Flowback: Thoughts on energy & natural gas

Anti-Frackers Run Amok

2010-12-09T13:59:00.003-05:00

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.

Who Needs Facts When There's So Much Drama

2010-11-09T21:52:00.002-05:00

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."

When There Really is Something to Fear, Find Something Else to Worry About

2010-10-14T20:38:00.002-04:00

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.

Fear Factor, Marcellus Edition

2010-09-04T12:16:00.003-04:00

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.

Get Your Camera Ready, Josh. It's Gonna Be a Wild One.

2010-08-10T19:45:00.002-04:00

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.

The PA Land Trust Proves "Trust" has Nothing to Do With It

2010-08-03T18:45:00.009-04:00

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.

Is Science Debatable?

2010-08-01T16:45:00.002-04:00

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.

Correction on that Fence

2010-07-26T10:20:00.002-04:00

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

2010-07-25T19:18:00.001-04:00

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

2010-07-20T21:34:00.002-04:00

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

2010-07-18T18:50:00.001-04:00

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.

Marcellus Debate HIghlights American Scientific Ignorance

2010-06-27T04:32:00.007-04:00

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.

Postcards from a REAL Gasland

2010-06-23T13:23:00.004-04:00

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)

PA Looks for Probems at Union Sites, But Doesn't Find Any

2010-06-18T04:26:00.004-04:00

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.

Repeating Lies Doesn't Make Them True

2010-05-05T19:48:00.004-04:00

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.

The Politics of the Marcellus

2010-04-28T20:01:00.003-04:00

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.

What jobs?!!

2010-04-10T14:42:00.003-04:00

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.

Money, Its a Gas....

2010-03-30T19:20:00.003-04:00

How right those boys from Pink Floyd were so many years ago. Money these days in Pennsylvania and New York is indeed a gas -- straight from the Marcellus Shale formation.
So it isn't surprising, if your familiar with the geographical positioning of the Marcellus, to hear that Philadelphia has gone the way of New York City. Meaning of course that it also has decided to blame an innocuous process called hydrofracing for all that is bad in the world. Yes, Philly is petitioning its superhero in the commonwealth, Governor Ed Rendell, to ban fracing, the process that has made extraction of natural gas from the Marcellus a possibility.
You see, the Marcellus Shale -- its development and the ultimate sale and use of its 500 trillion cubic feet of natural gas -- is the biggest economic development story to hit the Appalachian region, PA and NY specifically, since Andrew Carnegie and Henry Clay Frick got together to create US Steel. The Marcellus is the biggest shale play in the country -- its reserves to some extent have been proven by the early drillers, and the big boys (Exxon, Talisman, EnCana and friends) are now coming to play. For Philadelphians and New Yorkers, proof of the Marcellus's promised wealth is everywhere in their states. Check out a job board in western PA -- great paying opportunities abound in geoscience, engineering, water management, construction, rig operation, accounting -- you name it. Office space is filling up all along the Marcellus fairway in towns like Cecil, Cranberry, Warrendale, Williamsport, Mansfield. Some companies are building new headquarters. Along the highways, you'll see new tractors in new barns, new rooves on older houses, new pick ups on farms. Seems like the spread of the benefits never ends -- there's new work for engineering firms, and heavy equipment operators, and lawyers, and conference centers, and hotels and restaurants and car dealerships and real estate agents.
Until of course, you get to Philly. And in some cases, New York. Their states are going through a major energy revolution and benefiting greatly. Some even say Pennsylvania will become an exporter of natural gas - not bad for a state that's been importing the lion's share of what its residents use to heat homes, cook food and run industries.
But there's little if any boom in these two cities -- Philly especially. It doesn't even lie in the shale geographically, while the majority of PA does. While Pittsburgh and other smaller towns are rebounding from the jobs and royalties the gas industry is delivering, the recession is tasting pretty bad in Philly.
That apparently is a good reason to forward myths and unscientific information about the fracing process. After all, if its in Pennsylvania, and it isn't centered in Philly, it must be bad. Just like if its in New York and its not happening in Manhattan, it must be bad.
There -- its finally been said. Could the political brew-ha-ha over fracing really be more about not getting a share of the biggest payday to hit the area in recent decades than the ridiculously small potential anyone's water will be contaminated? You tell me.

Was Gordon Gekko Right?

2010-03-10T09:41:00.002-05:00

Back in the 1980s when we were all about "me," we loved movies teeming with style and money. One that generated some interesting one-liners was "Wall Street," starring Michael Douglas, before Catherine Zeta-Jones settled him down, and a young Charlie Sheen, before he knew he needed to be settled down.
The most famous scene in the movie is one in which Douglas is giving a speech to a group of shareholders and makes the infamous statement "Greed, for lack of a better worrd, is good. Greed works." A sensational claim that makes anyone watching cringe.
I often think of that line when I'm speaking with people who are heavily against natural gas drilling. Those folks usually have two basic arguments. One, of course is environmental -- drilling is bad for the planet. The other is that drilling is the work of greedy oil and gas companies out to rule the world. I think of "Wall Street," beacuse sometimes, putting those two ideas together actually proves Douglas character, Gordon Gekko, may have a point.
To get to that point, think of each Marcellus well -- or any well drilled for that matter -- as its own business or cost center. When all is said and done, each developed well needs to produce enough in profit to make the cost of creating it worthwhile. So basic economics -- if the amount of money the production company gets back from the well over its lifetime is not higher than the amount of money that was needed to develop and maintain it over its lifecycle, the well was a bad business decision, so to speak. Thats the "economic viability" issue you hear Marcellus drillers talk about a lot. We've known about the gas in shales for years. But sinking a traditional well to that depth in most cases just didn't produce enough gas to make it profitable until the combination of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling.
But its still expensive. Rule of thumb -- and this is a little dated -- about $1million for a traditional well vs. $3 million for a shale well. That ratio has likely increased a little on the shale side. But the point is, it costs at the very least about three times more capital to develop a shale well than a traditional well.
The most expensive part of shale well drilling is called the completions process. This step is post drilling, and includes methods to stimulate the well for good production. It includes the fracturing process.
There has been much made of the "thousands of chemicals" that go into frac fluid, which is forced into a well to encourage gas flow. Gas companies have routinely said that while the formulas are not always the same (they change somewhat based on the conditions of the shale where the specific well is and based on the service company doing the frac), frac fluid usually contains about 99 percent water and sand, and about 1 to .5 percent additives. Each frac usually uses about 4 to 5 chemical additives. Not hundreds or thousands. Let me clarify that: there may be numerous chemicals that CAN be used to stimulate the shale, but usually very few are used on each job. Yet the idea of the frac crew as mad scientists dumping chemical after chemical into some evil brew persists.
Back to Gekko. And some simple logic. Completions processes are expensive. Every cost here works against the wells overall profitability. Chemicals cost money. So does transporting them and disposing of the leftovers. The more chemicals used, the higher the development cost of the well. So, it actually behooves production companies to use as few additives, and the smallest volume of those chosen, as absolutely necessary to stimulate the well. So, if production companies are indeed greedy, how can the myth of frac fluid containing "hundreds of toxic chemicals" actually be true? I'm not exactly sure.
You can apply "the greed is good theory" to a number of other criticisms of the industry as well when you think about each well as a cost center.
For instance, there's the idea that well sites in themselves are an environmental mess and that while developing the well workers are careless and irresponsible. Again, keep in mind that every issue associated with a well that costs the company money goes against profitability. Hence, no one -- most specifically the producer -- wants a spill or accident of any kind. Spills require emergency remediation. Expensive. The actual solution applied can be costly. Providing drinking water to any impacted water well owner, really expensive. Then there are litigation costs, public outreach/meeting attendance costs, loss of production and work stoppage costs, fines, and various other financial losses that come with onsite accidents. Once again, the idea of the greedy company doesn't quite match up with that of the environmentally irresponsible drilling company. Thats not to say accidents and problems don't occur. But the insinuation that companies developing wells don't do their best to keep them from occurring is just conjecture. Running any business that irresponsibly is a recipe for ruin. And considering the need for capital to continue drilling, being sloppy in business doesn't work well for drilling companies.
So, maybe in some ways, taken just a little out of context, maybe Doulas's Gordon Gekko had a point. Greed, and the desire to make money, might actually be good, if it keeps companies from making dumb mistakes that actually cost them money.

It's the Economy, Stupid!

2010-03-02T15:45:00.002-05:00

This past summer, if any of us can still remember days that had sun and no snow, Penn State University offered a study of the Marcellus Shale indicating that by 2020, the oil and gas industry could be generating somewhere in the neighborhood of 175,000 jobs.
That's a lot of work for the Appalachian region, stretching from Kentucky through West Virginia, Pennsylvania, Eastern Ohio and Southern New York. Good, steady well paying jobs of all sorts. Science and engineering jobs that parents can believe their children may return home for after college. Work on rigs and developing and remediating well sites that could put many industrial folks back to work. And so many others. Jobs are the shining star of Marcellus development.
So I was pretty surprised when people at information sessions started telling me that Marcellus jobs were a myth. They were all imported from Texas. or Oklahoma. or Colorado. Crews came up worked on rigs, made a ruckus, and then went home. They weren't "sustainable" jobs, to use a word that keeps popping up in all the wrong places.
I'm not an economist. I can only counter those allegations with what I see. So I'll start with an observation.
Range Resources, the company that considers itself (rightly so) the father of the Marcellus, began its Appalachian presence a few short years ago with one man -- Ray Walker, its President. Today, it employs over 200 in the Marcellus region, and leases quite a bit of office space in Southwestern Pennsylvania. It also uses lots of fleet vehicles, office equipment, housing, and so on. That's one company.
In the last few years, companies that have established a presence in the basin, or grew a smaller operation include Chief Oil & Gas, XTO/Exxon, Fortuna/Talisman, MarkWest, Williams, Atlas, Chesapeake, EnCana, Haliburton, Schlumberger, Hess, EXCO Resources, Cabot, and Anadarko to name a few. Its an impressive list of names. There are others, and even more are on their way.
When I think about companies moving in, I think about the basics of setting up office. In addition to the managers and rig hands and geologists and engineers needed to run the operation, you also need secretaries, assistants, geotechs, safety people, accountants (I've been amazed at the number of accountants this industry employs to get everyone paid and royalties out the door), land personnel, lawyers, regulatory and permitting people, public relations folks, IT and tech people, interns, clerks, you name it. Drilling is a complicated endeavor - to borrow from the Clinton's again, it takes a village to produce a well, so to speak.
So I have a hard time when people tell me the only jobs in the Marcellus are rig hands imported from Texas. or Oklahoma. or Colorado. I will tell you there are managers that have been imported from those areas -- that's because the oil and gas industry has been a little more lively where they're from in recent years, and because these are some of the best people available at doing those jobs. Funny thing is this -- lots of them are from Appalachia originally. I once heard an Appalachian executive say a great thing about the Marcellus is getting people back home who were forced to leave for other areas in the 1980s when the local oil economy fell on hard times.
But regardless -- when an executive comes here to take a position in a play forecast to last as long as the Marcellus play is projected to go, he or she buys a house, enrolls kids in school, and starts patronizing local businesses. That can only be good in a place like PA that's been bleeding people to other states for years.
The jobs are there -- check local boards. EQT, more of a regional company, is hiring so many people right now they may have to import. There just can't be enough qualified people in the region to do what they need done at the current moment. Schools in eastern PA see this trend needs to remedied. Both Penn College and Lackawanna College have set up technical programs to train people in jobs like well tending, oil and gas equipment maintenance and rig work. Expect to see more programs like that emerge as the play grows.
I've also run across some things that are just fun about the flurry of activity surrounding well drilling that benefit an economy. For the southerners that have moved north, or are here to train new crews, the weather this winter was more than a surprise. I believe it could have jump started a business boost for those who install remote starters in cars and trucks. I've been in parking lots for oil and gas companies that at lunch and the end of the day are filled with idling white pick-ups with out of state plates.
Bakeries near producer offices also have to be thriving. The oil and gas industry is one in which vendors of equipment, services and innovation like to stop in and meet face to face with potential contacts and share their latest success and products. This almost always includes pastries. I spent over a year working as a consultant in a producer's office -- someone was always visiting, and there were always Krispy Kreme, Dunkin Donuts and Einsteins Bagel boxes. As offices grew and took on more employees, the number of goodies brought in by vendors grew as well. The oil and gas industry loves breakfast.
The bump in hotel and lodging use is one non-believers like to attempt to debunk. But at a time when people are spending less on vacations and travel, hotels in and around the Marcellus region often have something to cheer about. Last summer, I visited a small inn complex in Clark's Summit in northeastern Pennsylvania. The comfortable inn was booked solid by landmen, and oil and gas folks for the next year. Year -- not month, not season, year. I have a funny feeling the inn owners aren't among those who say there aren't economic boosts to drilling.
Then of course there are local heavy equipment operators hired to help prepare and remediate sites, local material companies who provide items like stone, gravel, liners, rental equipment and other items for well site work, and local truckers who handle various hauling needs. Regional and local engineering and project management outfits have seen much business come their way in terms of permitting, site design, surveying, and environmental assessments. My favorite job so far is rattlesnake handler: PA requires that in some areas, where specific types of snakes are known to live, a snake handler be available during all well construction activity. Who knew?
It seems it takes all kinds and many types of occupations to effectively produce a Marcellus well. 175,000 jobs doesn't seem like such a big number when put into perspective.

What's Good for the Goose....

2010-02-23T12:43:00.002-05:00

NPR ran a story this morning about the divide growing in environmental groups like the Sierra Club over natural gas extraction in places like the Marcellus Shale. I didn't listen.
This divide has been going on for some time now. If you're not up on it, the national Sierra Club has been touting the use of natural gas as a fuel over less clean fossils like coal. Local Sierra Club groups in places like New York, where members believe that if they keep saying the gas process has caused drinking water contamination somewhere it will have, disagree. Thats not the interesting part.
The interesting part isthe collection of comments from all kinds of anti-drilling folks on the NPR Web site. The number of missed points here on general energy issues is incredible coming from people who seem to be somewhat informed.
Many talk about the National Sierra Club's "lesser of two evils" approach. But that's not what the approach is at all.
The National group has apparently put the puzzle together -- the daily growing demand for energy, plus the need to reduce carbon emissions and still provide reliable energy for mission critical needs adds up to a world in which all viable energy sources are vital.
They must also know that the water contamination issue is overblown -- over a million wells, many more shallow than shale wells, have been fraced over a period of more than 60 years. Together with horizontal drilling, fracing can now make our untapped shale reserves an abundant home-grown supply of energy.
Water pollution incidents have been reported. Real scientists have studied them all -- not one has ever been attributed to a natural gas well. Even in incidents where there have been surface spills, drinking water has never been contaminated. Sure, for a time during cleanup, frac fluids may have been in a surface waterway -- but contamination dangerous to humans has never occurred. No matter how many newspaper and television reporters and "citizen" journalists tells us drinking water has been contaminated, its just not.
Anyway, having worked with environmental groups throughout the majority of my career I've seen them fail in pursuits over and over again for one reason: the inability to compromise to make things better, rather than perfect. Like it or not, humans live on this planet. We've developed a pattern of living it would take our absence to truly eliminate. Earth can most certainly be better -- we can all do things better, but we can't make Earth what it was before we got here. (And no I don't mean we continue to haphazardly pollute because its too late anyway. Neither does the industry -- current drilling techniques are more earth friendly than ever before, but thats a topic for another day.)
Here's where someone starts telling me the virtues of wind, and solar. Maybe nuclear. All great fuels. Like natural gas, all have serious problems.
Wind and solar both take massive tracts of land (but a gas well footprint goes from 7 acres to about 1 or so after reclaimation). They also take massive amount of pipeline to get energy where sun shines and wind blows to places where it doesn't. On the trip to the end user, a good portion of the energy it generates is lost (gas loses the least value in travel by the way). Also, both require a backup fuel more reliable than they, like natural gas. And gas is also a feed stock for making the materials necessary to build those towers and panels.
Solar panels need to be washed daily, due to dust build up that impacts their ability to channel the sun. In the western US where water is terribly scarce to begin with, there will have to be some way to ration the water needed for this. In the eastern part of the country -- and likely in other colder places where wind turbines have been installed, there are ice problems. Ice builds up on blades in cooler times, as it melts and loosens as blades that have stopped spinning start up again, huge chunks on ice become flying projectiles.
And nuclear. Probably don't have to tell anyone about the problems realted to that one. There's a town not far from where I live that once produced nuclear fuel rods -- recently enough that some of people who did so are still living, and the community is still dealing with an amazing cancer cluster and the notoriety of having a major contamination problem -- even AFTER the site has been reclaimed and cleaned up. Nuclear energy isn't just the plant itself. The manufacturing is also problematic.
Bottom line here folks is this: No energy is all good or all bad. Our world needs energy like never before if we're going to sustain long happy lives and continue to build those kinds of lives for others in our world. Energy is as big a need in poor countries as is clean water and sanitation. For Americans, if we want to see how Apple is going to improve the ipad or have perscription medications, or use the net to communicate this way -- we need reliable energy. All we can get.
Regardless of all the fighting and bellyaching about water contamination that hasn't occured and our societal instinct to use everything we term "Big Oil" as a whipping boy, natural gas is necessary and won't go away.
The real question is, will we allow baseless fear mongering to make this necessary fuel more expensive than it needs to be, and limit the number of jobs it can provide? Let's hope not.

Attacking Your Own: A Sign You May Not Know What You're Talking About Afterall

2010-02-21T19:18:00.004-05:00

Congress, as I mentioned in my last blog post, is in the midst of wasting taxpayer money to study hydrofracing for the umpteenth time, likely only find once again, there is no evidence its as problematic as those not profiting from the shale gas boom would like you to believe.

Perfect case in point: the recent comments of Steve Heare, director of EPA's drinking water protection division. Mr. Heare is apparently on the record saying that he has absolutely no proof that the states (tasked with policing the oil and gas industry as it operates in their boarders) have not being doing their jobs as they should in terms of regulating hydraulic fractruing, as environmentalists and NIMBYs throughout the shale plays will have you believe. Poor Mr. Heare. He's doing his job, being honest about what he knows, and now he's about to be destroyed by the throngs of people out there who refuse to believe piles of scientific reports that show fracing has not been to blame for water contamination anywhere, regardless of being blamed for it on numerous occassions.

Ah, big bad oil and gas. Can't believe anything they say. Apparently now, anti-drilling factions can't believe the Obama Administration either, even though it seems determined to "forget" about natural gas everytime it comes time to talk about real solutions to our energy and air pollution problems. And, oh yeah, real good paying jobs.

It seems, according to anti-drilling groups, we can't believe anything Mr. Heare says beacuse his resume isn't good enough to be a ranking EPA official. He only has a bachelors degree -- how can we believe what he says?! Apparently activists will throw anything at someone, even someone in an Administration they love, to discredit the natural gas industry. The years of experience Mr. Heare has doing his job and his background in the field bear no weight at all. It seems people with no experience in environmental protection other than throwing stones know more about the state of regulation and contamination than people who deal with it everyday.

Interestingly enough, if they're able to get Mr. Heare's job, cleansing the Obama Administration of enemies will get decidedly harder. White House Environmental Tsarina Carol Browner -- respected by environmentalists, regulators, and yes, industry people all over -- is on record in a personal letter discussing hydraulic fracing, and stating straight forward that it has been shown to pose no real environmental threats and does not warrent any federal oversight.

What to do. Doesn't seem we can attack her credentials. Although isn't it interesting that, after the big celebration of her being on the Obama Team, we hear very little from her? Browner's a smart lady -- she knows an environmental threat from overbaked hype. So she'll likely stay quite on this one. If she's forced to take a side, she'll either soon be spending more time with her family, or say something publically like "Well, I said that before I knew we'd be producing this many shale wells."

Its interesting when the people who are supposed to be on "your side" know more about something than you do, and that something doesn't support your claims. Also intersting that anti-drilling activists find comments like Heare's more dangerous than reams of actual science that doesn't support them either.

Good luck to you Mr. Heare -- I appreciate your efforts to educate people about the facts of gas well drilling. You truly are a public servant. The kind that tells the truth, rather than forwards misconceptions that are politically popular.

Don't Like the Results? Then Study, Study Again

2010-02-19T18:39:00.002-05:00

Congress has initiated a study of hydrofracing and the chemicals used there in. Politics, my friends, at their very worst.
The hydrofracing process has existed for more than 60 years. Before we knew we could extract major amounts of gas from shales, it was helping America to pull as much natural gas as possible from conventional wells to meet growing demand. No one complained.
Today, the US is an enviable energy position. Its recently passed Russia in the amount of natural gas it has available for energy use. Despite the brew-ha-ha the anti-everything crowd has whipped up over drilling, natural gas remains the most abundant, most reliable energy source we have -- and it produces 50% less carbon emissions than other fossil fuels.
About a year or two ago when the climate change sky was falling on us all, getting emissions down to the levels natural gas could bring them to, if used more widely for electric generation and transportation, would have been an amazing accomplishment against global warming.
But I digress. After all, we're talking about water pollution not air pollution.
So, allow me to say something I and numerous others have said many times before. In the 60 years that hydrofracing has been used in oil and gas extraction, there has NEVER been even one proven/documented case of drinking water pollution attributed to fracing. NEVER.
That doesn't mean cases have not been reported. They have been. And have been studied by proper authorities (experts in water pollution and contamination, not activists). Cases have been reported in Pennsylvania, Texas, Colorado, Wyoming....none proven. Its been studied by groundwater groups, industry groups, third party labratories and consultancies and yes, even by various bodies of the federal government, including the Department of Energy and EPA.
Letters abound by some of the most respected people in the environmental protection field -- including President Obama's White House Environmental Csar and former EPA Director Carol Browner -- saying flat out that hydrofracing has never been shown to be a problem and does not require federal oversight.
If you get all those studies together, more than 30 organizations have studied hydrofracing and found the same results. Not a problem. Yet beacuse of the screaming coming from the general direction of New York City, where most people wouldn't know a gas well if they walked into a rig, taxpayer dollars are being wasted to study a process thats been studied to death.
Why? There are tons of reasons, but they basically come down to two, in my experience speaking with anti-drilling activists and groups.
The first is a ongoing issue with many environmentally concered organizations. Their hearts are in the right place, but they refuse to compromise on any issue, and cannot grasp the fact that human existence on earth and sustaining the lives we've come accustomed to, is going to mean some problems will exist. So -- all fossil fuels are bad an must be stopped. In some cases, people themselves must be stopped (self-extinction theory, anyone?). But if you have to realistically put up with something, wouldn't you rather take your chances on the one in 2 billion possibility water contamination will occur with fracing, or the known degradation - both to the environment and human health -- that comes from say burning coal? Thought so.
The second issue is even more simple. Its NIMBY. Not in My Backyard if your not familiar. One activist I talk to a lot, who speaks from the angle of being concerned about nature, once told me after we talked and talked that she burns heating oil to warm her house. I worked in environmental protection for years. I've seen more home heating oil spills degrade high quality streams and waterways when the delivery man fell asleeep filling someones tank than I saw of most pollution events. Not to mention the fact that heating oil - regardless of what the heating oil association will tell you -- is the dregs of the refining process. The stuff left over thats not good enough for our vehicles. I pointed this out to my friend. Turns out, she just doesn't want to hear a rig, see a rig or have to deal with a rig. Its not about the environment. Its about NIMBY.
So, our concerned Congressmen, no real science training behind them, are going to study fracing yet again, to appease these types of folks. Forget about the fact that drilling is providing good paying jobs in communities that need them. That farmers who want to keep their land are getting significant royalties for their leases, to fix up buildings, buy new equipment, whatever. Or that companies like Chesapeake, Range Resources and others are moving people in from other parts of the country who are enrolling kids in schools, buying homes and bolstering the economy in Pennsylvania, West Virgina and New York. Or that these companies are fast to spend money for charitable causes in drilling communities. Or that their product has the ability to release us from some of our dependence on countries like Russia, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. And, oh yeah, it has the ability to significantly lower our country's carbon emissions totals like nothing else.
If I remember correctly, President Obama's numbers are down beacuse people want him to focus on jobs and stop wasting money on unnecessary ventures. If the administration and Congress would start thinking more clearly about natural gas, he could do that -- and help on the environmental front as well. Its a win win win win win. Unless you think playing politics is more important than America. And apparently, the folks in Washington would rather play games than get down to business.

Natural Gas Won't "Subside"

2010-02-19T13:43:00.003-05:00

Mineral extraction industries, be it coal, gas, copper, whatever, all come with their own set of challenges.
Perhaps for those who aren't involved in the operations and daily processes of extraction related businesses, its easy to confuse those issues. Or maybe its easy to confuse other people by lumping them all together. Either way, challenges can't be "applied" across the board.
I had a moment of amazement yesterday reading a story from the Cornell University newspaper, in which the writer was talking about the possibilities of drilling coming to University property. But that wasn't the interesting part. The article quoted an anti-drilling activist in the last paragraph who insinuated that we may soon find out that hydrofracing leads to subsidence, ala coal mining.
It was one of those "not sure if I should laugh or cry" moments. Laugh beacuse of the absurdity and ignorance of the comment, or cry, beacuse someone out there will believe that, and a new gas drilling "urban legend" could well begin.
Lets explore the basics of the shale once more to see why this allegation just doesn't hold water - no pun intended. The Marcellus is between 5,000 and 8,000 ft below the surface. It is a tight shale -- using traditional drilling techniques to extract gas from it is not optimal, because the low porosity of the rock does not allow gas to easily flow to the well bore. Enter the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing.
We all know what those are. But let's consider their actual use. After a horizontal well is drilled, its is perforated with small charges to create a pathway to the shale for frac water through the casing. The frac water is forced into the well at high pressures. Sounds like that combination could create a large hole in the rock. Yet both the charges and the high pressure water create only fissures of various lengths (most not beyond 100 feet or so).
Sand is carried in with the frac water to "prop" the fissures open so gas can escape into the well. Think about that statement for a moment: Sand is used to prop open the fissures. Basic old play sand, for the most part. Not exactly the material one would use to prop open a large hole. The fissues created by high pressure fracing are quite thin -- they are not gaping holes in the rock formation.
Back in my environmental regulatory days, I used to respond to incidents of mine subsidence. Conisdering the extent of the coal mining in Southwestern Pennsylvania where I worked, you would have expected those instances to be more common than they are.
There was subsidence from the currently used longwall mining technique. That subsidence usually occurred in a few months of the longwaller undermining property. Longwallers shear coal in sheets from modern mines, leaving little or no support for the ground above. There is almost always subsidence and its almost always immediate.
Those living over older coal mines can experience subsidence as well. However, when that coal was extracted, the method used was called "room and pillar." In essence, miners worked by hand in large "rooms" to extract coal, leaving behind a series of "pillar" supports that held the ceiling -- some for longer periods of time than others. Some are still holding.
The hydraulic fracturing used to extract natural gas does not leave these kind of large voids underground. In fact, in most cases, beacuse of the pressure of 5,000 to 8,000 feet of soil and rock above them, fissures begin to close on their own, causing no subsidence on the surface.
Its scary to think of the ground giving way below your feet, or home, or business. But what maybe a reality of one extraction industry is not necessarily one of any other. This is one challenge that just doesn't apply to natural gas wells. Hydrofracing isn't going to cause subsidence events.

Weird Science

2010-02-18T08:59:00.004-05:00

There's an interesting article on the Scientific American Web site about the importance of starting science education early. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=start-science-sooner.
Never having been one for science in my earlier days, I wish I would have paid more attention now. I've been lucky enough to have been placed in jobs where I was forced to re-learn science concepts, and to gain a better understanding of how those things impact real life.
But its evident that many have not had that opportunity.
I am convinced that much of the misunderstanding and outright fear that exists among the general public when it comes to drilling the Marcellus Shale is directly related to our cultural distain for the sciences. Lets face it -- most people have no interest in them. They're just too hard (or inconvenient) to understand.
A prime example is the ongoing Chicken Little attitude about hydrofracing. Its a process that is plagued by misunderstanding, but lets look at the "water" that stays in the formation. Many have expressed great concern that this water, or frac fluid, will find its way into drinking water aquifers and contaminate groundwater.
First, its important to remember that the Marcellus Shale formation being drilled lies between 5,000 and 8,000 feet below ground. For perspective, the Grand Canyon at the South Rim is about 5,000 feet deep. Drinking water aquifers lie around 1,000 feet, and most personal water wells are drilled more shallow than that.
Second, natural gas wells are cased in cement and steel. In most simple terms, wells are drilled to an area below the aquifer, drilling is stopped, the well is cased in steel, then cement is piped down into the well and forced back up outside the steel casing to protect the aquifer. Once the cement sets, drilling is resumed. This is all done to protect the water table.
When drilling is done, the completions process (which includes hydrofracing) begins. Because the Marcellus Shale is a "tight rock," or has little porosity, the gas contained inside it does not easily flow into the well. Hydrofracing, a process in which water, sand and chemical additives, are forced through the well and into the formation to create "fractures," is used to encourage gas to flow into the well. The pressure used to send the water into the formation is quite intense - yet in most cases, the created fractures a rarely more than a hundred feet or so long. Under the pressure of 8,000 feet of soil and rock above it, these relatively thin fractures don't stay wide open forever.
Most people who are interested in shale drilling know all of this in theory.
I've asked many geologists about why frac water doesn't rise to the aquifer level. Most refer back to the very reason hydrofracing is necessary to produce the Marcellus in the first place. They remind me that the gas, which we've known about for decades, has been down there for a long long time -- without finding a way to the surface' giving proof to the concept of natural geological seals between formations. They remind me about the amount of pressure they need to force water into the formation to create fractures in the first place -- its significant, yet still does not break the formation or create a pathway for gas to escape to the surface.
And that water that gets trapped down there? One geologist explained to me that for it to travel upwards to the aquifer, there would need to be an energy source "pushing" it, if you will. He asked me to think of it as water trapped between two panes of glass. Without help, or an energy source, it basically stays there. There is no source of energy to force it upwards at thousands of feet underground.
Seems to me, after having asked the questions and been tutored by expert geologists, that a lot of this is basic earth science. Which looking back, even to my high school years, I really never learned. Earth Science classes were the basic sciences for the "every kid." As an honor student, ironically, I never had a single class in earth science. It was all AP biology, physics and chemistry for me. All of which I learned little from as well apparently.
Our overall lack of science knowledge makes us all vulnerable to those who DO understand and want us to remain confused and scared of the unknown and complicated. Lots of what people fear about drilling could potentially be easily overcome with some simple geology 101. Now if we could just get people to care about science.

What Will Oil & Gas Companies Buy for You?

2010-02-16T03:16:00.004-05:00

Despite all the bad news about the financial world, most of us planning to live beyond working age or planning to put children through college are, overall, still believers in investing money for the future. What does that have to do with natural gas? A lot potentially.
Energy Tomorrow, an information resource of the American Petroleum Institute (API) has a feature on its Wes site called "Do you own an oil company?" There's a pie chart breakout showing in simple terms, who owns stock in Big Oil. According to the site, 43% is owned by mutual funds, another 27% by other institutional investments, and about 14% by IRA's and personal investment accounts. Together somewhere around 84- 85% of oil and gas stock rests in our personal investment portfolios.
Industry information right? Maybe. But given the amount of regulation that goes into reporting such information, I'd guess its probably pretty close to accurrate, if not dead on.
About 53 million or so Americans (about 50% of us) have investments in mutual funds, mostly through company 401k's and what not. Most aren't vigorous investors who watch the market with a close eye. They're too busy. Thats what fund managers are for - in the most simple terms, they invest the money for us in the manner they think will result in the biggest return, which is what everyone involved wants, for the most part.
When those mutual fund and retirement account prospecti and summaries that usually hit the trash or go unlooked at in the growing pile of paper on my desk arrived this quarter, I thought I'd actually take a look. Turns out, every one of the funds I have investments with (including those from my acdemic days) included some kind of investment in energy stocks. Almost all were oil and gas companies. In fact, I was somewhat happy to see that I had my own little piece of XTO when Exxon decided to buy it. Thats not going to put my girls through college, but it certainly helped keep that fund on an even keel in this time of financial upheaval.
I'm not an economist, so I can't really say what that all means on a larger scale, but its an interesting little exercise. If you have personal or institutional investments that deliver those little books to your mailbox, take a look and see what you own. It might surprise you.
Knowing what I know about the Marcellus Shale, and other shale plays around the country, I was happy to see that my fund managers are investing wisely.

Where I'm Coming From

2010-02-15T19:53:00.002-05:00

In the last year, I've spent a lot of time listening and talking to people about natural gas and shale gas drilling. Landowners, industry people, consultants, regulators, environmentalists, activists, politicians, academics, industry advocates and detractors. In person, online, on the phone. At conferences, in chat rooms, in board rooms, on the street, and at rig sites. By e-mail, Twitter, Facebook -- you name it.

In my career, I've worked in the industry, with environmental regulators, promoted the work of environmental professionals and college professors, ghost wrote articles for electric generation engineerrs, and blogged for an environmental web site.

I've heard lots of concerns, lots of explaination and lots of angles. Maybe not all of them, but likely most. I've started this blog to share what I've learned.