A Range of violations on shale gas drilling in PA

Natural gas driller Range Resources, which has substantial operations in the Marcellus Shale region, has been fined $8.9 million by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for allowing a "defectively cemented gas well" to leak methane and other substances into groundwater and a stream in Lycoming County. This is the largest fine ever assessed for a shale gas drilling violation in Pennsylvania and is double the then-record $4.1 million fine that Range was assessed in September 2014 for wastewater impoundments that were leaking fracking fluid.

While the driller is appealing the fine to the state's Environmental Hearing Board, DEP Secretary John Quigley is confident that agency action was necessary. "Range Resources has the responsibility to eliminate the gas migration that this poorly constructed well is causing," he said in a statement. "Refusing to make the necessary repairs to protect the public and the environment is not an option."

Photo by Penn State News via Creative Commons

Yep, the top cop is on the beat, which is exactly what the people of Pennsylvania want, and expect, from their environmental regulator. On the flip side is yet another drilling company that refuses to acknowledge its actions with respect to methane leaks that are hurting our air and water.

The citizens of the Commonwealth, as per Article 1, Section 27 of the Pennsylvania constitution, are entitled to "...clean air, pure water, and to the preservation of the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic values of the environment..." Drinking water supplies contaminated by methane leaks are not acceptable. Similarly, choking on air fouled by methane emissions from natural gas drilling operations is not what Pennsylvanians signed on for.

Natural gas drillers will continue to operate with impunity in Pennsylvania until we say they cannot. The civil penalty announced by DEP on June 16 is the right action around an unfortunate set of circumstances.

PennFuture supports proposed revisions to the state's oil and gas laws under Pa. Code Chapter 78 as a vital step toward holding drillers accountable and thereby protecting public health and the environment. We are also calling for the direct regulation of methane emissions in Pennsylvania as is the case in other gas-drilling states. Methane, a potent greenhouse gas, should not be leached into our water and spewed into our air by irresponsible operators.

Enforcement of existing regulations is necessary, but the goal is to not have such leaks in the first place. We hope the lessons learned from this and other violations will allow DEP to continually improve our regulations and require best practices industry-wide.

Elaine Labalme is Strategic Campaigns Director for PennFuture and is based in Pittsburgh. She tweets @NewGirlInTown.

Speak up at public hearings on oil and gas regulations

On April 4, 2015, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued a “Notice of Final Rulemaking” regarding the state’s updated oil and gas regulations (Chapter 78 and 78a). Over a year ago, the state sought public input on proposed requirements for oil and gas operations and received over 24,000 comments. Some of those comments were incorporated into the revised rule, which was released this month.

The DEP will hold three public hearings on these latest revisions. This is our last chance to weigh in on Chapter 78 and 78a of the PA code (78a, which addresses unconventional “fracked” wells, begins on page 121).

Add your voice at the upcoming hearings to submit concerns about the final rule and to show your support for strong drilling standards. We need our regulators to prioritize our health and communities – to reduce toxic air pollution, preserve our waterways and prevent the harmful fragmentation of our natural lands. 

Listed below are a few of our comments and concerns. We continue to review the proposed rule and will incorporate updates here. You are welcome to use these points to guide your testimony. Feel free to contact us at souter-kline [at] pennfuture.org, with any questions.

PennFuture Chapter 78 and 78a rulemaking comments and concerns:

• We support the DEP’s decision to prohibit new on-site pits for storage of flowback wastewater at unconventional operations, and to require those pits that are currently in use to be closed. 
• The revised rule makes clear that earth disturbance operations must comply with the agency’s Chapter 102 regulations, use best management practices for erosion and sedimentation control and stormwater management, and incorporate the agency’s forest buffer guidance. Further, unconventional well operators that propose to work in a high quality or exceptional value watershed must comply with the anti-degradation requirements of Chapter 102.These improvements will help to protect our most pristine waterways from degradation due to erosion and deforestation. 
• The revised rule recognizes that schools and playgrounds are important public resources, and requires an operator proposing to locate a well within 200 feet to demonstrate what will be done to avoid or mitigate harm to that resource. PennFuture continues to have serious concerns about the impact of air pollution caused by shale gas drilling operations on our children. Young lungs are especially vulnerable to pollution and we would like to see expanded buffers around schools. 
• PennFuture supports the proposal that any affected drinking water supplies must be restored either to Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) standards or, if pre-existing water quality was higher than SDWA standards, to the better pre-existing condition.
• While we support including a noise mitigation plan requirement, we are concerned that the provision will not result in meaningful noise reduction or control at well sites. As outlined, the noise requirement is vaguely worded and fails to set an objective standard for evaluating problems, making it difficult, if not impossible, to assess compliance. 

Valessa Souter-Kline is western Pennsylvania outreach coordinator for PennFuture and is based in Pittsburgh. She tweets @ValessaSK.

VIDEO: "Methane Matters: PA Needs to Know"

You've got questions and we've got answers. What is methane? Why is it leaking from Pennsylvania's natural gas operations? Why is methane such a threat to climate change? Check out this whiteboard animation video for a helpful primer -- then share it with friends.  

Methane Matters: PA Needs to Know from PennFuture on Vimeo.

Fifteen senators press Obama for methane standards

From Huffington Post: 

"WASHINGTON -- Fifteen senators are pressing the Obama administration to regulate methane emissions from oil and gas production, arguing that addressing methane is a "key component" of curbing planet-warming emissions. 

"Ton for ton, methane causes at least 80 times more warming than carbon dioxide over a 20-year period," wrote the 13 Democratic senators and two Independents, led by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), in a letter addressed to President Barack Obama on Friday. "Voluntary standards are not enough. Too many in the oil and gas sector have failed to adopt sound practices voluntarily, and the absence of uniform enforceable standards has allowed methane pollution to continue, wasting energy and threatening public health." 

The Environmental Protection Agency released five white papers in April looking at emissions from oil and gas operations. EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy said Friday in a meeting with reporters that the agency is now in the process of developing a strategy for addressing those emissions. That strategy, which the EPA plans to release some time this fall, "will look at what tools we have and what we think are most appropriate" for addressing the matter, McCarthy said. She did not specify whether the agency would recommend voluntary measures or new regulations."

The potential for federal methane rules could be a big step in the right direction. This strategy has the potential to deliver the federal regulatory oversight that is needed to complement much-needed state efforts and make sure that all of the oil and gas industry meets basic, common-sense standards to deploy readily available technologies. 

But federal rules don't replace the need for Pennsylvania to get its methane problem under control. As the fastest growing natural gas producer in the country -- and a state that emits nearly a full percent of the world's greenhouses gases -- Pennsylvania can't afford to wait. 

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

PA must tackle well construction, methane emissions

From the Associated Press:

PITTSBURGH (AP) — The final report from a landmark federal study on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, found no evidence that chemicals or brine water from the gas drilling process moved upward to contaminate drinking water at a site in western Pennsylvania.

The Department of Energy report, released Monday, was the first time an energy company allowed independent monitoring of a drilling site during the fracking process and for 18 months afterward. 

After those months of monitoring, researchers found that the chemical-laced fluids used to free gas stayed about 5,000 feet below drinking water supplies. Scientists used tracer fluids, seismic monitoring and other tests to look for problems, and created the most detailed public report to date about how fracking affects adjacent rock structures.

A separate study published this week by different researchers examined drilling sites in Pennsylvania and Texas using other methods. It found that faulty well construction caused pollution, but not fracking itself.

The results of this study are not particularly surprising. Shoddy well construction -- not migrating frac fluid -- is the source of most of the problems with water contamination.

These studies don't tell the full picture of the environmental impacts of natural gas development. Air emissions -- and particularly methane leaks -- are a huge concern and must be addressed. Methane is a highly potent greenhouse gas and, absent adequate controls, methane leaks across the natural gas supply chain could undo many of the potential environmental benefits natural gas can have over other fossil fuels such as coal.

The bottom line is that we must address the areas of highest risk if we are to prevent damage to our land, air, and water. Tackling both methane emissions and well integrity issues is a must for Pennsylvania.

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

Corbett's former health secretary says state not addressing fracking health concerns

Last week, we brought you the news that Pennsylvania Department of Health employees were sent a list of fracking-related buzzwords as part of official guidance for how to handle complaints to the department -- and told not to personally return calls from people who used words on the list.

This weekend, Governor Corbett's former top health department official said the state wasn't doing nearly enough to study the health impacts of tracking. 

“The lack of any action speaks volumes," said Dr. Eli Avila. “Don't BS the public. Their health comes first."

Corbett's current health secretary, Michael Wolf, said he hasn't spoken directly to the governor about possible health impacts from the drilling boom, only to the governor's staff. 

PennFuture, along with the Sierra Club, Clean Air Council, PennEnvironment and Clean Water Action, put out a joint statement yesterday demanding an investigation:

"We are calling for a full independent and transparent investigation into the Pennsylvania Department of Health's response to drilling complaints. The legitimate questions of Pennsylvania citizens concerning their health or that of family members as a result of natural gas drilling activity cannot be discounted or dismissed outright. The fact that the department originally denied the existence of a “buzzwords” list, and the fact that Governor Corbett has refused to weigh in with a forceful response, leaves us no choice but to call for a full investigation. We are also asking the department to make available to the public all past and future health complaints, and to commit to addressing all future complaints in a timely manner." 

"This entire episode begs the question: Is the Corbett administration more concerned with protecting the natural gas industry than it is the health and welfare of Pennsylvania families and future generations? There should not be one set of rules for the gas industry and another set for everyone else. If there is any question that the actions of drillers are causing harm to our air, water and land as well as the health of our citizens, the governor and state agencies must address those concerns immediately. Governor Corbett needs to show leadership on this issue of great public concern, not delay and deny."

Stay tuned. This is a story we'll be following closely.  

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

PA Department of Health employees silenced on drilling complaints?

A report issued by StateImpact last week revealed that Pennsylvania Department of Health employees were sent a list of fracking-related buzzwords as part of official guidance for how to handle complaints to the department -- and were told not to personally return calls from people who used words on the list. Words and phrases singled out for special treatment included: drilling, fracking, Marcellus Shale, skin rash, and cancer cluster:

One veteran employee says she was instructed not to return phone calls from residents who expressed health concerns about natural gas development.

“We were absolutely not allowed to talk to them,” said Tammi Stuck, who worked as a community health nurse in Fayette County for nearly 36 years.

Another retired employee, Marshall P. Deasy III, confirmed that.

Deasy, a former program specialist with the Bureau of Epidemiology, said the department also began requiring field staff to get permission to attend any meetings outside the department. This happened, he said, after an agency consultant made comments about drilling at a community meeting.

In the more than 20 years he worked for the department, Deasy said, “community health wasn’t told to be silent on any other topic that I can think of.”

The Corbett administration initially denied that such a list existed:

The Health Department initially denied the existence of both the drilling “buzzwords” list and the employee permission form. A spokeswoman called the two retired employees’ claims “erroneous.”

The department later acknowledged the existence of the documents, but said these policies were meant to guide–not silence–employees in responding to complaints. 

Some, including Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News, are calling for an investigation by lawmakers in Harrisburg.

Whatever happened here, it's clear that the we haven't heard the last on this. We need to know why the natural gas industry was seemingly singled out for special treatment -- by a department tasked with protecting public health. 

Stay tuned. 

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

Speak now: Public hearings on new oil and gas regulations

The Pennsylvania Environmental Quality Board (EQB) has scheduled seven public hearings in January throughout the state on new regulations around oil and gas development, and is encouraging public comment during the rulemaking process.

At issue are the protection of streams and waterways from drilling operations; storage or freshwater and other fluids related to fracking; and the proper collection, analysis and disposal of waste materials at well sites, among many other concerns. 

The first hearing is scheduled on Tuesday, January 7, in northeastern Pennsylvania. A complete listing of hearing dates and locations, as well as registration information, can be found here. 

Listed below are a series of concerns we have with the proposed regulations. We encourage you to use these talking points to guide your testimony. If you do testify, keep in mind that you are only allotted five minutes so you will want to speak to the issues that resonate with you the most. 

*********

All fluids related to oil and gas development should be contained in engineered facilities, not "natural depressions." (Section 78.1, definition of "freshwater impoundment" and "pit," Section 78.56)

Our streams and groundwater should be secure from pollution caused by the storage of wastes and fluids associated with oil and gas production operations. The definitions of "pit" and “freshwater impoundment” raise questions about that objective because they continue to incorporate the concept of “natural topographic depressions” within the definitions. We should not even suggest that Pennsylvania will allow fluids related to oil and gas operations to be managed in "natural depressions." All facilities used to hold fluids that may contain potential water pollutants should be specifically engineered for the task.

The definition of "seasonal high groundwater table" should be retained in the proposed regulations, because the term continues to play a key role in regulating oil and gas activities. (Section 78.1)

Proposed section 78.1  deletes the definition of "seasonal high groundwater table" even though that term is still used throughout the regulations, including in sections 78.56(a)(11), 78.59b(e). This definition should be maintained to ensure clarity and consistent enforcement.

The permit applicant, not the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), should be responsible for determining whether proposed oil and gas operations would affect threatened or endangered 

species. (Section 78.15(d))

Protecting the habitat and physical safety of vulnerable species is a critical part of ensuring biodiversity and the quality of our environment. The federal Endangered Species Act was designed to achieve these goals by making it unlawful for any person to harass or take a listed species, including adversely affecting the habitat of a listed species in a manner that effects a take. Similarly, state law currently imposes the obligation on operators to ensure that their activities will not adversely affect listed species or their habitat. 

The proposed regulations change that obligation by only requiring gas operators to mitigate the impact of their operations on threatened or endangered species if the DEP determines that the well site location will adversely impact species or “critical habitat.”

Because an operator proposing an oil or gas project stands to gain financially from the project, and is in the best position to understand the scope and potential impact of its proposal, the operator (and not the DEP) should have the burden of determining whether its project would affect listed species and their habitat.

The DEP should respond to comments received about a permit that may affect an important public resource. (Section 78.15(d))

The proposed regulations allow for a public resource agency to receive notice of, and submit comments about, a proposed well permit that would affect its resources. The regulations, however, do not require the DEP to respond to those comments. To ensure that comments are adequately considered and that public resources are fully protected, the regulations should require the DEP to respond to comments submitted by public resource agencies.

The DEP should not compromise its obligation to protect the environment by balancing the citizens’ constitutionally guaranteed right against private interests in oil and gas. (Section 78.15(g))

The DEP is required by the Pennsylvania Constitution to protect the public’s right to a clean environment. The proposed regulations provide that even though the DEP determines that a proposed well will have a probable adverse impact on a public resource, the DEP still cannot impose conditions that will prevent or mitigate that harm without first considering the impact of the condition on the individual mineral right owner’s ability to “optimally” develop his or her oil and gas rights. This regulation inappropriately places the DEP, whose mission is supposed to be to protect and conserve Pennsylvania’s environment, in the position of balancing protection of important public resources against individual property rights. Furthermore, it inappropriately, and potentially illegally, elevates the “optimal” development of oil and gas over the protection of important public resources against likely adverse impacts. These draft regulations do not give proper weight to the DEP’s constitutional obligation to protect the environment. So long as the DEP’s actions do not affect a taking of private property, the DEP should be obligated to take whatever actions are necessary to condition permits in a manner that protects important public resources.

The DEP’s duty to investigate water pollution should extend to the all oil and gas activities. (Section 78.51(c)).

The Chapter 78 regulations require the DEP to investigate instances of water pollution that occur near oil and gas wells. As part of its investigation, the DEP may determine that water pollution was caused by the “well site construction, drilling, alteration or operation activities.” This set of activities is much more limited than the list of activities defined as “oil and gas activities” in Act 13. To ensure maximum protection of water resources, the DEP’s investigation should extend to all oil and gas activities.  

The prohibition on construction of fluid storage areas within 100 feet of certain water bodies should be extended to all water bodies. (Section 78.59c)

The current draft regulations prohibit well operators from building “centralized impoundments” for wastewaters within 100 feet of any “solid blue line stream” identified by the United States Geological Survey. Solid blue line streams flow consistently year round. This 100 foot buffer is important, but it should be extended to other streams that do not flow continuously. Although we recognize that Act 13 unwisely referred to “solid blue line streams,” intermittent and ephemeral streams need to be protected as well. Some of our most vulnerable waters are intermittent portions of high quality streams. Those waters would not be adequately protected by these regulations. Furthermore, the DEP has an obligation to protect intermittent streams under the Clean Streams Law. Rather than attempt to make that decision on a case by case analysis, the DEP should extend this buffer to all Pennsylvania streams.

The DEP should stop promoting the disposal of residual waste at well sites.  (Section 78.62)

The draft regulations would allow well operators to dispose of residual waste in pits on well sites as long as they comply with certain minimal requirements. Because waste generated at oil and gas sites is exempt from the hazardous waste regulations, the result is that hazardous waste can be managed as residual waste and disposed at well sites with a single synthetic liner and no long-term groundwater monitoring. These minimal protections are inadequate.

As the DEP knows, many well-site disposal pits have leaked in recent years, contaminating surface and groundwater and dotting the Pennsylvania countryside with brownfield sites. Given the high risks of these mini-landfills, and the fact that their one and only advantage is fewer truck trips to landfills (and reduced cost for operators), the DEP should prohibit well site disposal of residual waste entirely. To the extent that the DEP continues to allow this method of waste disposal it should, at a minimum, require long-term groundwater monitoring and public notice of existing and future disposal sites.

The DEP should strengthen its regulatory mechanisms for ensuring that pits and impoundments are constructed in a structurally sound manner and according to regulation. (Section 78.59c(m))

The rulemaking proposes to allow engineer certifications that pits and impoundments have been correctly constructed in lieu of DEP inspections. If the DEP is not itself capable of ensuring proper construction of facilities such as centralized impoundments, these certifications should be submitted under penalty of law for unsworn falsification to authorities (18 P.S. § 4904) so that any intentional falsification can be prosecuted criminally. The DEP should also mandate better self-monitoring by requiring that photographs or video be taken of the finished construction so that there is evidence of the site construction that can be reviewed after the fact.

Any disposal of waste materials at well sites should require that representative samples of the material be taken and analyzed and submitted to the agency to demonstrate that, for example, the drill cuttings are not contaminated, or that residual waste meets the regulatory standards. (Sections 78.61 and 78.62)

If waste is disposed at well sites, a sample of the material should be taken and analyzed. This sample should be sent to the agency to demonstrate that drill cuttings are not contaminated, and that any residual waste does not exceed legal limits. The regulations do not currently require that the operator use any scientific methodology to demonstrate compliance.

The collection and analysis of chemical samples of waste that the operator intends to dispose on site should not be discretionary; the regulations should be clear that is a mandatory obligation. This is particularly of concern where the disposal site does not need to be inspected by the agency prior to closure, and there is no long-term groundwater monitoring.  (Section 78.63(19))

Collection and analysis of chemical waste samples that are intended to be disposed of onsite needs to be a mandatory requirement. The draft regulations leave this to the discretion of the operator, which should not be permitted. This is particularly important where a disposal site does not need to be inspected by the agency prior to closure, and there is no provision for long term monitoring of ground water.

The DEP’s proposed regulations for the road-spreading of brine pose unacceptable threats to the Commonwealth’s water resources – and would be unlawful. (Section 78.70a)

Section 78.70 of the DEP’s proposed oil and gas regulations would authorize the road-spreading of brine from conventional wells for dust control on dirt and gravel roads. Proposed section 78.70a would authorize the road-spreading of brine for de-icing purposes. Both sections would deem any operator that spreads brine on roads to have a “permit-by-rule” for the beneficial use of residual waste as long as the operator complies with the proposed Chapter 78 regulatory scheme.

DEP’s approach is troublesome for two reasons. First, because the proposed regulations do not ensure compliance with the DEP’s anti-degradation program or contain adequate chain-of-custody requirements, the risks of spreading brine on roads outweigh the benefits, which are largely confined to disposal-cost savings for the industry.

The second problem with sections 78.70 and 78.70a is a legal one. All wastewaters from oil and gas operations, including brine, are residual waste under the Pennsylvania Solid Waste Management Act (“SWMA”). It follows that any beneficial use of brine, including dust suppression and de-icing, is subject to regulation under the DEP’s SWMA regulations at 25 Pa. Code Chapter 287. These regulations do not currently allow permits-by-rule for road-spreading or any other beneficial use of brine. Beneficial uses of brine may be approved only under the general permit scheme set forth in Subchapter H of Chapter 287. Thus, the permit-by-rule scheme proposed in sections 78.70 and 78.70a is not only imprudent; it would also be illegal.

The DEP’s revisions to Chapter 78 should establish meaningful standards for the restoration of well sites and impoundment sites. (Sections 78.65, 78,59b, and 78.59c)

Act 13 requires two stages of restoration for well sites. On the one hand, section 3216(c) requires partial restoration after the conclusion of drilling and fracturing operations. On the other hand, section 3216(d) requires final restoration after the last well on the site has been plugged. The DEP is proposing to implement these sections in proposed regulation 78.65, which provides that a well site will be considered restored if it is returned to its “approximate original conditions, including preconstruction contours,” and if it “can support the original land uses to the extent practicable.” Similar language appears in the DEP’s proposed regulations for freshwater impoundments (78.59b) and centralized wastewater impoundments (78.59c), which also contain restoration requirements.

A return to original conditions, contours, and uses is a laudable goal for the restoration of well sites (both post-drilling and post-plugging) and impoundment sites. Currently, though, the DEP’s general restoration standards are practically unenforceable because the DEP’s regulations (i) fail to require environmental baseline site assessments, (ii) fail to require site-specific standards and criteria for restoration, (iii) fail to require environmental professionals to sign off on site restorations, and (iv) establish no process whereby the DEP can finally approve or disapprove restoration. The DEP should require site-specific baseline assessments and restoration plans for all well sites and impoundment sites, require professional certification that restoration goals have been met, and require DEP approval before a site can be considered to be restored.

The DEP’s proposed regulations regarding bonding are inadequate, because they fail to ensure that well sites and impoundment sites will be finally restored before they are released from operators’ bonds. (Subchapter G)

Under Act 13, an operator can obtain one blanket bond in the amount of $600,000 that covers all of an operator’s well sites in the Commonwealth. Despite the extremely low amount of this bonding requirement (and of all of Act 13’s bonding requirements), the bond is supposed to secure all of the operator’s legal duties regarding water supply replacement, restoration and well-plugging. 

The DEP may not have the power to require higher amounts for bonds than the Act 13 amounts, but it can and should establish a process to ensure that operators are not released from liability for particular well sites until those sites are properly restored. The DEP’s proposed revised bonding regulations (set forth in Subchapter G of Chapter 78) fail to do this. They condition release from liability only on the filing of a certificate of plugging. Release from liability should also be conditioned on the adequate final restoration of the well site after the last well on the site has been plugged. 

Andrew Sharp is PennFuture's Director of Outreach and works out of our Philadelphia office. 

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.

Quakes in Arkansas: New Cause for Concern About Drinking Water?

CNN reports that central Arkansas experienced over three dozen quakes in the past week. An Arkansas Geologic Survey scientist described that number of quakes occurring in such a short time as being "Powerball sort of odds," while emphasizing that he did not know whether the quakes were natural or man-induced. The two strongest tremors were measured at 3.4 and 3.5 on the magnitude scale.

This somewhat disturbing news came on the heels of better news for the gas industry last week, also out of Arkansas. In that news, Duke scientists sampled 127 drinking water wells over the Fayetteville Shale formation in central Arkansas and found no indication that fracking had contaminated any of the drinking water wells.

When talking quakes, one needs to distinguish between wells fracked for gas production and the use of deep wells for disposal of wastewater. One obvious difference is that fracking for production rapidly increases pressure for a short period of time and then releases that pressure as wastewater and production fluids flow back to the surface, whereas deep well disposal pressurizes rock formations for an extended period of time.

Thus far, scientists have made the link between quakes and deep disposal wells -- not production wells. The U.S. Geological Survey concluded that disposal wells near fault lines can cause earthquakes by increasing fluid pressure along faults, causing them to fracture. In 2011, scientists attributed a magnitude 5.6 quake in Oklahoma to wastewater disposal near a fault line. Columbia University scientists came to the same conclusion about earthquakes just outside of Youngstown, Ohio in 2011.

The concern is not solely, or even primarily, about personal and property damage at the surface, it is whether the quakes will cause fractures that ultimately lead wastewater to escape and contaminate fresh drinking water aquifers.

There is increasing evidence of a link between deep wastewater disposal wells and earthquakes, which emphasizes the need for the natural gas industry to fund research into developing better ways to efficiently manage its wastewater, other than by putting it down a hole under pressure.

New Duke study finds no contamination from fracking in Arkansas

Duke scientists sampled 127 drinking water wells over the Fayetteville Shale gas development area of Arkansas, where 4,000 wells have been drilled. The samples were analyzed for radioisotopes and chemicals and those results were compared to analysis of flowback water from gas wells. The scientists found no evidence that natural gas development using fracking contaminated shallow drinking water wells.

This is the same group at Duke's Nicholas School of the Environment that found direct evidence of methane contamination in drinking water wells near shale gas drilling sites in the Marcellus Shale basin of northeastern Pennsylvania, as well as possible connectivity between deep brines and shallow aquifers, but no evidence of contamination from fracking fluids.

According to Avner Vengosh, a professor of geochemistry who participated in the study, "the take-home message is that regardless of the location, systematic monitoring of geochemical and isotopic tracers is necessary for assessing possible groundwater contamination."

Pennsylvania does not require this sort of systematic, geochemical and isotopic monitoring.