New study shows toxins travel more than a mile from natural gas compression stations

Read more in the Denton Chronicle

Natural Gas Chemicals Disclosed-But Not Texas?

By Sierra Club – July 14, 2010

Natural Gas Drilling Company Announces Partial Disclosure of its “Fracking” Chemicals
Pennsylvania Residents Will Benefit, but What about Texas?

Fort Worth, Texas – Natural gas drilling company Range Resources announced today that it would voluntarily disclose the chemicals it uses in Pennsylvania in the hydraulic fracturing process used to extract natural gas. But the company did not agree to disclose the large amount of chemicals it uses elsewhere, including Texas.

“We call on Range Resources to bring the same level of transparency to Texas that they have announced for Pennsylvania,” said Jennifer Powis, Sierra Club’s Senior Regional Representative in Texas. “While we are glad to see the company announce this first step, it’s only through full, nationwide disclosure and tough regulation of fracking chemicals that we can protect water and communities.”

Fort Worth-based Range Resources is an active driller in Texas’ Barnett Shale, boasting on its website that it makes its "highest rate of return" in Texas.

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a process in which oil and gas companies try to get at hard-to-reach natural gas by pumping millions of gallons of water, chemicals and sand into a well at high pressures to create cracks in underground geological formations, freeing trapped gas and letting it flow to the surface. Currently there's a loophole in the Safe Drinking Water Act that allows oil and gas companies to
frack without any testing of how those chemicals affect our air and water.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking public input and suggestions on the design of their fracking research study. The EPA’s Science Advisory Board -- an independent, external federal advisory committee -- recently recommended that the scope of the upcoming EPA study of hydraulic fracturing be broad and encompass the entire life cycle of these "frack jobs. "

Energy needs to provide industry leadership in Barnett Shale

By MITCHELL SCHNURMAN - Fort Worth Star Telegram - July 14, 2010

Devon Energy Corp. works the Barnett Shale the right way. It's the biggest natural gas producer in the region and at the same time has become an industry leader on the environment.

With several initiatives, Devon, based in Oklahoma City, has cut greenhouse gases, limited emissions and recycled more than 400 million gallons of water used in "fracking" wells. Over the past decade, it has won numerous awards for its efforts, which boosted the bottom line as well as the environment.

On older wells, Devon is replacing one part -- a valve about the size of a pinkie finger -- that costs $300 and lets the company capture more gas and rack up carbon credits. One valve cuts methane emissions by 90 percent, which is the equivalent of taking 16 cars off the road.

No one doubts that Devon is a big believer in such initiatives. But last month, Devon wrote the state comptroller to oppose a bill that would require the valve replacements.

Devon also opposed a proposal for "green" well completions, even though it uses the technique on the vast majority of its Barnett Shale wells -- and the process generated $38 million in extra revenue in 2007.

Devon also shot down a call for vapor recovery units for storage tanks and the prospect of replacing combustion engines with electric motors.

The big hang-up? Devon wants the changes to be voluntary , not mandatory.

"There are spots where the technology works and spots where it doesn't," says Darren Smith, a manager of Devon's environmental, health and safety department. "Mandate these activities, and there can be a real business disruption."

In its letter, Devon said the mandates on emissions would ultimately hurt capital investment. It warned of fewer wells and jobs, lower taxes for cities, smaller royalties for residents and the risk that gas companies would shift operations.

Reciting that litany of unintended consequences is a business reflex whenever government proposes more regulation. But it's dismaying that Devon is falling back on that playbook, because right now, the industry needs leaders that will set the bar high -- not just for their companies but for every player.

After the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico, everybody knows that you can't rely on voluntary compliance for anything. Before that, we had the meltdown on Wall Street, the mortgage lending debacle, the never-ending buildup of housing inventory. All drove home a message that no less an economic authority than Alan Greenspan later articulated: Companies will sacrifice a lot, even their future, for a quick buck.

Closer to home, in the Barnett Shale, there have been reasons to lose faith, too -- or at least to insist that any trust be verified. Several communities, led by the small town of Dish, have said residents are suffering ill effects from the gas business.

Yet state regulators consistently say all is well. This year, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality lost much of its credibility when it told the Fort Worth City Council that the air was safe -- and failed to disclose that it later learned that three air samples scored high for benzene, a cancer-causing agent.

Follow-up tests showed that contaminant levels fell, but the commission never shared the complete information with city or state leaders. The test results came to light because of an internal complaint and fraud investigation, which was revealed by Forrest Wilder at the Texas Observer.

The disclosure enraged state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, who had met with the commission's top officials repeatedly and never heard a hint about a discrepancy. Now she may introduce a bill to make it a crime for public officials to withhold information that affects public health.

Fort Worth and Dish are pursuing their own air quality tests because residents don't have confidence in the state's results. Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency is also wading in. Wilder reported that environmentalists had pleaded with the EPA to intervene in Texas issues because the state agency was far too cozy with industry.

The clash between the state and the feds was on display last week when the EPA held a huge public meeting in Fort Worth to hear residents' stories about gas drilling. An EPA study is focusing on water issues in fracking, but the EPA's Dallas office is also looking into air quality.

The day before, Gov. Rick Perry pre-empted the EPA event by launching a Texas initiative on energy. He's pulling together university programs and experts to study the Gulf, gas drilling and more. Perry wants industry to underwrite the program, unbothered by the conflict that creates.

How low is the trust factor in the Barnett Shale? It says a lot when separate government entities -- the environmental commission, the EPA and individual cities -- are spending taxpayer money on the same thing.

In this setting, gas companies can't hew to the "voluntary, not mandatory" line, not if they hope to win public support. Devon may have the money and wherewithal to adopt eco-friendly policies, but others don't.

The solution is not to let companies off the hook. Force them to figure out ways to meet higher standards.

"What Devon does is not the norm in the industry," says Ramon Alvarez, senior scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund in Austin. "That's why regulations are worth having -- to bring the whole industry along."

By design, Devon avoided drilling in Pennsylvania, New York and Colorado, where opposition emerged with a vengeance. That was a savvy business move, but the controversy has come home now.

So why not champion the solutions?

Mitchell Schnurman's column appears Sundays and Wednesdays. 817-390-7821

Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram:

Fracking not a cleaner alternative -Cornell prof. - Effects of fractured gas produces same emissions as coal

By Jon Hurdle - Reuters - Mar 31, 2010
* Fractured gas produces 30 pct more emissions than oil

* Gas industry argues no hard data to support study

PHILADELPHIA, March 31 (Reuters) - Natural gas obtained by the controversial technique of hydraulic fracturing may contribute significantly to greenhouse gas emissions and so should not be considered as a cleaner alternative to coal or oil, according to a Cornell University researcher.

Although natural gas, when burned, produces only about half of the carbon dioxide emissions of coal, that calculation omits greenhouse gas emissions from the well-drilling, water-trucking, pipeline-laying, and forest-felling that are part of the production of hydraulically fractured natural gas, Ecology Professor Robert Howarth argues in a new paper.

Combining the effects of combustion, production, distribution, and leaked methane from hydraulically fractured natural gas gives the fuel about the same greenhouse gas emissions as coal and about 30 percent more than diesel or gasoline, Howarth says in the draft paper published in mid-March.

"A complete consideration of all emissions from using natural gas seems likely to make natural gas far less attractive than other fossil fuels in terms of the consequences for global warming," Howarth writes.

Energy companies are scrambling to develop vast reserves of natural gas from deep shale beds in many U.S. states including Texas, Louisiana, and Pennsylvania. Experts say shale gas could meet national demand for a century while helping to reduce carbon emissions and reducing petroleum imports.

"Government and industry should not be moving ahead on the basis of what is already misleading and incomplete information," Howarth told Reuters. He urged a moratorium on further development in the multibillion-dollar industry until more is known about its greenhouse gas emissions.

The damaging nature of gas from fracturing, or "fracking", undermines claims that it is a "transition" fuel between carbon-intensive sources like coal, and renewables such as solar and wind, Howarth said in the paper.

Citing preliminary data, Howarth estimates total greenhouse gas emissions from hydraulically fractured natural gas may be equivalent to 33 carbon grams of CO2, slightly more than 31.9 grams for coal, and well above the 20.3 grams for diesel or gasoline.

The data are partly based on methane leakage of 1.5 percent of natural gas consumed, a figure assumed by the federal government.

Claims by energy companies that natural gas is a cleaner alternative to coal and oil are further undermined by leaked methane - the principal component of natural gas -- which is many times more potent as a greenhouse gas component than CO2, argued Howarth, who has served on National Academy of Sciences panels looking into climate change, and has been a Cornell professor since 1985.

Dan Whitten, a spokesman for America's Natural Gas Alliance, an industry group, dismissed Howarth's assertions as preliminary and speculative and not backed by hard data and said the professor's statement undermined its own credibility.

"We concur with the author's own assessment that this two-page draft is 'highly uncertain', that the 'numbers should be treated with caution', and that there is 'no rigorous estimate' to support its conclusions," Whitten said.

"Natural gas is twice as clean as coal and is available here in America in significant abundance today," Whitten added.

"Alongside the development of renewables, natural gas has a key role to play in transitioning our nation to a low-carbon economy."

Howarth acknowledged his statement contains many qualifiers but argued that there are sufficient concerns about the greenhouse gas emissions of hydraulically fractured natural gas to warrant early publication.

Critics also claim that fracking contaminates ground water with chemicals that are forced deep underground along with water and sand to fracture the shale and release its gas. (Editing by Marguerita Choy)
Read more in Reuters

Drilling dispute's hidden conflict: Who's going to run Texas?

By MITCHELL SCHNURMAN - Fort Worth Star Telegram - July 10, 2010
Science and politics go together about as well as natural gas and drinking water.
The combination can be dangerous, with long-term consequences. In the deep-red state of Texas, where history and economy intertwine with oil and gas, new clashes over science and politics are bubbling to the surface, threatening even more confusion.
It's tough enough for an average citizen to make a judgment on gas drilling. Advocates insist it's safe and there's never been a case of groundwater contamination. Residents cite cancer-causing emissions and say, "Check my back yard -- and take a swig of this water."
Science is supposed to settle the matter, drawing a bright line between things to fear and fear-mongering. But now we also have to decide whom to believe and whom to trust.
The Environmental Protection Agency came to Fort Worth last week, holding a public meeting as part of a new study on gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing. About 600 people turned out to hear stories about "fracking," and many implored the EPA to ride to the rescue because they felt betrayed by their state.
The day before, Gov. Rick Perry went to Dallas to unveil an effort to pull together all of Texas' resources on energy, including programs at major universities. Perry was responding to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, but part of his mission is to stay on top of fracking -- and keep the natural gas flowing in Texas.
There was nothing coincidental about Perry's timing or the EPA kicking off its study in the home of the Barnett Shale. The conflict within the conflict: Who's going to run Texas?
Perry wants to reassert the state's primacy over all things oil and gas, and extend his vision of states' rights. The federal government, through the EPA, wants to show that it can make meaningful progress in even the most hostile territory.
On the political front, this clash has been at a high pitch since President Barack Obama took office 18 months ago (although Perry knocked heads with the EPA during the Bush administration, too). Perry rejected more than $500 million in unemployment insurance funds, saying too many strings were attached. He passed on the chance for federal education grants and pushed Texas to be among the states suing over the healthcare law.
Oil and gas should afford more room for a middle ground. Texas has a long track record developing and monitoring gas drilling. And Perry, like many local leaders, has experience balancing the economy and the environment.
At the EPA, the focus is solely on the environment, so it seems that both sides could learn from the other.
Instead, the debate over fracking could devolve into one more battle between Washington and a conservative Southern governor. That could generate more heat than light, at a time when communities want to get a handle on the true threats of drilling and protect their residents.
In North Texas, the Barnett Shale has been a huge boost to jobs and income, but more people are worrying about the long-term risks. The Gulf oil spill has become a reminder that serious dangers can lurk beyond public view.
The oil and gas industry wants states to manage fracking, fearful of new federal standards. Officials from the Texas Railroad Commission, as well as representatives from Oklahoma and Louisiana, were quick to defend their regulatory records at the EPA hearing.
The EPA didn't criticize the states directly. Plenty of citizens did that, telling stories of contaminated water, polluted air and dying cattle -- and alleging that state agencies had ignored them. Many also believe that businesses and their lobbyists have too much clout with state legislatures.
The scope of the EPA study is a bit unnerving, given the amount of fracking that's already occurred. Plus, it won't be completed for 21/2 years.
Some questions listed by the EPA: How are well casings constructed? How is dirty fracking fluid managed? What are the gaps in current knowledge?
Sounds like basic stuff -- facts that really should have been settled long ago.
The Barnett Shale has about 14,000 gas wells, and we're now asking what we don't know about the environmental impact?
Parker County Judge Mark Riley, one of dozens of speakers at the hearing, blamed the states and the gas industry for the current crisis in confidence.
"The states just haven't been responsive to citizens," Riley said.
The gas industry stirred fears by refusing to disclose chemicals used in the fracking process, he said. And states lost credibility by considering exemptions on air permits. If state regulators and industry had been more aggressive on safety and the environment, federal intervention would be unnecessary -- and Riley wants to keep the feds out.
Mark Brownstein, deputy director for energy at the Environmental Defense Fund, said the nuclear industry took its own aggressive steps after the Three Mile Island accident. One bad player damaged the entire industry, so companies set higher standards and posted annual rankings.
Investors watch those scores closely, and Brownstein says that people get fired if performance drops.
He says states and industry have legitimate reasons to police the gas drilling business. They have more experience, more staff and can tailor regulations to their geology.

"But if they fail to make sure that it's being done properly, this will be a self-fulfilling prophecy -- the federal government will step in," he said.
Reach that point, and even a Texas governor won't be able to push back.

Mitchell Schnurman's column appears Sundays and Wednesdays. 817-390-7821

Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram

Fort Worth meeting on gas drilling process draws heated response Read more: http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/07/08/2323407/fort-worth-meeting-on-ga

BY JACK Z. SMITH - Fort Worth Star Telegram - July 8, 2010
FORT WORTH -- It wasn't an event for the meek and indecisive, nor for those seeking middle ground.
A capacity crowd of about 600 gathered at the downtown Hilton Fort Worth hotel Thursday night, and dozens of speakers voiced either grave concerns about -- or enthusiastic support for -- the increasingly controversial hydraulic fracturing process that has made possible drilling booms such as the Barnett Shale play in North Texas.
The federal Environmental Protection Agency called the meeting -- the first of four around the nation -- to determine the scope of a study that will focus on the issue of whether the fracturing process poses a significant threat in terms of groundwater contamination. But the study also will examine other issues, including the large volume of water used in "fracking" wells.
"I'm sending out an SOS to the EPA," said fervent fracking critic Sharon Wilson, a local representative of the Texas Oil and Gas Accountability Project, which favors strong federal regulation of the energy industry and full disclosure of chemicals used in fracturing.
"We need you here. We need you on the ground. We need you now," Wilson told EPA officials, as supporters applauded enthusiastically.
But Angie Burckhalter, speaking on behalf of the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association and the Independent Petroleum Association of America, also elicited enthusastic clapping after describing fracking as "a safe, proven technology that has been used over one million times for 60 years."
Fracturing is vital to producing "clean energy that makes modern life possible," she said.
Boos and cheers
Texas Railroad Commission Chairman Victor Carrillo also strongly defended fracturing, saying that without it, gas recovery from tight rock formations such as the Barnett Shale -- the leading gas-producing area in the nation -- would be "impossible." There are no documented cases of fracturing causing groundwater contamination in Texas, he said, drawing both cheers and boos.
Meeting moderator Adam Saslow repeatedly implored audience members to tone down, urging them to employ "manners your mother taught you."
Calvin Tillman, an outspoken critic of the oil and gas industry and mayor of the Denton County community of Dish, held up a container of murky water and said it came from the home of a resident who fears his water well has been contaminated by Barnett Shale operations.
In considering stronger regulation, the foremost concern should not be about what might "negatively affect Chesapeake or Devon," Tillman said, referring to two large gas producers. Instead, the emphasis should be on negative effects on drinking water, he said.
America's Natural Gas Alliance, which represents 34 independent gas exploration and production companies, defended fracking and pledged to "be a constructive participant in the progress of the [EPA] study going forward."
"We are confident that a scientifically sound and data-driven examination will provide policymakers and the public with even greater reassurance of the safety of the longstanding practice," ANGA said in a statement.
How it works
Hydraulic fracturing is a technique in which huge volumes of water and sand, along with a much smaller amount of chemicals, are injected deep underground to fracture rock formations and allow gas and oil to flow into a wellbore.
Concerns have been expressed about the potential for fracturing to pollute groundwater; about surface spills of well wastewater that include chemicals used in fracturing; and about the volume of water that fracturing requires -- often 3 million or more gallons for a single well.
JACK Z. SMITH, 817-390-7724


Read more in the Fort Worth Star Telegram