 |
| Source |
 |
| Source |
"How in god’s name can the oil industry dump sh*t in our drinking water and not tell us what it is?" shouted Alan Hofer, who lives near the center of the sites being investigated by the EPA. (1)Which causes this to happen...
 |
| Source |
So it starts with a complaint, an investigation, and then a recommendation. In the process it leads to this:
"It starts to finger-point stronger and stronger to the source being somehow related to the gas development, including, but not necessarily conclusively, hydraulic fracturing itself," said Nathan Wiser, an EPA scientist and hydraulic fracturing expert who oversees enforcement for the underground injection control program under the Safe Drinking Water Act in the Rocky Mountain region. The investigation "could certainly have a focusing effect on a lot of folks in the Pavillion area as a nexus between hydraulic fracturing and water contamination." (2)On the surface, it would appear that contamination found in the well water used for drinking by the good folks in Pavillion, Wyoming, is proof that the oil and gas drilling and fracturing has caused harm. But I have been in this business for a long time to know that contaminated groundwater comes from a number of sources, all of which are present in the town of Pavillion.
- Underground fuel tanks
- Septic tanks
- Spills
- Open pits
- Natural
 |
| Source |
"Pointing fingers" is what we try to avoid. It is easy to blame oil & gas wells since there are so many of them in the area (211 active gas wells, 30 plugged and abandoned wells, and 20 wells identified as “shut-in.” [2])
Again, though, on the surface it looks pretty evident as to who the culprit is, which is why anti-gas drilling folks like to use reports such as this and this, as evidence to prove how bad hydraulic fracturing is to public health and the environment.
I have read all of the reports issued by the EPA on their findings regarding groundwater contamination in Pavillion, Wyoming. I've tried to be as objective as I could in all of this but I am just not seeing the problem with hydraulic fracturing that is being put forward by groups like Earthworks and ProPublica.
Here is why.
First: Without knowing the condition of the water before fracing has occurred it is impossible to say what contaminants were introduced by the procedure.
Second: With over 211 active wells in the Pavillion area, if hydraulic fracturing was introducing chemicals into the groundwater you would see a whole bunch of chemicals in the groundwater. Look at this map of the wells in Pavillion.
Those blue dots are oil and gas wells. The yellow/orange dots are where the wells where samples were collected. If hydraulic fracturing was by its nature dangerous to groundwater you would see contamination of fracturing fluids in the groundwater.
This is not to say that drilling could - or does not - contribute to contamination. Any activity involving chemicals has that potential. Just like any airplane has the potential to crash, airplanes by their nature fly and continue to fly day in and day out. Would we condemn all air travel as unsafe because a plane crashes? Same can be said with hydraulic fracturing. The hydraulic fracturing procedure, when performed correctly ("best practices"), does not pose a threat to public health through contamination of groundwater.
That's kind of a bold statement to make. But like the title of this post says, I'm not seeing it.
But what about the contamination found in the wells of Pavillion? There are a number of reasons possible, with the most likely being oil and gas operations in the area. Huh? Let me be clear on this. Hydraulic fracturing by itself does not appear to cause or contribute to groundwater contamination. Drilling operations using industry best practices appear to be keeping contaminants out of ground and surface water. Operators who use industry best practices are not the concern. It's the companies who left the "37 pits (which formerly held drilling fluids) [that] have been identified in the area" who are most likely responsible for contaminating the shallow surface water that mixes with the drinking water source. Those, along with septic tanks and storm water runoff, have contaminated the drinking water aquifer - not hydraulic fracturing fluids.
The current operator, Encana, is now responsible for these pits. Older properties, especially those with environmental concerns are referred to as "legacy properties" and are cleaned up and closed to meet state, federal, and industry standards.
So yes, there is contamination in the drinking water wells, but not to any significant health concern other than taste and odor. And no, in spite of what ProPublica contends, will not "have a focusing effect on a lot of folks in the Pavillion area as a nexus between hydraulic fracturing and water contamination (3)." Go up and read the ATSDR recommendations.
In spite of the anecdotal evidence presented by Earthworks and ProPublica, I'm not seeing it. I'm being as objective here as I can. Here, in a nutshell, is why:
If hydraulic fracturing was causing contamination to drinking water at any significant frequency, then the more wells drilled would mean the more drinking water wells contaminated and/or the higher the concentration of chemicals. The fact that:
TIC analyses indicate two compound types that occur in several wells and might not be attributable to well components: adamantanes and 2-butoxyethanol phosphate. Adamantanes are hydrocarbons that occur naturally in crude and gas condensate; they could be used in hydrocarbon fingerprinting analyses to determine if oil and gas production is impacting wells. 2-butoxyethanol is found on the EPA Study List of Drilling Fluid Compounds (EPA 2008) and could react with naturally occurring phosphates to create 2-butoxyethanol phosphate. (4)Would also mean that it, and other fracturing fluids would show up in water wells where drilling takes place. In simple terms, the level of contaminants and/or number of contaminated drinking water wells would be proportional to the number of hydraulic fracturing that has taken place in an area if drilling was inherently harmful to underground sources of drinking water.
I'm not seeing it.
Here is what ProPublica states: (5)
Thanks in large part to hydraulic fracturing, natural gas drilling has vastly expanded across the United States. In 2007, there were 449,000 gas wells in 32 states, thirty percent more than in 2000.Almost half a million gas wells and yet ProPublica reports:
The [Pavillion] study, which is being conducted under the Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund program, is the first time the EPA has undertaken its own water analysis in response to complaints of contamination in drilling areas, and it could be pivotal in the national debate over the role of natural gas in America’s energy policy.Almost half a million gas wells and only one study. Now go back up to the top of this post and read the ATSDR recommendations. Now go read the ATSDR report. Why are they recommending not drinking the water? Because of the contaminants of concern found in the 41 Pavillion drinking water wells sampled. And what were those CoCs?
 |
| Source |
That's right, the COCs are sodium, fluoride, sulfate, magnesium, selenium, nitrate, and one well with TPH.
I'm not seeing it because there is nothing to see.
But ProPublica says:
Of particular concern were compounds called adamantanes, a natural hydrocarbon found in gas that can be used to fingerprint its origin, and 2-BE, listed as a common fracturing fluid in the EPA’s 2004 research report on hydraulic fracturing. (6)I'll cover that in a future post, right now I'm going to switch gears and talk about a recent paper that was presented at the 2011 AHMP Conference in Austin.
Next post: Laundered Shop Towels: Making a mountain out of a pile of clean rags.
http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/
http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/PavillionAllTables.pdf
.
No comments:
Post a Comment