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.