Blog Archives

Encana throws cold water on EPA report

image

Encana has lashed out at what it termed an “irresponsible” official draft report linking water contamination in the US to its hydraulic fracturing activities.

Eoin O’Cinneide 12 December 2011 11:56 GMT

The Canadian gas behemoth lambasted the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s report on water quality at Pavillion, Wyoming as containing “unacceptable inconsistency”, “conjecture” and “numerous flaws”.

On Thursday the EPA released the draft report which claimed that “ground water in the aquifer contains compounds likely associated with gas production practices, including hydraulic fracturing”. The EPA investigation also found synthetic chemicals such as glycols and alcohols, and benzene concentrations “well above Safe Drinking Water Act standards” as well as high levels of methane.

On Monday Encana hit back with a scathing attack on the EPA, pointing to perceived flaws with the body’s drilling methodology and a lack of a qualified opinion.

“Of most concern, many of the EPA’s findings from its recent deep monitoring wells, including those related to any potential connection between hydraulic fracturing and Pavillion groundwater quality, are conjecture, not factual and only serve to trigger undue alarm,” the statement read.

“Encana is especially disappointed that the EPA released its draft report, outlining preliminary findings, before subjecting it to qualified, third-party, scientific verification,” labeling this a “precipitous action”.

The Canadian giant pointed to “numerous discrepancies” in the report which it claimed “ignores well-known historical realities with respect to the Pavillion field’s unique geology and hydrology”.

The company claimed that, as far back at the 1880s, the US Geological Survey (USGS) reported poor quality water at Pavillion.

“More recent USGS reports dating back to 1959 have documented Pavillion water as unsatisfactory for domestic use due to high concentrations of naturally occurring sulfate, total dissolved solids and pH levels which commonly exceed state and federal drinking water standards.”

Encana continued: “Natural gas developers didn’t put the natural gas at the bottom of the EPA’s deep monitoring wells, nature did.

“Conclusions drawn by the EPA are irresponsible given the limited number of sampling events on the EPA deep wells and the number of anomalies seen in the data.”

The EPA had said its draft findings “are specific to Pavillion, where the fracturing is taking place in and below the drinking water aquifer and in close proximity to drinking water wells”. Such production conditions “are different from those in many other areas of the country”, the body claimed.

Last week, Encana spokesperson Doug Hock criticised the report, saying the EPA took “disparate pieces of data” and did not come to a clear conclusion.

“It’s interesting they talk about a ‘likely association’ [to fracking],” he said. “That’s not a conclusion, it’s a probability. They’re hedging their bets.”

The draft report will be available for public comment for 45 days from publication. To see a copy of the report, click here.

Source

Chesapeake: Report Finds No Major Influence from Gas Well Drilling on Drinking Water (USA)

image

The Center for Rural Pennsylvania on Tuesday released the findings of a study it conducted on the impact of Marcellus Shale drilling on drinking water supplies.

The research was sponsored by a grant from the center, which is a legislative agency of the Pennsylvania General Assembly.

The Center for Rural Pennsylvania is a bipartisan, bicameral legislative agency that serves as a resource for rural policy within the Pennsylvania General Assembly, its website indicates.

According to the report, this research studied the water quality in private water wells in rural Pennsylvania before and after the drilling of nearby Marcellus Shale gas wells. It also documented “both the enforcement of existing regulations and the use of voluntary measures by homeowners to protect water supplies.”

In its introduction, the authors said they evaluated water sampled from 233 water wells near Marcellus gas wells in rural regions of Pennsylvania in 2010 and 2011.

Among these were treatment sites (water wells sampled before and after gas well drilling nearby) and control sites (water wells sampled though no well drilling occurred nearby),” the study indicated. “Phase 1 of the research focused on 48 private water wells located within about 2,500 feet of a nearby Marcellus well pad, and Phase 2 focused on an additional 185 private water wells located within about 5,000 feet of a Marcellus well pad.”

During that phase, the researchers collected both pre- and post-drilling water well samples and analyzed them for water quality at various analytical labs. During Phase 2, the researchers or homeowners collected only post-drilling water well samples, which were then analyzed.

The post-drilling analyses were compared with existing records of pre-drilling water quality, which had been previously analyzed at state-accredited labs, from these wells.

According to the study results, approximately 40 percent of the water wells failed at least one Safe Drinking Water Act water quality standard, most frequently for coliform bacteria, turbidity and manganese, before gas well drilling occurred,” the report indicated. “This existing pollution rate and the general characteristics of the water wells, such as depth and construction, in this study were similar to past studies of private water wells in Pennsylvania.”

The study’s pre-drilling results for dissolved methane showed its occurrence in about 20 percent of water wells—although levels were generally far below any advisory levels.

Despite an abundance of water testing, many private water well owners had difficulty identifying pre-existing water quality problems in their water supply,” the report indicted. “The lack of awareness of pre-drilling water quality problems suggests that water well owners would benefit from unbiased and consistent educational programs that explain and answer questions related to complex water test reports.”

In this study, statistical analyses of post-drilling versus pre-drilling water “did not suggest major influences from gas well drilling or hydrofracturing (fracking) on nearby water wells, when considering changes in potential pollutants that are most prominent in drilling waste fluids.”

When comparing dissolved methane concentrations in the 48 water wells that were sampled both before and after drilling, the research found no statistically significant increases in methane levels after drilling—and no significant correlation to distance from drilling.

However, the researchers suggest that more intensive research on the occurrence and sources of methane in water wells is needed,” the report indicated.

The report then cited the Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Act of 1984, which indicates that gas well operators are “presumed responsible” for pollution of water supplies within 1,000 feet of their gas well for six months after drilling is completed if no pre-drilling water samples were collected from the private water supply.

This has resulted in extensive industry-sponsored pre-drilling testing of most water supplies within 1,000 feet of Marcellus drilling operations,” the report states. “However, the research found a rapid drop-off in testing beyond this distance, which is driven by both the lack of presumed responsibility of the industry and also the cost of testing for homeowners.”

The authors of the study said their research suggests that a standardized list of minimum required testing parameters should be required across all pre-drilling surveys to eliminate confusion among between water supply owners and water professionals.

The study indicates that this standardized list should include bromide. The research found that bromide levels in some water wells increased after drilling and/or fracking. These increases may suggest more subtle impacts to groundwater and the need for more research.

Bromide increases appeared to be mostly related to the drilling process,” the study indicated.

Additionally, “a small number of water wells also appeared to be affected by disturbances due to drilling as evidenced by sediment and/or metals increases that were noticeable to the water supply owner and confirmed by water testing results.”

Increased bromide and sediment concentrations in water wells were observed within 3,000 feet of Marcellus gas well sites in this study, suggesting “that a 3,000 foot distance between the location of gas wells and nearby private water wells is a more reasonable distance for both presumed responsibility and certified mail notification related to Marcellus gas well drilling than the 1,000 feet that is currently required.”

On the regulatory side, “the research found that regulations requiring certified mail notification of water supply owners, chain-of-custody water sampling protocols, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s investigation of water supply complaints were generally followed, with a few exceptions.

The study also concluded that “since voluntary stipulations were not frequently implemented by private water well owners” that more educational and financial resources should be made available to facilitate testing.

The authors were clear: “This research was limited to the study of relatively short-term changes that might occur in water wells near Marcellus gas well sites. Additional monitoring at these sites or other longer-term studies will be needed to provide a more thorough examination of potential water quality problems related to Marcellus gas well drilling.”

Source

%d bloggers like this: