Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on January 5, 2014
U.S. EPA unlikely to step up fracking enforcement
Federal regulators are unlikely to step up enforcement of potential water contamination cases linked to natural gas drilling – despite new concerns about water safety – given a lack of political will and limited resources to pursue such cases, analysts said.
A report quietly made public on Christmas Eve by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s internal watchdog brought back into the spotlight concerns about the effects on water quality from the drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.
The report said the EPA was justified in issuing an emergency order in 2011, asking the oil and gas driller Range Resources to improve monitoring and provide clean water to a family in Parker County, Texas, whose water supply had been contaminated with methane as a result of nearby fracking.
The EPA Inspector General also criticized the agency for backing off enforcement of the complaint in 2012.
At the time, the EPA said that as a compromise for dropping its lawsuit it would work with Range to examine the effects of fracking on drinking water in a future national study on fracking and groundwater.
An EPA spokeswoman said the agency will continue to share any additional sampling data and relevant information provided by Range and other parties with the state regulator, the Texas Railroad Commission. A spokesman for Range said the company has not heard back from the EPA regarding the study.
Some see the inspector general’s report as justification for the EPA to more aggressively enforce pollution cases related to fracking, but other analysts and former officials say the agency lacks both the desire and capacity to do so.
Fracking is regulated on a state-by-state basis. The only national EPA rule so far, on air emissions from operations, known as “green completions,” will take effect in 2015.
The Texas contamination case was the third instance in which the EPA backed off of an initial assertive stance and instead deferred to local regulators.
“As a result of three relatively unflattering outcomes, EPA may aim before it shoots in the future, but politics has been a factor, too,” said Kevin Book, an energy analyst at Clearview Energy Partners. Ahead of congressional elections in November, Book said “similar activism from EPA is fairly unlikely.”
GOOD NEWS, BAD NEWS
Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council, an environmental group, said she doubts the agency will reverse what she called the trend of “systematically pulling back from high-profile investigations” because fracking is the “third rail” of U.S. energy policy.
Specifically, she said, President Barack Obama may be hesitant to send any signal that federal regulators will step in to slow the expansion of natural gas production.
The natural gas boom has been a bright spot for the Obama administration. Lower gas prices have helped create a domestic manufacturing renaissance and lower household energy bills while cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
The administration is also aware of industry groups sounding the alarm over prospects for a national study of fracking and groundwater due to be finished in 2015 to open the door to new federal rules on fracking.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donohue warned last month that the study could be used to justify clamping down on the drilling techniques that have sparked a surge in U.S. oil and natural gas output.
Steve Everly, a spokesman for pro-fracking group Energy in Depth, said energy firms worry about EPA overreach.
“There may be a culture of ‘shoot first, ask questions later’ that even the Office of the Inspector General sadly thinks is permissible,” Everly said. “I always thought EPA’s mission was to protect the environment, not attack productive industries.”
At the same time, fracking draws strong opposition from environmental groups that constitute part of the political base for Obama as well as Democrats in general.
“I do hope the agency sees the particular inspector general report as providing them some additional validation and support to take future actions when necessary,” said Al Armendariz of the Sierra Club, a former regional EPA official.
Armendariz was head of the EPA’s Dallas regional office when the original order was made against Range Resources. He resigned in 2012 after Sen. James Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, released a video of him saying the agency should “crucify” oil and gas firms that violated environmental laws.
While Armendariz called for a more assertive EPA, he told Reuters that technical challenges dog the agency’s enforcement efforts. Cases related to energy extraction are more of a challenge than those related to clean air regulation because there are more “technical hurdles and challenges in the subsurface,” he said.
The EPA has had a much lower rate of enforcement at energy extraction sites than it does at power plants or industrial facilities that have polluted the air, for example.
In 2012, the EPA inspected 870 energy extraction sites and concluded enforcement actions against just 53. The agency investigated 836 coal-fired electric units for potential air pollution incidents and controlled 461 of them.
One former EPA official said investigating energy extraction sites requires a lot of money and thousands of staff – both in short supply given tight budgets.
“To do a case where it involves taking significant environmental samples in the field – it is very expensive,” the official said.
10 Comments on "U.S. EPA unlikely to step up fracking enforcement"
J-Gav on Sun, 5th Jan 2014 7:50 pm
… and let the Earth-rape continue unabated … Why am I not surprised?
rockman on Sun, 5th Jan 2014 7:55 pm
Fantastic article about frac’ng. Especially since the example they chose to use, the Parker County, Texas situation, has been proven to be a scam. I assume they knew it was a hoax created to make money in a lawsuit but figured folks would drink the Kool-Aid without doing a 30 second web search to find the truth. And if you read all the way down you’ll discover the truly great lie this article pushes: neither the EPA nor the lying sack of sh*t landowner have cited that drilling method as a cause of the water well contamination. IOW the scam lawsuit had nothing to do with frac’ng in the first place. The really great news IMHO is that the oil company is suing the liars for millions. And based upon the article I found there’s good chance the company will win and financially ruin the scam artists. Unfortunately often many companies don’t go after crooks like this once they prove their innocence.
And if you pay attention the EPA has also tried to back away from the scam. Another point this deceitful article doesn’t bother to point out.
The TRUTH: A judge has concluded that a Parker County resident, owner of a methane-contaminated water well, created a “deceptive video” that was “calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning.” State District Judge Trey Loftin said well owner Steve Lipsky collaborated with Alisa Rich, an environmental consultant.
Loftin made his remarks in an order, signed Thursday, denying a motion by Lipsky and Rich to dismiss Range Resources’ multimillion-dollar counterclaim against them. Fort Worth-based Range filed the counterclaim in July after Lipsky and his wife, Shyla Lipsky, sued it for $6.5 million in Loftin’s 43rd State District Court in Weatherford. The couple contends that two Range natural gas wells contaminated their water well with methane, a primary component of natural gas.
Lipsky declined to comment on Loftin’s order and remarks, referring a reporter to his attorneys, Allen Stewart and David Ritter, who did not respond to requests for comment.
On Dec. 7, 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency issued an emergency order against Range, contending that two of its Barnett Shale gas wells “caused or contributed” to contamination of water wells belonging to Lipsky and a neighbor. But John Blevins, the EPA official who signed the order, later backtracked somewhat, saying the Range wells “may” have caused or contributed to the contamination.
In his order, Loftin expressed concern that Lipsky, “under the advice or direction” of Rich, attached a hose to the water well’s gas vent — not to a water line — and then lit the gas from the hose’s nozzle. “This demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning,” the judge wrote. Loftin also cited evidence that Rich had sought to mislead the EPA.
Loftin said e-mails between Lipsky and Rich about the video could reasonably lead people to believe that a “conspiracy to defame Range” exists. “The hose pictured … is not a water hose at all, but is used solely for the purpose of venting gas” from the Lipskys’ water well, the company said in its counterclaim. Range is seeking $4.2 million in actual damages, plus unspecified punitive damages, for legal costs and damage to its reputation. Evidence was uncovered showing a gas vent line was installed on the Lipskys’ water well years before Ranger drilled their wells.
Range maintains that its gas wells did not cause the contamination and is battling the EPA in federal courts to have the order against the company dismissed. Range has said that water wells are often vented to prevent gas from building up, a practice employed long before Range began drilling around Parker County.
Loftin’s order is the second major legal setback to the Lipskys in three weeks. On Jan. 27, 2012, the judge threw out the Lipskys’ $6.5 million lawsuit against Range, ruling that the couple lacked legal jurisdiction to sue because the Texas Railroad Commission had determined in March that Range’s gas wells were not responsible for contaminating their well.
In its March ruling, the Railroad Commission agreed with its staff and Range that gas in the water wells likely migrated from the shallow Strawn formation, which is only hundreds of feet deep. It is more than a mile above the Barnett Shale, the source of the Range wells’ gas.
Range says gas from shallow formations had appeared in south Parker County water wells for many years before Range began drilling in the area. But Lipsky said his water well had generally functioned capably for several years and began having serious problems only after the two nearby Range gas wells were drilled.
While the video posted on YouTube was labeled “Hydraulic Fracturing turns gardenhose to flamethrower,” neither the EPA nor the Lipskys have cited that drilling method as a cause of the water well contamination.
rockman on Sun, 5th Jan 2014 7:56 pm
J-Gav – That Kool-Aid taste good? LOL.
Danlxyz on Sun, 5th Jan 2014 8:32 pm
Rockman,What do you think about having the oil company test all water wells within 1 mile before the well is permitted, then after it is fracked and maybe once a year until P&A. Have the info kept in a public database so there wouldn’t be needless duplication by other drillers.
This at least would establish a good baseline.
rockman on Sun, 5th Jan 2014 11:06 pm
Dan – I was making such recommendations to land owners in PA for several years. They have the same problem in PA as we have in many areas in Texas: very abundant naturally occurring shallow methane. I’m not talking about just high concentrations in the fresh water aquifers but actual NG reservoirs in the aquifers. I once helped develop a NG field in Texas at 260′. Fresh water wells in that area reached down to 800′. And last year I drilled a well that found a 20′ NG reservoir at 46′. Not enough pressure to be commercial but enough to blow up a house and kill everyone if it leaked to the surface.
And not just test the water predrill for methane but also for contaminants such as those used in frac’ng and naturally occurring nasties. We take a similar approach when shooting seismic data. We’ll put recorders near homes that measure the energy from the explosive charges we use. Helps to deal with landowners that claim the seismic crew damaged their property. It’s a guarantee that every seismic shoot will bring put multiple claims.
And it’s not that drilling and seismic hoots don’t ever produce collateral damage…it does happen. But not on a significant scale. Ask your self a simple question: given the many hundreds of stories you’ve probably heard about frac’ng induced damage of any sort how many stories included INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY DOCUMENTED PROOF? I’ve asked others the same question and surprisingly haven’t gotten a single response. I actually know of some instances. Like I said sh*t does happen besides best efforts to avoid it. I know of frac’ng accidents that have actually killed. Killed hands doing the frac but dead is dead, eh? Just like the 11 died on the Macondo blowout. I live less than 50 miles from a small rural community that was completely abandoned due to an underground hydrocarbon storage facility that leaked to the surface. We try to avoid screwing up for a variety of reasons. We don’t succeed 100% of the time…no one does.
Makati1 on Sun, 5th Jan 2014 11:38 pm
Money for the EPA cut? Sure! They cut it by $2B this year while adding $20B to the military budget. You know where the elite priorities are….war, not your safety, but your death.
J-Gav on Sun, 5th Jan 2014 11:40 pm
Rockman – Didn’t quite catch your drift … been a long time since I’ve drunk any Kool-Aid.
GregT on Mon, 6th Jan 2014 12:32 am
“Everly said. “I always thought EPA’s mission was to protect the environment, not attack productive industries.””
Hmmm. Since when was industry, productive or not, good for the natural environment?
Harquebus on Mon, 6th Jan 2014 2:24 am
Thanks rockman.
rockman on Mon, 6th Jan 2014 2:36 pm
J-Gav – Perhaps I teased too hard but I got the impression that you tend to accept many of the frac’ng horror stories without much scrutiny. The story I highlighted isn’t unique but one of the best authentications I’ve seen. As I said in the vast majority of such fraud cases the companies don’t go after the con men. The only reason this story is out there is because Ranger is going after the liars and it’s in the public court records. In my career I’ve seen probably a dozen such situation where out of court settlements kept the truth hidden.