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.

State audit criticizes DEP's handling of drilling industry

Yesterday, state Auditor General Eugene DePasquale released his report on the Special Performance Audit of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The audit made clear that DEP is falling well short in its regulatory oversight of the shale gas industry. 

The Auditor General indicated that while DEP disagreed with all of its findings, the Department was willing to accept a majority of its recommendations. He also indicated that while there have been improvements since the audit began in 2013, the “telltale sign” of the audit's success would be the implementation of its 29 recommendations. 

PennFuture's Vice President, John Norbeck, released this statement on the audit: 

“While we commend the employees at DEP for their ongoing efforts to address the environmental impacts of Pennsylvania's natural gas drilling boom, it's clear that the Department is not keeping up with its statutory role. The Auditor General noted in his report eight key findings that outlined, among other concerns, the Department's failure to issue administrative orders when violations occurred, effectively allowing the industry to police itself. Further, the report noted that the Department had no clear inspection schedule for gas wells, and evidenced a startling lack of transparency and accountability. When our citizens have greater access to information about kennel inspections and restaurant inspections than they do natural gas well inspections, we have a problem.” 

“DEP is severely underfunded and understaffed at a time when the natural gas industry in Pennsylvania is experiencing substantial growth. The Corbett administration should be increasing agency staffing, not decreasing it, and ensuring that DEP employees have the necessary tools to do their jobs. Anything less is a failure of leadership. We are again issuing the call for a drilling tax that will allow for rigorous monitoring of the natural gas industry as it makes drillers more accountable for the inevitable environmental damage that will result from this industrial activity.”  

“This report could not be clearer: DEP needs additional funding, more cops on the beat, and a robust monitoring system. While other gas drilling states are pursuing world-class inspection standards, Pennsylvania is falling short. We can ill afford to let another extractive industry run roughshod over the Commonwealth. We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past, mistakes for which we are still paying dearly.”

For more coverage of the audit: Philadelphia Inquirer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, StateImpact, Associated Press, Philadelphia City Paper.  

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

Gas development and forest fragmentation being studied

In our last post, we suggested that you take note of a study being conducted by the National Energy Technology Laboratory on the migration of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. The preliminary results indicate that frack fluids in one of eight shale gas wells being monitored did not migrate near shallow groundwater aquifers used by Pennsylvanians for drinking water. This week, we note that there is another important study under way relating to a different kind of migration.

Lillie Langlois, a Ph.D. candidate in wildlife and fisheries science at my alma mater, Penn State, is studying the impact of shale gas development on our state forests and wildlife, including migratory neotropical birds.

Forest covers more than 60 percent of Pennsylvania - nearly 17 million acres. A ton of wildlife depends on these vast non-fragmented forests for breeding, including migratory neotropical birds that travel from Central and South America to breed in Pennsylvania, such as the Indigo Bunting.

As of 2012, the state Deptartment of Environmental Protection (DEP) has issued more than 8,000 shale gas permits across the state, with more than 6,000 wells having been drilled. The majority of wells being drilled in northern tier counties center on Tioga and Bradford counties, which are also home to some of the largest unbroken blocks of trees in Pennsylvania. Each well constitutes five acres or more of a stone pad with associated roads and pipelines that result in forest fragmentation, which has varying impacts on wildlife.

As private land becomes more intensely developed, our public lands - State Forests and Game Lands - become that much more important for Pennsylvania in order to maintain its wildlife heritage. Not only that, it is increasingly apparent that migratory birds play a critical role in both local and global economies as pollinators, health wardens, restorers, fertilizers and sport and tourist attractions.

Pennsylvania has no state equivalent of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) that required the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources (DCNR) to take a thorough and comprehensive look, in a public way, at the environmental consequences of opening up our public lands to gas development.

As with the chemical migration study, this is once again the type of research needed to inform public policy decisions about the impacts and risks of shale gas development in Pennsylvania.

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.

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 ...