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.

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.

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.

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.