Our take: PA Lags on Methane Control

After the Scranton Times-Tribune's forceful editorial calling on the next governor to regulate methane emissions, Governor Tom Corbett's energy executive penned a letter to the Scranton Times-Tribune in which he claimed that Pennsylvania is "leading the way" on addressing methane. In a follow up letter, PennFuture strongly disagreed with this assertion: 

Editor: It was encouraging that Gov. Tom Corbett’s energy executive, Patrick Henderson (Your Opinion, “Emissions Managed,” Oct. 18) recognizes the importance of reducing methane pollution from the natural gas industry. 

Unfortunately, his claim that Pennsylvania is “leading the way” on methane regulations is not true. Under Mr. Corbett, Pennsylvania has taken a Swiss cheese approach to addressing methane and the commonwealth lags behind other states. Pennsylvania has no regulations directly regulating methane emissions. Instead, Pennsylvania has a patchwork of policies and federal rules that result in some reductions, but fall far short of the comprehensive regulations citizens deserve.

Instead of directly regulating methane, Pennsylvania has a voluntary permitting option — one that only applies to drillers who elect to follow it. For new Marcellus wells, an exemption says wells that meet some basic standards don’t need to be permitted by the Department of Environmental Protection’s air program. The exemption calls sources of methane emissions “trivial activities” that don’t require pre-construction approval.

While the current exemption is an improvement over a prior blanket exemption, many loopholes remain. For example, it applies only to new wells, not thousands of existing wells. 

Other states show leadership on this issue. Ohio adopted rules that require oil and gas operators to conduct quarterly leak and repair inspections — in contrast to Pennsylvania’s once-a-year requirement. Industry and environmental groups came together in Colorado to enact a comprehensive set of methane regulations for oil and gas operators. The bulk of operators have to perform quarterly methane leak inspections, with monthly inspections at the largest well sites.

The Times-Tribune’s recent editorial was spot on: Methane pollution from our natural gas industry is a serious threat and the time to take action is now. Our next governor must take necessary steps on methane pollution to truly claim a leadership role.

Andrew Sharp is PennFuture's director of outreach and is based in Philadelphia. He tweets at @RexBainbridge.

Governor's plan for leasing on state lands brings questions but no answers.

Last week, I attended the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources' (DCNR) Natural Gas Advisory Committee meeting to get a first glimpse of the highly anticipated Marcellus Monitoring Report. The meeting was divided into two parts, with the second half devoted to the monitoring report and the first focusing on Governor Tom Corbett's proposal to allow further leasing of Pennsylvania’s state parks and state forests so long as there is no additional “surface disturbance.”

The governor’s proposal would require drilling of the newly leased lands to occur from adjacent private lands or from already leased state lands. Given these restrictions, representatives from the gas industry expressed serious concerns regarding the practicality and feasibility of the proposal. Essentially, the big question was: Is it really possible to not have additional surface disturbance?

Here’s why. Well pads are designed for a certain number of wells, and wells can’t be drilled like spokes in a wheel; rather, the direction of their laterals is often determined by geology. These constraints only raised more questions, e.g. can drillers request additional well pads if they’re allowed under the existing lease? Can drillers expand existing pads if that’s needed to make drilling feasible?

Industry representatives also said that some temporary disturbance will be needed, and this prompted multiple questions from committee members, including: What is temporary? How long is temporary? Does the disturbance have to be low impact? What is low impact? Would seismic testing be permitted?

All of these questions raised concerns over the value of these leases. Specifically, given the restrictions in the governor’s proposal and the limited access drillers would have, would this lack of competition devalue the leases?  

Unfortunately, none of these questions were answered, and you have to wonder: Just how well thought out was the governor’s proposal?

Jennifer Quinn is central Pennsylvania outreach coordinator for PennFuture and is based in Harrisburg. She tweets @QuinnJen1.

Preliminary Results: Fracking Chemicals Did Not Reach Drinking Water Aquifers

Multiple news outlets are reporting that the Department of Energy released a statement indicating positive results from a year-long fracking study being conducted by the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) at a well site in Washington County, Pennsylvania.

Researchers conducted seismic monitoring of eight horizontal Marcellus shale wells.  In one of those wells the researchers used unique markers to monitor the flow of chemicals from a frack job. The researchers were looking to see if the chemicals contaminated shallow groundwater or traveled to older gas wells 3000 feet above the Marcellus. After one year, the researchers found that the frack fluid stayed thousands of feet below shallower horizons that supply drinking water to many Pennsylvanians.  The chemicals also were not detected in the older gas wells being monitored. The only surprising result from the study was that the chemicals in one fracture traveled 1800 feet horizontally from the well, when most fractures traveled only a few hundred feet.

This is plainly good news for those that support shale gas development so long as it can be done in an environmentally protective manner - but caution on reading too much into the preliminary results is just as plainly warranted.  The study monitored a single well in a specific geologic setting, and researchers are in the early stages of collecting, analyzing and validating the data. NETL's own statement emphasizes that the "results are far too preliminary to make any firm claims."

More studies such as this are warranted in other geologic settings across Pennsylvania, and the results from those studies should be used to inform the public debate and policy decisions around shale gas development.

Build the Bridge between Natural Gas and Renewables

Jared L. Cohon, president of Carnegie Mellon University, wrote a thoughtful op-ed on his big-picture perspective of shale gas development in Pennsylvania. Among other things, Cohon explains why he joined the Board of Directors of the Center for Sustainable Shale Gas Development.

Towards the end of his piece, Dr. Cohon addresses the argument that we should not be fracking for natural gas because it will delay the development of renewable energy. His response is straightforward - the country will be dependent on fossil fuels for a long time, so we should minimize the environmental and social impacts of burning dirtier fuel in the interim while we "aggressively develop" non-carbon alternatives.

Ahhhh! And therein lies the rub - those that doubt that shale gas will be a bridge to a clean energy future fear that this cheap and plentiful fuel will take the pressure off of a nation only capable of making significant policy shifts in the face of imminent crisis. Eliminate the crisis and you eliminate the impetus for investment in renewables.

Dr. Cohon describes this argument as "strange" - but it is not clear what he considers odd - the basic concern about cheap gas delaying the development of renewables, or the conclusion that because of this concern we should ban fracking.

As to the first, the underlying concern is legitimate. To achieve the goal of "aggressively promoting" renewables, the nation will need a significant shift in energy policy - and that will not be easy. Moving from coal, oil and gas to renewables will affect many vested and well-funded interests. The champions of solar, wind and geothermal cannot compete with multi-nationals that have poured millions into campaign coffers over the years, and now can do so anonymously.  Additionally, this Congress has demonstrated a unique ability to disagree on just about anything - not to mention a bold policy shift that would financially disadvantage deep-rooted and well-funded interests on Capitol Hill.

The "ban fracking" portion of the argument could be viewed as cutting off our nose to spite our face - depending on methane leakage rates - but it could also be mooted by policies that directly link carbon fuels to renewables. This could be done on a national scale through a carbon tax, or through individual state policies that would generate "health revenue" from the development of coal, oil and gas in order to promote energy sources that do not inflict increased heart and asthma attacks on Pennsylvanians, and put mercury in our food chain.

Pennsylvania's energy policy fosters cynicism amongst the "ban fracking" advocates because it does not do what Dr. Cohon promotes - it does not build a bridge between natural gas and the aggressive promotion of renewable energy. Pennsylvania's Act 13 directs state revenue from natural gas development to road repair and other "local impacts." It does not promote strategic statewide policies such as renewable energy and early childhood education. That is but one of the failures of a state policy that does not impose a reasonable tax on the development of Pennsylvania's shale gas.

Fast Facts

Does radon in shale gas pose a health problem?

State Impact (NPR) reports on a You Tube video that questions whether shale gas can increase cancer risks because it may contain radon.  The viral video was produced by a group that opposes a pipeline that will transport shale gas from Pennsylvania to New York. Michael Arthur from Penn State says there is not enough information but it is worth studying. PA DEP says that they "don't expect there to be much of an indoor air exposure issue" even though they haven't completed their year-long study that may generate facts to support that assumption.  The Marcellus Shale Coalition says that the group's claims "are unsupported by facts and science," all the while failing themselves to produce any studies or data on the group's concerns.

The question to us is which of these groups has access to the data that will answer the question, and why don't they know the answer?  The unknown is scary to the public, and yes, there are groups that will exploit that unknown.  But the burden here must fall on the industry and government.  The industry produces, transports and sells the gas.  As with any purveyor of goods, the industry should know what they are selling to the public and be able to answer these public health questions - not simply yell back at those groups like two kids in a playground.  And the government, which is now conducting a study more than eight years after it allowed production to proceed full-throttle, hampers its credibility when it makes assertions about public health issues without first having the facts in hand.  Let's get the facts and answer the question.

More good news for public health and the environment

The Harrisburg Patriot reports that NRG Energy will shutter two more coal-fired power plants - one in New Jersey and another in Pennsylvania. John Luciew, who wrote the post for the Patriot, adds plenty of commentary to the article - in his first sentence slamming "environmental groups" who he apparently sees cheering for the job losses from these closings while they "don't want fracking for natural gas either."

News flash to Luciew: all "environmental groups" are not built the same.  There are several that support the environmentally conscious development of gas so long as that production is part of a comprehensive plan that promotes energy efficiency, conservation and development of renewable energy. The principle of sustainability recognizes that we must meet the needs of the present while planning for and accommodating the needs of future generations.

And though Luciew emphasizes job losses from these plant closings, he does not report on the lives that have been cut short by the pollution spewed out of these aging plants over the years. The true cost of society relying on coal for energy - from acid mine drainage and mercury in our streams, to heart attacks and climate change - has never been fully internalized by the industry. And worse, Pennsylvania continues to subsidize the industry by billions of dollars per year - something our governor refuses to do for alternative energy that would cause much less harm to the public and our environment.

And speaking of which ...

Governor Corbett announced that he recently awarded a whopping $32,880 in energy-efficiency grants to four small businesses "because investment in small business is a cornerstone to economic growth." Hey, it's not $1.65 billion that he's willing to pay for a cracker - apparently a bit larger of a cornerstone - but it's worth what we used to call a "finger nail clap."  So this one's for you, governor ...

Wet Gas, Pipelines, Fractionation and a Changing Landscape

The Dayton Daily News recently reported that Houston-based Enterprise Products Partners would begin expansion of the ATEX Express Pipeline in Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Indiana.  These types of projects will continue to come online in an effort to push natural gas liquids (NGL) from Southwest Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia to the Gulf Coast and elsewhere, and it will be sure to change our landscape.

Most Pennsylvanians know NGL as "wet gas" - the liquids produced in association with methane. NGL production is growing by leaps and bounds in certain parts of the Marcellus and Utica shale plays. As industry analysts RBN Energy explain, NGL itself does not have much value until it undergoes fractionation - the process of separating NGL into its component parts - ethane, propane, butane, iso-butane, and methane (or pure natural gas).

Once LNG is broken down, the ethane component can be used as feedstock at an olefin or cracker facility to produce ethylene, a basic building block for making plastics. This is what Shell is considering for Beaver County. The other components can be shipped to various domestic and overseas markets, such as the growing Latin American market for propane.

If the NGL cannot be fractionated, production at the well head must stop - and that is not good for companies that invested millions of dollars to purchase gas reserves. For that reason there is a rush to rapidly ramp up fractionation capacity and construct pipelines to transport LNG and various components to market.

The Enterprise pipeline is being constructed to transport NGL to Texas. Sunoco/MarkWest are constructing the Mariner West pipeline to take NGL north to a fractionation complex in Sarnia, Ontario, which will eventually deliver products throughout Canada. The Mariner East Project will take NGL from Southwest Pennsylvania to Sunoco's processing facilities on the Delaware River, and from there products will ship overseas and to other markets.

In addition to pipelines, the major Midstream companies operating in Southwest PA (MarkWest, Dominion, Williams and Chesapeake) are constructing up to eleven fractionation facilities between Moundsville, WV and Houston, PA - less than 50 miles apart.  At the same time, numerous expansion projects along the Gulf Coast are underway to increase fractionation and cracker capacity there.

These pipelines and fractionation facilities will enable NGL production from Marcellus and Utica shale to boom. According to Callie Mitchell, an RBN Energy analyst, NGL production in Southwest PA is poised to grow astronomically in the next five years - as shown on this graph - from 43 Mb/d (a meager 1.2% of US annual production) to an astounding 450 Mb/d by 2017.

Governor Corbett and others envision the processing of wet gas as a "second industrial revolution" that will "transform" all of Pennsylvania into a second Gulf Coast that doesn't just produce gas, but also processes it. In contrast, I recently heard an industry insider dismiss that vision as a "pipedream," explaining that it was much more convenient to enlarge existing facilities on the Gulf Coast, with their easy access to shipping ports and downstream markets, than to reconstruct Mont Belvieu, Texas along the Ohio River. Most likely it will be a blend - perhaps more a rowdy party than a revolution. We will see.

The Governor now does not expect to know whether Shell will build a cracker plant in Beaver County until sometime next year.

One thing is certain - wet gas will continue to change our landscape. This blog will continue to explore what those changes will mean for our communities and environment.

A primer on the Center for Sustainable Shale Development (CSSD)

PennFuture and four other environmental groups - the  Group against Smog and Pollution, Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Clean Air Task Force and Environmental Defense Fund - have endorsed a set of fifteen environmental protection standards developed with several large shale gas producers in the Marcellus region: Chevron, Shell, EQT and CONSOL. At the core of the nascent Center for Sustainable Shale Development (CSSD), these standards were the result of two years of collaboration that included research assistance from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and ICF International, both world experts on oil and gas environmental risk management. The initial effort was funded by two foundations, the Heinz Endowments and William Penn Foundation, as well as participating gas companies.

The initial fifteen standards - eight concerning water and seven air  - are intended to be more stringent than current federal and state standards in the Appalachian Basin. Examples include:

• zero discharge of wastewater to surface and ground waters until a safe treatment standard has been developed;
• a 90 percent wastewater recycling requirement within two years;
• eliminating the use of open pits at well pads within two years;
• operators must characterize area geology, perform a risk assessment to protect against fluid migration, and ensure surface and ground water quality is not impacted;
• use well casings and cement to prevent migration of fluids and contamination of ground water;
• use of green completions to substantially eliminate flaring of well head gas by January 2014; and
• compliance with tight air emission standards for all diesel engines used in drilling and any trucks servicing a well pad.

CSSD's members have committed to regularly review existing standards, and will develop additional standards to protect air, land and water.

PennFuture joined in developing and endorsing these standards because it is our mission to protect the environment, and we believe these standards will advance that mission. It is important that four of the major gas producers in Pennsylvania have agreed to meet these standards because it shows that tougher environmental standards for gas drilling in Pennsylvania are economically feasible.

These standards are not a substitute for improved federal and state laws, or for rigorous enforcement of existing laws. That is why PennFuture will continue to advocate for tough, common sense standards to protect our land, air and water - including no drilling in Pennsylvania's State Parks - and take action to enforce existing laws when the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) does not.

PennFuture understands that some environmental organizations categorically oppose the extraction of unconventional gas, in part on the theory that more gas leads to greater air pollution and climate change. Certainly, natural gas should not be the only way we produce power in the United States. However, while the data is still unclear on the benefits of natural gas over coal as far as climate change is concerned, there can be no doubt that gas offers a better alternative when it comes to acid mine drainage, mercury and sulfur emissions.

Coal, oil and gas still comprise about 82 percent of U.S. energy demand. PennFuture works hard to reduce that percentage by advocating for energy conservation and use of renewables. But so long as the nation relies on fossil fuels for electric power, it is our obligation to protect the environment while those non-renewable resources are being extracted.

These new standards could play an important role in minimizing the harm caused by continued reliance on fossil fuels.  That is why PennFuture participated in the process.