this. The rest did exactly what EPA asked they not do at the outset of the meeting: reiterate horror stories and their own opinions on hydrofracing and gas well drilling in the Marcellus. Way to waste EPA’s time and money folks.
Interestingly enough, very few of the people who decided to come and relate horror stories were really people with true personal experiences. There were lots of stories about “my neighbor,” “my friend,” etc., but strangely, few if any of the people referenced actually gave testimony or reported these awful situations on their own. Also of interest was that anyone who had a story to tell about how their neighbor’s leasing to a gas company influenced their lives had a water supply somewhere about 900ft from the well or intended well. Almost uniformly. Think these people are after a mandatory 1,000 ft set back from wells to water sources?
Even more interesting are the holes in the stories that actually were told. For instance:
One gentleman was quoted in the newspaper saying that his pond was contaminated after drilling was done on his neighbors property. But it cleared up immediately after he installed a fence around it. How is that even possible? If contamination of drinking water is coming from hydrofracing, happening 5,000 to 8,000 ft under ground, how exactly would a fence on the surface of the ground stop it from finding that pond, if that was ever going to happen in the first place? Or, even if the contamination was from a surface spill that ran off into the pond, how would fence stop that? I’ve never yet seen a fence that can stop a liquid. No one else likely has either.
One woman wanted everyone to know her well was contaminated with “MBAS.” For those who aren’t as schooled in chemical acronyms as this person, MBAS is a type of surfactant found is various household products. Sounds like she’s onto something here, huh? We all know the gas industry uses surfactants in frac fluids to encourage movement of the fluid through the well. Unfortunately, the woman also said that the MBAS “occurred” in her well immediately after the drilling company notified the neighborhood that drilling would begin soon, and that personnel would be out to test water wells. So MBAS was there BEFORE drilling began. To a water quality professional, that indicates a link between her sewage system and her drinking water well.
Another man discussed how his water was a reddish, rusty color, and testing showed it was high in iron and manganese. Definitely a problem, but not one related to gas drilling. Frac fluid contamination is highly unlikely to be reddish and doesn’t use these elements. His problem would more likely be an acid mine drainage problem, something that is very common and traditional in Washington County, where the man was from, and Southwestern PA. I suppose he’s new to the area.
Another man made statements talking about how he never knew much about his water until it was tested by drillers and he received the results. He went on to blame drilling for the contaminants in his well. Sigh. Responsible drillers who take the time to test wells ALWAYS do it before they drill. This isn’t for the education of the well owner – it’s for the company to have background information when a well owner comes forward with accusations of well contamination. The PA Oil & Gas Act recommends that all drillers test water supplies within 1,000 ft of the well prior to drilling. If they do not, and a complaint comes forward, it’s assumed the driller is responsible if they cannot prove otherwise. They then have to supply new water supplies to the impacted owners. So, if this man’s water testing results showed contamination before drilling occurred, how on earth could it have been the result of drilling? And furthermore, why DIDN’T this man know more about his water supply previously, when it’s recommended that wells be tested annually and bi-annually for a battery of bacteria and substances? Guess it didn’t matter if he was drinking e-Coli laced water. No one pays to fix that problem.
More interesting conversations and discussions happened off the record at that meeting as well. After a licensed geologist told one woman that there had been efforts to tap the Marcellus in the past, and that the shale existed at different depths throughout the formation – even at depths closer to the surface than 5,000 ft, she exasperatedly told him that wasn’t true and demanded to know where he got his information. A trained geologist. The real question was where did she get hers. Probably from people like Josh Fox.
Others blamed drilling in the Marcellus for everything from earthquakes to radon to increased levels of asthma at Fort Cherry High School. Just the drilling process, mind you. Not the burning of fossils, but the drilling process itself. Apparently there have been major studies on all of these issues. More likely studies on something sort of like that somewhere else posted on some science Web site somewhere. Once again, throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what will stick.
Another woman insisted that drillers have no obligation to inform neighbors, and certainly never do, about drilling that will take place in their neighborhoods. Funny, I thought DEP permits for drilling required drillers to inform anyone with a water supply source within 1,000ft of the well to be notified via letter. Understand the nuance here – drillers must notify people within 1,000 ft of drilling, but DEP only “recommends” that they test the wells of water supplies within 1,000 ft. Erosion and sedimentation control plans (the infamous ESCGP1) require drillers notify counties and municipalities. DEP logs them in on their Web site as well, and tracks permit violations there too. So there is really no excuse for a neighbor not to know about imminent plans to drill. And considering all of the other “information” they know about these wells, how could they not know they were being drilled?
Some of the comments overheard were just plain funny. One man said he was certainly in favor of using natural gas to generate electricity, as long as it wasn’t that “Marcellus gas.” Marcellus gas is comparable to any other natural gas produced from a drilled well. In fact, using hydrofracing (which by the way is NOT new technology) in the Marcellus, is, in terms of the complaints, actually safer than using it in shallower wells. Not that fracing has ever been proven to be a problem at those depths, either. Those are just closer in proximity to drinking water aquifers.
What’s really amazing in the end is that in the fervor to stop something they’ve been told to be scared of, otherwise rational people have decided that scientific facts are indeed opinions of people in the gas industry. No one on that side is saying that there aren’t challenges and that sometimes, as in any industrial process, mistakes occur. If industry believed that, they wouldn’t be spending tons in R&D to find ways to improve an already good process.
When people talk about the Marcellus in heated debate, listen closely to what they say. They could be talking about a completely different issue – like many of the people at EPA’s meeting on Thursday. Let’s hope EPA heard those holes.
And there’s been a lot that’s not been said.
What has been said is mostly a reiteration of stories and concerns we’ve already heard a zillion times. The headline I’ve seen the most, attached to confessed anti-drilling reporter Marc Levy from the Associated Press is “Residents Tell EPA Gas Drilling Poisons Water.” Interesting, considering that most of the people who testified and or attended this meeting are not geologists, water quality specialists or scientists who would actually be able to tell anyone that conclusively.
Such headlines and stories all over the national media – from Pittsburgh to San Diego – have inspired me to share some of the stories from that evening that haven’t been told.
First and foremost, this meeting and the others like it were designed for the concerned to give EPA testimony on specific sites they feel would be worthwhile to study for evidence that hydrofracing has contaminated drinking water. From what I have heard and read, only one person out of over 130 that testified did this. The rest did exactly what EPA asked they not do at the outset of the meeting: reiterate horror stories and their own opinions on hydrofracing and gas well drilling in the Marcellus. Way to waste EPA’s time and money folks.
Interestingly enough, very few of the people who decided to come and relate horror stories were really people with true personal experiences. There were lots of stories about “my neighbor,” “my friend,” etc., but strangely, few if any of the people referenced actually gave testimony or reported these awful situations on their own. Also of interest was that anyone who had a story to tell about how their neighbor’s leasing to a gas company influenced their lives had a water supply somewhere about 900ft from the well or intended well. Almost uniformly. Think these people are after a mandatory 1,000 ft set back from wells to water sources?
Even more interesting are the holes in the stories that actually were told. For instance:
One gentleman was quoted in the newspaper saying that his pond was contaminated after drilling was done on his neighbors property. But it cleared up immediately after he installed a fence around it. How is that even possible? If contamination of drinking water is coming from hydrofracing, happening 5,000 to 8,000 ft under ground, how exactly would a fence on the surface of the ground stop it from finding that pond, if that was ever going to happen in the first place? Or, even if the contamination was from a surface spill that ran off into the pond, how would fence stop that? I’ve never yet seen a fence that can stop a liquid. No one else likely has either.
One woman wanted everyone to know her well was contaminated with “MBAS.” For those who aren’t as schooled in chemical acronyms as this person, MBAS is a type of surfactant found is various household products. Sounds like she’s onto something here, huh? We all know the gas industry uses surfactants in frac fluids to encourage movement of the fluid through the well. Unfortunately, the woman also said that the MBAS “occurred” in her well immediately after the drilling company notified the neighborhood that drilling would begin soon, and that personnel would be out to test water wells. So MBAS was there BEFORE drilling began. To a water quality professional, that indicates a link between her sewage system and her drinking water well.
Another man discussed how his water was a reddish, rusty color, and testing showed it was high in iron and manganese. Definitely a problem, but not one related to gas drilling. Frac fluid contamination is highly unlikely to be reddish and doesn’t use these elements. His problem would more likely be an acid mine drainage problem, something that is very common and traditional in Washington County, where the man was from, and Southwestern PA. I suppose he’s new to the area.
Another man made statements talking about how he never knew much about his water until it was tested by drillers and he received the results. He went on to blame drilling for the contaminants in his well. Sigh. Responsible drillers who take the time to test wells ALWAYS do it before they drill. This isn’t for the education of the well owner – it’s for the company to have background information when a well owner comes forward with accusations of well contamination. The PA Oil & Gas Act recommends that all drillers test water supplies within 1,000 ft of the well prior to drilling. If they do not, and a complaint comes forward, it’s assumed the driller is responsible if they cannot prove otherwise. They then have to supply new water supplies to the impacted owners. So, if this man’s water testing results showed contamination before drilling occurred, how on earth could it have been the result of drilling? And furthermore, why DIDN’T this man know more about his water supply previously, when it’s recommended that wells be tested annually and bi-annually for a battery of bacteria and substances? Guess it didn’t matter if he was drinking e-Coli laced water. No one pays to fix that problem.
More interesting conversations and discussions happened off the record at that meeting as well. After a licensed geologist told one woman that there had been efforts to tap the Marcellus in the past, and that the shale existed at different depths throughout the formation – even at depths closer to the surface than 5,000 ft, she exasperatedly told him that wasn’t true and demanded to know where he got his information. A trained geologist. The real question was where did she get hers. Probably from people like Josh Fox.
Others blamed drilling in the Marcellus for everything from earthquakes to radon to increased levels of asthma at Fort Cherry High School. Just the drilling process, mind you. Not the burning of fossils, but the drilling process itself. Apparently there have been major studies on all of these issues. More likely studies on something sort of like that somewhere else posted on some science Web site somewhere. Once again, throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what will stick.
Another woman insisted that drillers have no obligation to inform neighbors, and certainly never do, about drilling that will take place in their neighborhoods. Funny, I thought DEP permits for drilling required drillers to inform anyone with a water supply source within 1,000ft of the well to be notified via letter. Understand the nuance here – drillers must notify people within 1,000 ft of drilling, but DEP only “recommends” that they test the wells of water supplies within 1,000 ft. Erosion and sedimentation control plans (the infamous ESCGP1) require drillers notify counties and municipalities. DEP logs them in on their Web site as well, and tracks permit violations there too. So there is really no excuse for a neighbor not to know about imminent plans to drill. And considering all of the other “information” they know about these wells, how could they not know they were being drilled?
Some of the comments overheard were just plain funny. One man said he was certainly in favor of using natural gas to generate electricity, as long as it wasn’t that “Marcellus gas.” Marcellus gas is comparable to any other natural gas produced from a drilled well. In fact, using hydrofracing (which by the way is NOT new technology) in the Marcellus, is, in terms of the complaints, actually safer than using it in shallower wells. Not that fracing has ever been proven to be a problem at those depths, either. Those are just closer in proximity to drinking water aquifers.
What’s really amazing in the end is that in the fervor to stop something they’ve been told to be scared of, otherwise rational people have decided that scientific facts are indeed opinions of people in the gas industry. No one on that side is saying that there aren’t challenges and that sometimes, as in any industrial process, mistakes occur. If industry believed that, they wouldn’t be spending tons in R&D to find ways to improve an already good process.
When people talk about the Marcellus in heated debate, listen closely to what they say. They could be talking about a completely different issue – like many of the people at EPA’s meeting on Thursday. Let’s hope EPA heard those holes.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
What You Said Isn't What I Heard: Miscommunicating in the Marcellus
Considering all of the different perspectives and experiences people have, it’s amazing sometimes to think humans are able to communicate with one another at all. Perhaps most frustrating can be situations where it seems everyone is singing from the same song sheet, but some factor that is difficult to see is causing problems that don’t need to exist.
In the development of the Marcellus Shale, there may be a number of such factors at work – particularly between the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and industry – that if remedied in some fashion could smooth things out. Assuming of course that all parties involved actually want relationships that work better.
Here are some observations that could help to facilitate smoother regulatory and operational processes:
On permitting. This one falls primarily on industry. It’s important to remember that the permitting process is not a rubber stamp. When a company submits an application for any necessary permit to PA DEP, what comes back is not necessarily exactly what was submitted. Or in other words, DEP just doesn’t read the app and say yes or no. Sometimes they add conditional language specific to the site or project. It may seem like a no-brainer to think the permit is read in full before work starts, but that may not always be the case. Documents can get held up in in-boxes, piled under other things, prematurely filed, and slowed in distribution to all necessary staff. If there’s even a possibility that final permit language is not read in house by someone in the company’s permitting/regulatory group, it’s even less likely that the site manager and workers have read it in full. They should be reading them – or at least those parts that deal directly with site work and conditional language. And DEP inspectors visiting those sites should have read them as well. Simple fix – anyone responsible for what happens on a drill site should read all applicable permits if they aren’t doing it already.
On inspections and notices of violation. Communication issues are likely to arise during and after inspections for a variety of reasons. First, let’s face facts. A DEP inspector isn’t likely to always be a welcome presence on a well site. Inspectors know this. Teamed with DEP’s continual staff fluctuations due to agency layoffs, reassignments due to seniority and new hires, many current inspectors are somewhat inexperienced in oil and gas. Considering the rush to add new staff to the Oil and Gas Program to appease those screaming for more oversight, many of the inspectors out there have likely not even read the Oil and Gas Act, let alone have the ability to site it or understand when it takes precedence, or when another environmental rule can be applied. There’s also the fact that changes in policy seem needlessly slow in reaching DEP’s field staff – many company site teams, who learn a great deal through the Marcellus Shale Coalition, have incredibly found themselves telling inspectors that DEP has changed its stance on various items. Needless to say inspectors are going to make nice while on site. And it’s unlikely that, unless a violation is a major emergency, there will be much said about it. That is until the inspection report lands on a desk back at headquarters with more detail and some additional notes of “this needs to be fixed/changed/reconfigured.”
On inspections and notices of violation 2. Company site staff needs to be a little more forward with inspectors who visit their sites. Its common, after the site team hears about some violation listed on the inspection report, to have someone say “But the inspector didn’t say anything about that when he/she was here.” Again, see above on inspector behavior. Or realize that DEP has the right to take notes back to its office, review the permits, talk to supervisors and colleagues, and add violations to the report that we’re not discussed on site. Inspection report documents go from DEP to the person listed as “responsible” for the site in the permit – usually a regulatory senior staffer or corporate counsel for the company, not the people on site carrying out the permits. In the time that it takes for information to filter down to the site manager, DEP could be back for another inspection, and note the company’s failure to comply with the last report. A two-prong solution here. Inspectors, read up on the regs you’re enforcing, and try to be a little more upfront with people working on site. They may resent your presence, but in the future, they’ll be happy you confronted them directly with any problems you’ve witnessed. For the companies, make sure mail from DEP is read the moment you receive it, and that the information within makes a quick trip to the people on site who fix problems.
On “Can’t we all just get along?” There are likely many cultural issues that make communication between regulators and operations people confusing or strained. The “Texas” thing needs to go away. To those who say “We don’t do it this way in Texas,” you are right. But you’re not in Texas. Pennsylvania residents and politics vary significantly from those of the Lone Star State. Don’t fall back to Texas rules when in doubt, ask how it’s done here. You’ll alleviate many problems. To those who say “These guys are all from Texas – they don’t get it.” Like it or not Pennsylvanians, we need our friends from Texas in this tenuous early stage of the Marcellus play. They’ve done this – they have the institutional knowledge to help us do it right for the benefit of our state economy. Have some respect for their experience and pride in the work they do.
The Marcellus Shale is a politically charged issue throughout the Commonwealth. At times, it seems that the various parties involved use the simple human tendency to mis-communicate to their advantage. If that’s the case, it helps no one. To paraphrase Pennsylvania State Representative David Levdansky’s recent comments to KDKA-TV, the industry is here and isn’t going anywhere. It’s our responsibility to make sure they are doing their job correctly, and that they are able to do their job correctly. There will be enough complications and controversies as Pennsylvania develops this amazing resource. The inspection process needs to be one in which collaboration leads to the very best practices. Not one in which everyone’s waiting for the “Gotcha” moment.
In the development of the Marcellus Shale, there may be a number of such factors at work – particularly between the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection and industry – that if remedied in some fashion could smooth things out. Assuming of course that all parties involved actually want relationships that work better.
Here are some observations that could help to facilitate smoother regulatory and operational processes:
On permitting. This one falls primarily on industry. It’s important to remember that the permitting process is not a rubber stamp. When a company submits an application for any necessary permit to PA DEP, what comes back is not necessarily exactly what was submitted. Or in other words, DEP just doesn’t read the app and say yes or no. Sometimes they add conditional language specific to the site or project. It may seem like a no-brainer to think the permit is read in full before work starts, but that may not always be the case. Documents can get held up in in-boxes, piled under other things, prematurely filed, and slowed in distribution to all necessary staff. If there’s even a possibility that final permit language is not read in house by someone in the company’s permitting/regulatory group, it’s even less likely that the site manager and workers have read it in full. They should be reading them – or at least those parts that deal directly with site work and conditional language. And DEP inspectors visiting those sites should have read them as well. Simple fix – anyone responsible for what happens on a drill site should read all applicable permits if they aren’t doing it already.
On inspections and notices of violation. Communication issues are likely to arise during and after inspections for a variety of reasons. First, let’s face facts. A DEP inspector isn’t likely to always be a welcome presence on a well site. Inspectors know this. Teamed with DEP’s continual staff fluctuations due to agency layoffs, reassignments due to seniority and new hires, many current inspectors are somewhat inexperienced in oil and gas. Considering the rush to add new staff to the Oil and Gas Program to appease those screaming for more oversight, many of the inspectors out there have likely not even read the Oil and Gas Act, let alone have the ability to site it or understand when it takes precedence, or when another environmental rule can be applied. There’s also the fact that changes in policy seem needlessly slow in reaching DEP’s field staff – many company site teams, who learn a great deal through the Marcellus Shale Coalition, have incredibly found themselves telling inspectors that DEP has changed its stance on various items. Needless to say inspectors are going to make nice while on site. And it’s unlikely that, unless a violation is a major emergency, there will be much said about it. That is until the inspection report lands on a desk back at headquarters with more detail and some additional notes of “this needs to be fixed/changed/reconfigured.”
On inspections and notices of violation 2. Company site staff needs to be a little more forward with inspectors who visit their sites. Its common, after the site team hears about some violation listed on the inspection report, to have someone say “But the inspector didn’t say anything about that when he/she was here.” Again, see above on inspector behavior. Or realize that DEP has the right to take notes back to its office, review the permits, talk to supervisors and colleagues, and add violations to the report that we’re not discussed on site. Inspection report documents go from DEP to the person listed as “responsible” for the site in the permit – usually a regulatory senior staffer or corporate counsel for the company, not the people on site carrying out the permits. In the time that it takes for information to filter down to the site manager, DEP could be back for another inspection, and note the company’s failure to comply with the last report. A two-prong solution here. Inspectors, read up on the regs you’re enforcing, and try to be a little more upfront with people working on site. They may resent your presence, but in the future, they’ll be happy you confronted them directly with any problems you’ve witnessed. For the companies, make sure mail from DEP is read the moment you receive it, and that the information within makes a quick trip to the people on site who fix problems.
On “Can’t we all just get along?” There are likely many cultural issues that make communication between regulators and operations people confusing or strained. The “Texas” thing needs to go away. To those who say “We don’t do it this way in Texas,” you are right. But you’re not in Texas. Pennsylvania residents and politics vary significantly from those of the Lone Star State. Don’t fall back to Texas rules when in doubt, ask how it’s done here. You’ll alleviate many problems. To those who say “These guys are all from Texas – they don’t get it.” Like it or not Pennsylvanians, we need our friends from Texas in this tenuous early stage of the Marcellus play. They’ve done this – they have the institutional knowledge to help us do it right for the benefit of our state economy. Have some respect for their experience and pride in the work they do.
The Marcellus Shale is a politically charged issue throughout the Commonwealth. At times, it seems that the various parties involved use the simple human tendency to mis-communicate to their advantage. If that’s the case, it helps no one. To paraphrase Pennsylvania State Representative David Levdansky’s recent comments to KDKA-TV, the industry is here and isn’t going anywhere. It’s our responsibility to make sure they are doing their job correctly, and that they are able to do their job correctly. There will be enough complications and controversies as Pennsylvania develops this amazing resource. The inspection process needs to be one in which collaboration leads to the very best practices. Not one in which everyone’s waiting for the “Gotcha” moment.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Municipal Madness
It’s been said by many for many years that Pennsylvania has too many municipalities within its boarders. The natural gas industry is learning the hard way the truth that resides behind those kinds of statements.
Generally speaking, in the Commonwealth, all oil and gas extraction issues are governed by the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act. In short, only the state, through DEP, has the right to police oil and gas operations. Since development of the Marcellus Shale began in earnest, many municipalities have found that they don’t care much for the Oil and Gas Act.
A little over a year ago, one court case, which involved the Borough of Oakmont in Southwestern Pennsylvania and drilling interest Huntley & Huntley, gave municipalities a small window of opportunity for a say so about where drilling can take place, based on zoning. The decision was quite specific, and still requires all municipalities to make room for drilling to occur within their boundaries.
But as someone wise once said, give them and inch, and they’ll take a yard. Since the Huntley & Huntley case was decided, municipalities all over the Shale fairway have been attempting to pass ordinances that do exactly what the Oil and Gas Act still does not allow them to do – govern oil and gas operations.
Few who should be seem to paying attention to this. But the industry is – and since Huntley and Huntley was decided has been winning cases against municipalities that have been misinterpreting their governing prevue, or trying to see what they can get away with in attempts to appease residents who have caught the drilling fear encouraged by anti-drilling activists.
Whatever the reasons, some municipalities are throwing the anti-drilling spaghetti at the wall to see what will stick. For instance, attempting to establish their own set back distances for rigs/water pits/equipment; requiring occupancy permits for on-site crew trailers; requiring sewage permits and fees for on-site trailers (most use port-a-johns); demanding to know the exact number of trucks that will visit a site; asking for well site pad designs; forcing drillers to appear before land use boards for every well; expecting the right to approve all on-site equipment; and requiring that inbound and outbound trucks use specific routes.
However, in the rush to find ways to stop drilling, municipalities haven’t been thinking all that hard. First of all, their continual efforts can hurt more than they help. For instance, in efforts to change the weight restrictions on various township and borough roads, some local leaders didn’t stop to think that other heavy trucks – like milk trucks from local dairies – wouldn’t be able to meet those restrictions either. Apparently, its ok to hurt local taxpayers when the goal is to restrict the rights of mineral owners.
On a larger scale, different rules in different municipalities simply underline the reason the Pennsylvania wide Oil and Gas Act was needed in the first place. The regulations placed on drillers on the state level are complicated, overlapping in some cases, and can be difficult to interpret – especially now, as they are being revised regularly in response to lessons learned in the Marcellus. Adding varying municipal rules on top is more than a frustration for drillers – its enough to make some throw their hands up in disgust, as trying to satisfy everyone’s ordinances simply ensures that somewhere along the line, even the most careful company will fall into non-compliance.
Let’s not forget the fact that the modern horizontal Marcellus well can include laterals that reach thousands of feet. In some cases, they straddle municipal lines. Who’s ordinances take precedence?
Some municipalities, however, see things in a more constructive manner. A Marcellus well that produces can result in a significant royalties, now that most leases are signed for more than the standard 12.5 percent. Added to the initial bonus payment, there can be quite a windfall for a lessor.
The number of municipalities with their hands out has been putting a great strain on the state budget. Many of the cuts that have been seen in terms of payments to municipal programs are indicative of the fact that Pennsylvania cannot afford to sustain all of these local governments. Those interested in keeping their jurisdiction intact need to find money. Some municipalities have been smart – they’re leasing their public lands for drilling in order to fill their local coffers to fund the things Harrisburg no longer can. Others, interestingly enough, have dropped their ordinances when they realized they could cash in as well as their residents. Either way, these local governments have recognized the benefits the industry offers. They may have also noticed that when they cooperate with drillers, roads are fixed quicker, donations to local charities are bigger, local response teams receive pertinent training, and their residents accumulate well-related wealth faster.
But for those insistent on keeping drillers from exercising their right to extract their minerals, or those who keep putting off decisions to lease in order to keep activists at bay, be sure, attempts to somehow govern oil and gas extraction activities from the municipal level will only result in disappointing decisions from judges around the Commonwealth.
Generally speaking, in the Commonwealth, all oil and gas extraction issues are governed by the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act. In short, only the state, through DEP, has the right to police oil and gas operations. Since development of the Marcellus Shale began in earnest, many municipalities have found that they don’t care much for the Oil and Gas Act.
A little over a year ago, one court case, which involved the Borough of Oakmont in Southwestern Pennsylvania and drilling interest Huntley & Huntley, gave municipalities a small window of opportunity for a say so about where drilling can take place, based on zoning. The decision was quite specific, and still requires all municipalities to make room for drilling to occur within their boundaries.
But as someone wise once said, give them and inch, and they’ll take a yard. Since the Huntley & Huntley case was decided, municipalities all over the Shale fairway have been attempting to pass ordinances that do exactly what the Oil and Gas Act still does not allow them to do – govern oil and gas operations.
Few who should be seem to paying attention to this. But the industry is – and since Huntley and Huntley was decided has been winning cases against municipalities that have been misinterpreting their governing prevue, or trying to see what they can get away with in attempts to appease residents who have caught the drilling fear encouraged by anti-drilling activists.
Whatever the reasons, some municipalities are throwing the anti-drilling spaghetti at the wall to see what will stick. For instance, attempting to establish their own set back distances for rigs/water pits/equipment; requiring occupancy permits for on-site crew trailers; requiring sewage permits and fees for on-site trailers (most use port-a-johns); demanding to know the exact number of trucks that will visit a site; asking for well site pad designs; forcing drillers to appear before land use boards for every well; expecting the right to approve all on-site equipment; and requiring that inbound and outbound trucks use specific routes.
However, in the rush to find ways to stop drilling, municipalities haven’t been thinking all that hard. First of all, their continual efforts can hurt more than they help. For instance, in efforts to change the weight restrictions on various township and borough roads, some local leaders didn’t stop to think that other heavy trucks – like milk trucks from local dairies – wouldn’t be able to meet those restrictions either. Apparently, its ok to hurt local taxpayers when the goal is to restrict the rights of mineral owners.
On a larger scale, different rules in different municipalities simply underline the reason the Pennsylvania wide Oil and Gas Act was needed in the first place. The regulations placed on drillers on the state level are complicated, overlapping in some cases, and can be difficult to interpret – especially now, as they are being revised regularly in response to lessons learned in the Marcellus. Adding varying municipal rules on top is more than a frustration for drillers – its enough to make some throw their hands up in disgust, as trying to satisfy everyone’s ordinances simply ensures that somewhere along the line, even the most careful company will fall into non-compliance.
Let’s not forget the fact that the modern horizontal Marcellus well can include laterals that reach thousands of feet. In some cases, they straddle municipal lines. Who’s ordinances take precedence?
Some municipalities, however, see things in a more constructive manner. A Marcellus well that produces can result in a significant royalties, now that most leases are signed for more than the standard 12.5 percent. Added to the initial bonus payment, there can be quite a windfall for a lessor.
The number of municipalities with their hands out has been putting a great strain on the state budget. Many of the cuts that have been seen in terms of payments to municipal programs are indicative of the fact that Pennsylvania cannot afford to sustain all of these local governments. Those interested in keeping their jurisdiction intact need to find money. Some municipalities have been smart – they’re leasing their public lands for drilling in order to fill their local coffers to fund the things Harrisburg no longer can. Others, interestingly enough, have dropped their ordinances when they realized they could cash in as well as their residents. Either way, these local governments have recognized the benefits the industry offers. They may have also noticed that when they cooperate with drillers, roads are fixed quicker, donations to local charities are bigger, local response teams receive pertinent training, and their residents accumulate well-related wealth faster.
But for those insistent on keeping drillers from exercising their right to extract their minerals, or those who keep putting off decisions to lease in order to keep activists at bay, be sure, attempts to somehow govern oil and gas extraction activities from the municipal level will only result in disappointing decisions from judges around the Commonwealth.
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Marcellus Debate HIghlights American Scientific Ignorance
We've been hearing about it for years -- that when it comes to understanding math and science related concepts, other countries are worlds ahead of the United States. For anyone who has doubted the validity of that comment, I give you the ongoing debate on the Marcellus Shale.
Everyone knows by now that the Marcellus is a deep geologic formation rich in natural gas. Geologists and general science people among us say it contains enough natural gas to significantly decrease our dependence on foreign fuel sources. Natural gas, if used in place of other fossil fuels at power generation facilities, could cut green house gas emissions as much as 50 percent at some plants. It could also go a long way in limiting GHG emissions related to transportation.
Like every energy source out there, natural gas has its issues. Extracting it is complicated -- it takes a great deal of geological planning, as well as a major construction process to tap into it. In fact, it takes about six months to a year of many people's time to get from the planning stage to the actual day of drilling. Major construction does mean truck traffic, dust, noise, and inconvenience -- a lot like summertime road construction jobs. It also means those out there doing the work need to be vigilant and conscious of their impact.
Healthy debate, questions and concern should be expected. Yet strangely, many, including some who we would deem "well educated," continue to raise scientific myth and inaccuracy, either to scare their neighbors about something that really isn't all that scary, or because they really don't understand simple earth science.
Just this week, I was "talking" with one of my favorite Twitterers about the fact that natural gas (methane) itself is not considered toxic to humans. So for instance, in the much-discussed town of Dimock, PA, where failed casing lead to natural gas in some of the towns water wells, drinking it prior to its being vented, might have tasted bad, and caused slight stomach discomfort, but no lasting effects. This non-toxicity is documented, but my friend doesn't believe me. Instead, she came at me with an argument that burning natural gas causes radon build up in homes and will kill people. I've lived in radon country my whole life -- this is the first I've ever heard this. (The CDC does note it on its Web site, but the impact must be so small that its rarely if ever discussed.)
At this point, I've heard so many stories that take advantage of people's science illiteracy that it would be funny if it weren't so sad. They usually revolve, until someone finds something new they think they can argue technically. Like the "fact" that New York City, which has EPA exemption from the level of water filtering most other cities must adhere to, is pristine. Even if they carry it from the Catskills in buckets to Manhattan, its going to get some kind of contamination.
As you probably guessed, most of this pseudo-science is related to clean water. Here are thoughts on some of the biggies:
A study of earth science in places like Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York will tell you that natural gas regularly escapes from shallow geological formations to the Earth's surface. Private water wells, which do not require the elaborate casings gas wells do (because they are not regulated by anyone) are often the path of least resistance to the surface. In fact, you don't really need to study it at all. Some who've grown up in those areas will tell you they've been lighting their flowing faucets afire forever. Great teenager party trick.
The real danger of natural gas coming to the surface is that it can be explosive in small quarters. Common sense -- and any water well driller worth his or her salt -- will tell well owners that private water wells must be vented to the outside -- most specifically, so that gas from underground can escape to the atmosphere. I've heard that some people have been known to vent their water wells into their houses in the winter to avoid the lines freezing. Bad idea. You also shouldn't cover wells with a cute plastic rock, a little wooden house, or in the Dimock case, an 8 ft concrete slab, as I've heard it described. Gas well drilling or no gas well drilling, covering a water well vent is asking for trouble. Simple science -- pressure builds, strengthens, moves obstruction on its escape from the ground. Otherwise known as an "explosion."
When it comes to the Marcellus, anyone who's read the misinformation circulating on fracing, and most of it is misinformation, wants to know, "is this process safe?" The answer lies in the very process itself, and the science used to develop it.
Fracing in the Marcellus occurs somewhere between 5,000 and 8,000ft below the surface. (for perspective, if you stand at the South rim of the Grand Canyon, the floor is at 5,000). Shale is relatively non-porous, which for the sake of this discussion means gas doesn't readily flow from it, but is actually locked inside of it. Using powerful equipment, fracing forces a mixture of water, sand and additives through the well to "fracture" the rock, and allow the gas to flow from the rock, into the well and through pipelines to end users. The additives, used in small, diluted amounts, help the sandy water travel through the well (surfactants) and kill mold and bacterial growth in the well (biocide).
In reverse, a similar amount of energy is used to "flowback" the well, or suck out the water so it can produce at optimal performance. Producers get about 50% of what they force in back out. Why? Here's how one geologist explained it to me. Think of a wet sponge lying in your driveway after you wash your car. You wring water from it, again and again. No more is coming out, but the sponge is still wet. To wring the rest of the water from the sponge takes incrementally more and more pressure or energy. At some point, much of the water is out, but the amount of energy you would need to expend to get the sponge completely dry far outweighs the benefit of getting the water out.
Think of the Shale as the sponge. Some water may be trapped inside, but it would take a major energy force for that water to leave the formation and travel anywhere, let alone 5,000 to 8,000 ft to the drinking water aquifer, which resides around 1,000 ft. As a result, although many have alleged it, fracing/fracing chemicals have never been shown to be the cause of any drinking water contamination event. Its almost impossible from the formation itself.
Yet the idea that frac fluid will kill entire towns and cities via drinking water persists. People have survived nuclear fallout, and a little soap and bug killer is going to kill us all? Seems a little far fetched, doesn't it? And unscientific.
If you have an interest in the Marcellus, and hear stories about "studies" and "research," like filmmakers who take their own water samples and take them to labs rather than having a professional do the work, do your own homework. Back check me if you'd like. I don't mind if you disagree.
But some people do. Last time I challenged someone on the "science" behind a water claim, he threatened to poison my well with antifreeze.
Everyone knows by now that the Marcellus is a deep geologic formation rich in natural gas. Geologists and general science people among us say it contains enough natural gas to significantly decrease our dependence on foreign fuel sources. Natural gas, if used in place of other fossil fuels at power generation facilities, could cut green house gas emissions as much as 50 percent at some plants. It could also go a long way in limiting GHG emissions related to transportation.
Like every energy source out there, natural gas has its issues. Extracting it is complicated -- it takes a great deal of geological planning, as well as a major construction process to tap into it. In fact, it takes about six months to a year of many people's time to get from the planning stage to the actual day of drilling. Major construction does mean truck traffic, dust, noise, and inconvenience -- a lot like summertime road construction jobs. It also means those out there doing the work need to be vigilant and conscious of their impact.
Healthy debate, questions and concern should be expected. Yet strangely, many, including some who we would deem "well educated," continue to raise scientific myth and inaccuracy, either to scare their neighbors about something that really isn't all that scary, or because they really don't understand simple earth science.
Just this week, I was "talking" with one of my favorite Twitterers about the fact that natural gas (methane) itself is not considered toxic to humans. So for instance, in the much-discussed town of Dimock, PA, where failed casing lead to natural gas in some of the towns water wells, drinking it prior to its being vented, might have tasted bad, and caused slight stomach discomfort, but no lasting effects. This non-toxicity is documented, but my friend doesn't believe me. Instead, she came at me with an argument that burning natural gas causes radon build up in homes and will kill people. I've lived in radon country my whole life -- this is the first I've ever heard this. (The CDC does note it on its Web site, but the impact must be so small that its rarely if ever discussed.)
At this point, I've heard so many stories that take advantage of people's science illiteracy that it would be funny if it weren't so sad. They usually revolve, until someone finds something new they think they can argue technically. Like the "fact" that New York City, which has EPA exemption from the level of water filtering most other cities must adhere to, is pristine. Even if they carry it from the Catskills in buckets to Manhattan, its going to get some kind of contamination.
As you probably guessed, most of this pseudo-science is related to clean water. Here are thoughts on some of the biggies:
A study of earth science in places like Pennsylvania, West Virginia and New York will tell you that natural gas regularly escapes from shallow geological formations to the Earth's surface. Private water wells, which do not require the elaborate casings gas wells do (because they are not regulated by anyone) are often the path of least resistance to the surface. In fact, you don't really need to study it at all. Some who've grown up in those areas will tell you they've been lighting their flowing faucets afire forever. Great teenager party trick.
The real danger of natural gas coming to the surface is that it can be explosive in small quarters. Common sense -- and any water well driller worth his or her salt -- will tell well owners that private water wells must be vented to the outside -- most specifically, so that gas from underground can escape to the atmosphere. I've heard that some people have been known to vent their water wells into their houses in the winter to avoid the lines freezing. Bad idea. You also shouldn't cover wells with a cute plastic rock, a little wooden house, or in the Dimock case, an 8 ft concrete slab, as I've heard it described. Gas well drilling or no gas well drilling, covering a water well vent is asking for trouble. Simple science -- pressure builds, strengthens, moves obstruction on its escape from the ground. Otherwise known as an "explosion."
When it comes to the Marcellus, anyone who's read the misinformation circulating on fracing, and most of it is misinformation, wants to know, "is this process safe?" The answer lies in the very process itself, and the science used to develop it.
Fracing in the Marcellus occurs somewhere between 5,000 and 8,000ft below the surface. (for perspective, if you stand at the South rim of the Grand Canyon, the floor is at 5,000). Shale is relatively non-porous, which for the sake of this discussion means gas doesn't readily flow from it, but is actually locked inside of it. Using powerful equipment, fracing forces a mixture of water, sand and additives through the well to "fracture" the rock, and allow the gas to flow from the rock, into the well and through pipelines to end users. The additives, used in small, diluted amounts, help the sandy water travel through the well (surfactants) and kill mold and bacterial growth in the well (biocide).
In reverse, a similar amount of energy is used to "flowback" the well, or suck out the water so it can produce at optimal performance. Producers get about 50% of what they force in back out. Why? Here's how one geologist explained it to me. Think of a wet sponge lying in your driveway after you wash your car. You wring water from it, again and again. No more is coming out, but the sponge is still wet. To wring the rest of the water from the sponge takes incrementally more and more pressure or energy. At some point, much of the water is out, but the amount of energy you would need to expend to get the sponge completely dry far outweighs the benefit of getting the water out.
Think of the Shale as the sponge. Some water may be trapped inside, but it would take a major energy force for that water to leave the formation and travel anywhere, let alone 5,000 to 8,000 ft to the drinking water aquifer, which resides around 1,000 ft. As a result, although many have alleged it, fracing/fracing chemicals have never been shown to be the cause of any drinking water contamination event. Its almost impossible from the formation itself.
Yet the idea that frac fluid will kill entire towns and cities via drinking water persists. People have survived nuclear fallout, and a little soap and bug killer is going to kill us all? Seems a little far fetched, doesn't it? And unscientific.
If you have an interest in the Marcellus, and hear stories about "studies" and "research," like filmmakers who take their own water samples and take them to labs rather than having a professional do the work, do your own homework. Back check me if you'd like. I don't mind if you disagree.
But some people do. Last time I challenged someone on the "science" behind a water claim, he threatened to poison my well with antifreeze.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Postcards from a REAL Gasland
There's been so much discussion about Josh Fox's so-called documentary "Gasland" this week, mostly due to the fact that he managed to sell HBO a bill of goods on its authenticity. (Did anyone else notice that in his video the flames he lit in sinks seemed to travel from the basin to the faucet instead of from the faucet down.....?)
Anyway, I was thinking about Fox and his fairy tale while watching Shrek Forever After in a nice cool theatre with my kids the other day when I realized, with Shrek being the ultimate anti-fairy tale and all , maybe I could craft something of an alternative tale for the Gasland believing crowd.
Every one's heard the basics on the Marcellus -- great opportunity for energy independence, great jobs, etc, etc. All true. But lets talk about natural gas in the world we live in -- not only Marcellus wells, but all natural gas in Pennsylvania.
Fox calls Northeast PA "Gasland" in his film. But in truth, the Marcellus is the first real experience people in that area of the state have had with natural gas and drilling. Its no wonder they don't get it for the most part. Not over here in the Western part of PA. In fact, let's focus on one particular area -- that surrounding Armstrong and Indiana Counties. Talk about gasland.
For years, before the Marcellus ever became a feasible drilling reality, rural families in this area have relied on more conventional and more shallow wells to care for their families and hold on to their lands. I dare you to drive even one mile out in the area and not spot at least 10 wells. And yet, they are not even close to the blight on the landscape most would have you believe. You might miss them, even if you're looking.
You don't hear screams and rants about drinking water -- even though fracing has been used here -- at depths much closer to the water table than used in Marcellus wells -- for years.
People here know the value of their royalties and the economic benefit of an active gas industry in their relatively depressed communities is a true blessing. You should see them -- lining up to work with the well services companies that line the highway between Kittanning/Ford City and Indiana. Good paying jobs with Halliburton, Appalachian and Universal as they expand to serve drillers are more than people here could have hoped for. All of those companies by the way engage in completions, a process that includes hydraulic fracturing. People who want high paying jobs know it, and they aren't worried.
Just last week, in Ford City, which is relatively residential for these parts, a major driller "completed" some Marcellus wells. Hear anything about that on the news? Nope. Happened quietly and without incident. People here aren't scared by the Josh Foxes of the world -- they've been through this before, and hope they'll get a chance at the Marcellus royalties themselves.
People here, as you can see in these accompanying photos, live among gas wells and operations, just as they did before even these more conventional wells were put in. They FARM right around them. Their animals GRAZE right up to them. Few if any problems, little if any water contamination. That's the test of time people in other places keep asking for. People get it in Armstrong and Indiana Counties.
In fact, the Armstrong/Indiana County area is know for some interesting things anti-drilling people probably would marvel at. Bird watching among them, for everyone who has been scared into thinking gas drilling causes birds to abandon their habitats. Come see them perch on well tending equipment. Birds you can't see anywhere else.
Don't forget bear, deer, and small game hunting. People flock here for wildlife. Then there are the summer campers -- the banks of the Allegheny in this area, where well drilling (particularly shallow well drilling) is so prominent, teem with summer sun bathers, boaters and partiers. No one here is worried about TDS. We have conservation lakes, beautiful woods, amazing water falls. Talk about getting back to nature. People here have to drive miles to restaurants, malls and shopping - because its just not here. Others drive here to visit the all natural Amish. And yet the wells continue to come.
Marcellus wells have been drilled here, too. Check out the picture here that shows well tending equipment. The foreground, which looks like a lovely farm field in spring bloom was indeed a large fresh water frac pit just months ago.
Gasland isn't the place that bears the short term "scars" of trucks, rigs and disturbed earth. Its a place where farmers hold onto paradise and practice their craft while collecting royalty checks that allow them to exist. Think of that next time you stop at a farmers market. In some cases, gas wells allow those fresh goods to be available to you locally. Think about the hunters and birders who come here for recreation. Or the throngs who boat in the water here, skiing, swimming, tubing -- have you ever visited a river camp? Do you own one? You might want to thank some gas drillers for the fun you've had. Enjoy Amish furniture and country drives to places like Smicksburg? You again might want to thank some gas drillers. (see top pic of Amish man putting up his hay next to a well.)
Come visit, Josh. You may not have gotten what you thought you should have gotten from the gas drillers, but many others have, and have been collecting for many years. Oh. I forgot. The drillers took care of you after all, via your HBO fairy tale payout.
(all photos taken by author)
Friday, June 18, 2010
PA Looks for Probems at Union Sites, But Doesn't Find Any
After incidents in West Virginia and Clearfield, Pennsylvania, the talk in the Marcellus Shale in recent days has been, once again, all about the need for new and better regulations.
Amid the din, few probably heard that PA DEP Secretary John Hanger, after deploying his staff to investigate all six PA locations where Union Drilling (the driller at the West Virginia Chief Oil & Gas site in question) is operating, admitted that no violations could be found. None -- on six active sites.
That seems to lend some serious credibility to the strong possibility that the West Virginia accident was a very rare situation. Yet that information was buried in stories about the need for heavier regulation.
But here's a thought. Maybe its not more regulation we need, but better execution of the regulations in place.
What's happening at PA DEP right now is interesting. As you might remember, during last year's budget debacle, DEP lost a lot of jobs, in every area -- except in oil and gas. Jobs were preserved there and new ones were added to deal with the so called Marcellus boom.
Sounds pretty good right? Sure - unless you've been inside this agency (or another in the state system) and know how things work. The job cuts came shortly after DEP hired, and presumably trained, new recruits for the traditional oil and gas field offices in Northwestern and Southwestern PA, and began adding field inspectors (not permit reviewers mind you) to the new Williamsport oil and gas office.
Unfortunately, when jobs get cut in any DEP office, there is an interesting staffing dance that occurs to satisfy terms of union contracts. Basically, people with seniority can in essence "claim" the jobs of newer folks, like the recently hired in the paragraph above this one. So, once the budget issue started to settle and DEP started losing jobs, people from programs like water, air, etc, began claiming the jobs of the new oil and gas team, as well as those that were opened to staff up the Marcellus DEP team.
DEP programs are notorious for their ability to intermingle. So, while the oil and gas offices may have been getting DEP veterans in place of rookies with the layoffs and restaffing, they were still getting people who knew very little about the oil and gas program. So, after hiring and training rookies, they got virtually an entire new team to work with. And inside sources say that, because pressure was so high to get these "rookievets" out in the field inspecting, training consisted of something like handing each a copy of the oil and gas reg book and telling them to have at it.
So, before Mr. Hanger starts telling industry it needs to be better regulated to placate a minority of ever so vocal activists, he may want to make sure his inspectors are singing from the same song sheet. Anecdotal evidence says they are not -- and that some have completely misinterpreted or confused many of the existing oil and gas regs based on "experience" in other programs.
That's just hearsay from the field perhaps -- but then again, so are continually disproven claims that frac chemicals have contaminated drinking water. If those kinds of accusations deserve to be fully investigated by everyone under the sun every time someone thinks their water tastes funny, then so should any suspicion that DEP is inconsistent in its execution of regs -- either in favor of industry or in favor of activists (more likely under a secretary who came from a leading activist organization).
In the meantime, if those reporting on the Marcellus are truly interested in giving the entire picture to interested readers and viewers, they need to stop hiding information that vindicates industry players like Union in stories about the politics of drilling and fossil fuels. Instead of scaring people with stories that liken the West Virginia accident to the Gulf oil disaster, start showing a bigger picture of what an incident like this looks like in the larger picture of energy production.
In the meantime, kudos to Union for showing that the industry does indeed know how to do its job and do it right.
Amid the din, few probably heard that PA DEP Secretary John Hanger, after deploying his staff to investigate all six PA locations where Union Drilling (the driller at the West Virginia Chief Oil & Gas site in question) is operating, admitted that no violations could be found. None -- on six active sites.
That seems to lend some serious credibility to the strong possibility that the West Virginia accident was a very rare situation. Yet that information was buried in stories about the need for heavier regulation.
But here's a thought. Maybe its not more regulation we need, but better execution of the regulations in place.
What's happening at PA DEP right now is interesting. As you might remember, during last year's budget debacle, DEP lost a lot of jobs, in every area -- except in oil and gas. Jobs were preserved there and new ones were added to deal with the so called Marcellus boom.
Sounds pretty good right? Sure - unless you've been inside this agency (or another in the state system) and know how things work. The job cuts came shortly after DEP hired, and presumably trained, new recruits for the traditional oil and gas field offices in Northwestern and Southwestern PA, and began adding field inspectors (not permit reviewers mind you) to the new Williamsport oil and gas office.
Unfortunately, when jobs get cut in any DEP office, there is an interesting staffing dance that occurs to satisfy terms of union contracts. Basically, people with seniority can in essence "claim" the jobs of newer folks, like the recently hired in the paragraph above this one. So, once the budget issue started to settle and DEP started losing jobs, people from programs like water, air, etc, began claiming the jobs of the new oil and gas team, as well as those that were opened to staff up the Marcellus DEP team.
DEP programs are notorious for their ability to intermingle. So, while the oil and gas offices may have been getting DEP veterans in place of rookies with the layoffs and restaffing, they were still getting people who knew very little about the oil and gas program. So, after hiring and training rookies, they got virtually an entire new team to work with. And inside sources say that, because pressure was so high to get these "rookievets" out in the field inspecting, training consisted of something like handing each a copy of the oil and gas reg book and telling them to have at it.
So, before Mr. Hanger starts telling industry it needs to be better regulated to placate a minority of ever so vocal activists, he may want to make sure his inspectors are singing from the same song sheet. Anecdotal evidence says they are not -- and that some have completely misinterpreted or confused many of the existing oil and gas regs based on "experience" in other programs.
That's just hearsay from the field perhaps -- but then again, so are continually disproven claims that frac chemicals have contaminated drinking water. If those kinds of accusations deserve to be fully investigated by everyone under the sun every time someone thinks their water tastes funny, then so should any suspicion that DEP is inconsistent in its execution of regs -- either in favor of industry or in favor of activists (more likely under a secretary who came from a leading activist organization).
In the meantime, if those reporting on the Marcellus are truly interested in giving the entire picture to interested readers and viewers, they need to stop hiding information that vindicates industry players like Union in stories about the politics of drilling and fossil fuels. Instead of scaring people with stories that liken the West Virginia accident to the Gulf oil disaster, start showing a bigger picture of what an incident like this looks like in the larger picture of energy production.
In the meantime, kudos to Union for showing that the industry does indeed know how to do its job and do it right.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Repeating Lies Doesn't Make Them True
The rhetoric was flying this week when the Pennsylvania Environmental Council held its first forum on Marcellus Shale drilling at Duquesne University. Apparently, there was lots of heated debate -- which is wonderful. That means all views were likely represented, and everyone got their turn to talk. After all, even though a few would rather it weren't true, almost everyone (including most of those evil drillers) want to develop the Marcellus responsibly.
But the Duquesne event was also yet another opportunity for well-meaning environmentalists to, either intentionally or unintentionally, mislead the public through a media that searches for sensationalism and refuses to do its homework on the natural gas story. A perfect example is a story that ran on KDKA-TV, in which the station interviewed, among others, environmentalist David Masur, who is concerned about the drinking water contamination issue.
In the story, Masur says the drilling already has impacted local water.
"Contaminated drinking well water, drinking water advisories issued here in Pittsburgh and the Pittsburgh area, toxic chemical releases," he said.
I can understand concern over some of the problems drillers have experienced -- they show some sloppiness and at times a level of arrogance. That needs to change through proper regulations and enforcement. What those instances do not show, however, is water contamination.
In his quote above, Mr. Masur is actually addressing more than one issue, and his statement hardly tells an entire story. Let's start with the first insinuation: contaminated drinking well water. Its an accusation that has been made over and over again by people around the state. Even around the country. But an accusation does not a contamination event make. Regardless of the cases that have been reported to proper authorities or documented only in ProPublica articles, the fact remains that NO DRINKING WATER CONTAMINATION HAS EVER BEEN DIRECTLY LINKED TO HYDROFRACING CHEMICALS. EVER. It doesn't matter how many times we study it -- DEP even has press releases on their Web site that exonerates fracing in specific instances -- the scientific connection does not exist.
Masur's second statement, about the drinking water advisories in the Pittsburgh area must be a reference to the high TDS levels in the Monongahela River in late 2008. Initial theories on that issue suggested fracing water "dumped" in the Mon was the culprit. Further study by Tetra Tech showed it was unlikely frac water was the cause at all. High TDS is apparently quite common in the Mon at that time of year. That study wasn't heavily covered by media, so Masur might have missed that.
The third, toxic chemical releases, could mean just about anything. He could be talking about cases where small amounts of chemicals have been spilled on the surface. He could be talking about Cabot Oil & Gas's fracing line break ups in Dimock that killed some fish and required a wetland cleanup (but still never managed to contaminate the drinking water aquifer). Or he could be talking about hydrofracing itself -- after all, some contend the process itself is an unleashing of toxics into the environment (just like when you use the same stuff in soap, shampoo, conditioner, bug spray, household cleaners or lawn chemicals).
Its funny in a way. Albeit at a much slower, lower-profile fashion, more traditional wells have been being drilled around the Western and Central portions of the Commonwealth for years. Most of those done in the last 60 years or so have used hydrofracing. Most of those occur in much shallower formations, much closer to drinking water aquifers than any Marcellus well -- to the tune of thousands of feet closer. Logically speaking, if fracing had any real chance to contaminate an aquifer, it would be in shallower cases. Without a major source of energy to force frac water left in the Marcellus upwards thousands of feet, there's little possibility of those additives getting into anyones water. Think about the pressure it takes for completions teams to fracture the Marcellus with the technology they already have. It would take even more -- much more -- according to geologists I've asked, for that water to travel from the deep Marcellus, through geological boundaries to reach drinking water level. Hence, the one in 2 billion chance that fracing fluid could contaminate water supplies.
All that said however, we live in a world where Abraham Lustgarden of ProPublica -- an investigative journalist -- is noted as source of documentation of water contamination events. I've actually had activists tell me that because a water contamination allegation was in one of his stories, it was "documented." Nice try -- a documented case is one studied by a state or government agency and determined to be true by proper scientific method. Yet, people with good intentions who treasure the earth and water but hate science and math continue to repeat allegations as fact, and do apples and oranges comparisons of incidents -- the original Dimock, PA, water well explosion was caused by a release of natural gas into water wells, not fracing chemicals as many believe. By the way, while natural gas in your well will allow you to light the water flow on fire if your stupid enough to try it, it is not toxic to humans who ingest it. And most animals, including the infamous horses loosing their fur, have instinct that tells them not to ingest water that contains it.
Yet, due to the repetition of "facts" put forward in poorly researched news articles and shared by mayors who sell the naming rights to their town to satellite television, confusion remains about fracing. There are some who think the process -- already used for about 60 years -- is evil just because it has roots at Halliburton, where former VP Dick Cheney was once employed. (By the way, Cheney was never an oil and gas man -- he's a politician who was hired to get government contracts for a company while he waited for his party to come back into favor. I bet he couldn't even tell us exactly how frac jobs are engineered.)
It'll be interesting to see how EPA's current study of fracing comes out (they and DOE have studied the process ad nauseum already with the same results -- fracing is not a problem). Will have to be sure to check the sources and list of references in the final document. If ProPublica or the Associated Press is listed as an information source, you can be sure the conclusions are suspect.
But the Duquesne event was also yet another opportunity for well-meaning environmentalists to, either intentionally or unintentionally, mislead the public through a media that searches for sensationalism and refuses to do its homework on the natural gas story. A perfect example is a story that ran on KDKA-TV, in which the station interviewed, among others, environmentalist David Masur, who is concerned about the drinking water contamination issue.
In the story, Masur says the drilling already has impacted local water.
"Contaminated drinking well water, drinking water advisories issued here in Pittsburgh and the Pittsburgh area, toxic chemical releases," he said.
I can understand concern over some of the problems drillers have experienced -- they show some sloppiness and at times a level of arrogance. That needs to change through proper regulations and enforcement. What those instances do not show, however, is water contamination.
In his quote above, Mr. Masur is actually addressing more than one issue, and his statement hardly tells an entire story. Let's start with the first insinuation: contaminated drinking well water. Its an accusation that has been made over and over again by people around the state. Even around the country. But an accusation does not a contamination event make. Regardless of the cases that have been reported to proper authorities or documented only in ProPublica articles, the fact remains that NO DRINKING WATER CONTAMINATION HAS EVER BEEN DIRECTLY LINKED TO HYDROFRACING CHEMICALS. EVER. It doesn't matter how many times we study it -- DEP even has press releases on their Web site that exonerates fracing in specific instances -- the scientific connection does not exist.
Masur's second statement, about the drinking water advisories in the Pittsburgh area must be a reference to the high TDS levels in the Monongahela River in late 2008. Initial theories on that issue suggested fracing water "dumped" in the Mon was the culprit. Further study by Tetra Tech showed it was unlikely frac water was the cause at all. High TDS is apparently quite common in the Mon at that time of year. That study wasn't heavily covered by media, so Masur might have missed that.
The third, toxic chemical releases, could mean just about anything. He could be talking about cases where small amounts of chemicals have been spilled on the surface. He could be talking about Cabot Oil & Gas's fracing line break ups in Dimock that killed some fish and required a wetland cleanup (but still never managed to contaminate the drinking water aquifer). Or he could be talking about hydrofracing itself -- after all, some contend the process itself is an unleashing of toxics into the environment (just like when you use the same stuff in soap, shampoo, conditioner, bug spray, household cleaners or lawn chemicals).
Its funny in a way. Albeit at a much slower, lower-profile fashion, more traditional wells have been being drilled around the Western and Central portions of the Commonwealth for years. Most of those done in the last 60 years or so have used hydrofracing. Most of those occur in much shallower formations, much closer to drinking water aquifers than any Marcellus well -- to the tune of thousands of feet closer. Logically speaking, if fracing had any real chance to contaminate an aquifer, it would be in shallower cases. Without a major source of energy to force frac water left in the Marcellus upwards thousands of feet, there's little possibility of those additives getting into anyones water. Think about the pressure it takes for completions teams to fracture the Marcellus with the technology they already have. It would take even more -- much more -- according to geologists I've asked, for that water to travel from the deep Marcellus, through geological boundaries to reach drinking water level. Hence, the one in 2 billion chance that fracing fluid could contaminate water supplies.
All that said however, we live in a world where Abraham Lustgarden of ProPublica -- an investigative journalist -- is noted as source of documentation of water contamination events. I've actually had activists tell me that because a water contamination allegation was in one of his stories, it was "documented." Nice try -- a documented case is one studied by a state or government agency and determined to be true by proper scientific method. Yet, people with good intentions who treasure the earth and water but hate science and math continue to repeat allegations as fact, and do apples and oranges comparisons of incidents -- the original Dimock, PA, water well explosion was caused by a release of natural gas into water wells, not fracing chemicals as many believe. By the way, while natural gas in your well will allow you to light the water flow on fire if your stupid enough to try it, it is not toxic to humans who ingest it. And most animals, including the infamous horses loosing their fur, have instinct that tells them not to ingest water that contains it.
Yet, due to the repetition of "facts" put forward in poorly researched news articles and shared by mayors who sell the naming rights to their town to satellite television, confusion remains about fracing. There are some who think the process -- already used for about 60 years -- is evil just because it has roots at Halliburton, where former VP Dick Cheney was once employed. (By the way, Cheney was never an oil and gas man -- he's a politician who was hired to get government contracts for a company while he waited for his party to come back into favor. I bet he couldn't even tell us exactly how frac jobs are engineered.)
It'll be interesting to see how EPA's current study of fracing comes out (they and DOE have studied the process ad nauseum already with the same results -- fracing is not a problem). Will have to be sure to check the sources and list of references in the final document. If ProPublica or the Associated Press is listed as an information source, you can be sure the conclusions are suspect.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
The Politics of the Marcellus
If you don't believe the Marcellus Shale will become the biggest political football in Pennsylvania between now and November, I direct you to Senator Robert Casey (D), who continues to prove that even though he and his staff understand nothing about geological science, they aren't afraid to criticize the natural gas industry for political gain (or what they think will be political gain).
This past week, Casey publicly announced that he wants the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to investigate water contamination reports from...guess where?...Dimock, PA.
For those of you with short memories, or for those who have tuned out the constant barrage of questions that have already been answered from Northeastern Pennsylvania, in early 2009, Cabot Oil and Gas, while drilling a Marcellus well, released natural gas from a pocket located in a higher rock formation. Upon escaping from the earth, the gas, looking for the easiest path to the surface entered a drinking water aquifer and exploded through a residential water well. Natural gas was also found in a group of neighboring water wells.
The gas was abated from the wells, and PA DEP in its own press release, told the world that the situation had been thoroughly investigated, that drinking the water was again safe to drink, and in NO WAY was this incident related to the hydrofracing process. Cabot was fined under the law.
Its important to note that natural gas -- which is what was in the Dimock water; frac chemicals were not found -- is not toxic when ingested by humans (says the CDC). Its also important to note that these private residential wells would still not be covered under the Safe Drinking Water Act if it governed oil and gas activity as Senator Casey wants it to. The Act only covers water systems that serve more than 25 people regularly.
No doubt, Cabot has been plagued with problems in its foray into the Marcellus Shale. Yet interestingly enough, its wells in Dimock and the surrounding area have been some of the most successful yet drilled. Cabot most certainly needs to be a little more careful. But its misteps in NEPA have done some good -- they've alerted the industry to regional geological conditions that need to be considered when drilling in that area, resulting in changes to how wells are cased in NEPA, where little gas drilling had been done before.
Yet even thought its been investigated and Cabot has been disciplined, Senator Casey seems to think there is still political hay to be made out of this issue -- not Cabot's other problems in the area, but this initial natural gas escape. This makes me wonder what Casey and his staff really know about the realities of living in Pennsylvania's resource rich areas. If he talked to residents who had experience in these issues, he'd find very quickly that natural gas regularly escapes from shallow rock formations -- even when there isn't a drilling rig within hundreds of miles. Its 5th grade science -- materials lighter than air (like gas) look to escape from the earth to the atmosphere whenever they can. Natural gas in shallower formations (not deep non-porous reserviors like the Marcellus) commonly bubbles up through rivers, streams, ponds, and any other avenue it can find.
So why would Casey think it necessary for EPA to come in and "study" a phenomenon that is already well understood and regularly documented in his own state? You guessed it. Partisan Politics. It'll be interersting to see what the reaction is to Casey's posturing from Pennsylvanians -- particularly those in the state that are benefitting from the jobs and economic growth the Marcellus is delivering.
This past week, Casey publicly announced that he wants the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to investigate water contamination reports from...guess where?...Dimock, PA.
For those of you with short memories, or for those who have tuned out the constant barrage of questions that have already been answered from Northeastern Pennsylvania, in early 2009, Cabot Oil and Gas, while drilling a Marcellus well, released natural gas from a pocket located in a higher rock formation. Upon escaping from the earth, the gas, looking for the easiest path to the surface entered a drinking water aquifer and exploded through a residential water well. Natural gas was also found in a group of neighboring water wells.
The gas was abated from the wells, and PA DEP in its own press release, told the world that the situation had been thoroughly investigated, that drinking the water was again safe to drink, and in NO WAY was this incident related to the hydrofracing process. Cabot was fined under the law.
Its important to note that natural gas -- which is what was in the Dimock water; frac chemicals were not found -- is not toxic when ingested by humans (says the CDC). Its also important to note that these private residential wells would still not be covered under the Safe Drinking Water Act if it governed oil and gas activity as Senator Casey wants it to. The Act only covers water systems that serve more than 25 people regularly.
No doubt, Cabot has been plagued with problems in its foray into the Marcellus Shale. Yet interestingly enough, its wells in Dimock and the surrounding area have been some of the most successful yet drilled. Cabot most certainly needs to be a little more careful. But its misteps in NEPA have done some good -- they've alerted the industry to regional geological conditions that need to be considered when drilling in that area, resulting in changes to how wells are cased in NEPA, where little gas drilling had been done before.
Yet even thought its been investigated and Cabot has been disciplined, Senator Casey seems to think there is still political hay to be made out of this issue -- not Cabot's other problems in the area, but this initial natural gas escape. This makes me wonder what Casey and his staff really know about the realities of living in Pennsylvania's resource rich areas. If he talked to residents who had experience in these issues, he'd find very quickly that natural gas regularly escapes from shallow rock formations -- even when there isn't a drilling rig within hundreds of miles. Its 5th grade science -- materials lighter than air (like gas) look to escape from the earth to the atmosphere whenever they can. Natural gas in shallower formations (not deep non-porous reserviors like the Marcellus) commonly bubbles up through rivers, streams, ponds, and any other avenue it can find.
So why would Casey think it necessary for EPA to come in and "study" a phenomenon that is already well understood and regularly documented in his own state? You guessed it. Partisan Politics. It'll be interersting to see what the reaction is to Casey's posturing from Pennsylvanians -- particularly those in the state that are benefitting from the jobs and economic growth the Marcellus is delivering.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
What jobs?!!
Yesterday, Bill Toland of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote a story asking "where area all of the Marcellus Shale jobs?" Apparently, one economist has decided that the projections for jobs set forth in studies, particularly one by Penn State, are way overblown. To his credit, Toland did interview one of the Penn State researchers, a professor emeritus, who it seemed in his discussion was doing what most people should do with this "new information," which was dismiss it.
You've heard me talk about jobs in the Marcellus before, but this article is particularly funny to me in one specific way. The Post-Gazette, as regular readers know, runs a column various times through the week on its business pages called "Dateline." Dateline is a listing of awards won and general business news -- but mostly it lists new folks taking jobs at various companies and other personnel news. In my years practicing public relations in the area, its been one of the few sure fire hits out there. Any personnel news you submit is almost always printed within three weeks. Unless its from the oil and gas industry.
Working in the industry a few months back, I noticed that none of my personnel announcements were being printed. The first time I called, spoke to the compiler of the data, and she happily added my release. This was over a month after I sent it. The next three I sent never saw the light of day. So I asked some colleagues working at other oil and gas firms if they were seeing the same thing. The answer, almost unilaterally, was yes. None of their announcements were being printed either.
Now its no secret that the Post-Gazette has been hyper critical of the industry since the real possibilities of the Marcellus began taking form a few years back. In fact, last year, it had to eat some serious crow for deciding that fracing water was absolutely the factor causing the decimation of Dunkard Creek. Turns out, the coal industry was actually to blame. But that hasn't stopped the paper from constantly taking whacks at Marcellus development from every possible angle that it can.
But its funny to me that this paper, which prides itself on its objectivity, writes a headline and story like it did yesterday with only the opinion of only one likely anti-drilling economist to back it. If I had been writing Toland's story, I would have visited some Web sites like LinkedIn, monster.com, careerbuilder.com, hotjobs.com, oilandgaspeople.com, or a any other employment site with locally listed jobs, and counted how many related to the Marcellus exist. EQT alone has advertised for and is hiring enough people in the area to work its Marcellus initiatives to make your head spin. Sure, drillers, completions engineers, geologists, but also administrative assistants, accountants, environmental scientists, regulatory specialists, you name it. Canada's Talisman Energy is moving into the area and has held at least two major job fairs so far. Range Resources is regularly posting jobs.
But production companies aside, others are feeling the love as well. Across the country engineering firms are feeling the heat of a down economy -- but not here. They're fighting each other tooth and nail for a piece of the Marcellus pie. If you look at available jobs, you'll see local firms looking for water specialists, erosion and control engineers, specialists in endangered species and cultural resources, surveyors and so on. Not a coincidence -- all of this and more is needed to serve a client working in the Shale play.
Ask hotel/conference centers along the 79 corridor between Southpointe and Cranberry about their sales. The Hilton Garden Inn in Southpointe, The Sheraton Four Points in Cranberry and the Marriott in Cranberrry have all seen their share of meetings, workshops and conferences sponsored by some oil and gas entity. You'll even find a savvy realtor or two that will tell you all of this activity -- and those people shipped in from other areas (Gasp!) -- have helped the residential and commercial property markets here avoid the worst.
So I say to the Post-Gazette, some of those jobs are here -- and many more are coming as development increases. Don't believe me? Look at Range Resources. It started a few years back with one person in the area. It now has hundreds and is looking at designs to build its own office building in the area. More progress than most industries have made here in a while.
You've heard me talk about jobs in the Marcellus before, but this article is particularly funny to me in one specific way. The Post-Gazette, as regular readers know, runs a column various times through the week on its business pages called "Dateline." Dateline is a listing of awards won and general business news -- but mostly it lists new folks taking jobs at various companies and other personnel news. In my years practicing public relations in the area, its been one of the few sure fire hits out there. Any personnel news you submit is almost always printed within three weeks. Unless its from the oil and gas industry.
Working in the industry a few months back, I noticed that none of my personnel announcements were being printed. The first time I called, spoke to the compiler of the data, and she happily added my release. This was over a month after I sent it. The next three I sent never saw the light of day. So I asked some colleagues working at other oil and gas firms if they were seeing the same thing. The answer, almost unilaterally, was yes. None of their announcements were being printed either.
Now its no secret that the Post-Gazette has been hyper critical of the industry since the real possibilities of the Marcellus began taking form a few years back. In fact, last year, it had to eat some serious crow for deciding that fracing water was absolutely the factor causing the decimation of Dunkard Creek. Turns out, the coal industry was actually to blame. But that hasn't stopped the paper from constantly taking whacks at Marcellus development from every possible angle that it can.
But its funny to me that this paper, which prides itself on its objectivity, writes a headline and story like it did yesterday with only the opinion of only one likely anti-drilling economist to back it. If I had been writing Toland's story, I would have visited some Web sites like LinkedIn, monster.com, careerbuilder.com, hotjobs.com, oilandgaspeople.com, or a any other employment site with locally listed jobs, and counted how many related to the Marcellus exist. EQT alone has advertised for and is hiring enough people in the area to work its Marcellus initiatives to make your head spin. Sure, drillers, completions engineers, geologists, but also administrative assistants, accountants, environmental scientists, regulatory specialists, you name it. Canada's Talisman Energy is moving into the area and has held at least two major job fairs so far. Range Resources is regularly posting jobs.
But production companies aside, others are feeling the love as well. Across the country engineering firms are feeling the heat of a down economy -- but not here. They're fighting each other tooth and nail for a piece of the Marcellus pie. If you look at available jobs, you'll see local firms looking for water specialists, erosion and control engineers, specialists in endangered species and cultural resources, surveyors and so on. Not a coincidence -- all of this and more is needed to serve a client working in the Shale play.
Ask hotel/conference centers along the 79 corridor between Southpointe and Cranberry about their sales. The Hilton Garden Inn in Southpointe, The Sheraton Four Points in Cranberry and the Marriott in Cranberrry have all seen their share of meetings, workshops and conferences sponsored by some oil and gas entity. You'll even find a savvy realtor or two that will tell you all of this activity -- and those people shipped in from other areas (Gasp!) -- have helped the residential and commercial property markets here avoid the worst.
So I say to the Post-Gazette, some of those jobs are here -- and many more are coming as development increases. Don't believe me? Look at Range Resources. It started a few years back with one person in the area. It now has hundreds and is looking at designs to build its own office building in the area. More progress than most industries have made here in a while.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)