The EPA's Fracking Scare
Breaking down the facts in that Wyoming drinking water study.
Wall Street Journal
19 December 2011
The shale gas boom has been a rare bright spot in the U.S.
economy, so much of the country let out a shudder two weeks ago
when the Environmental Protection Agency issued a "draft" report
that the drilling process of hydraulic fracturing may have
contaminated ground water in Pavillion, Wyoming. The good news is
that the study is neither definitive nor applicable to the rest of
the country.
"When considered together with other lines of evidence, the data
indicates likely impact to ground water that can be explained by
hydraulic fracking," said the EPA report, referring to the
drilling process that blasts water and chemicals into shale rock
to release oil and natural gas. The news caused elation among
environmentalists and many in the media who want to shut down
fracking.
More than one-third of all natural gas drilling now uses fracking,
and that percentage is rising. If the EPA Wyoming study holds up
under scrutiny, an industry that employs tens of thousands could
be in peril.
But does it stand up? This is the first major study to have
detected linkage between fracking and ground-water pollution, and
the EPA draft hasn't been peer reviewed by independent scientific
analysts. Critics are already picking apart the study, which
Wyoming Governor Matt Mead called "scientifically questionable."
The EPA says it launched the study in response to complaints
"regarding objectionable taste and odor problems in well water."
What it doesn't say is that the U.S. Geological Survey has
detected organic chemicals in the well water in Pavillion
(population 175) for at least 50 years—long before fracking was
employed. There are other problems with the study that either the
EPA failed to disclose or the press has given little attention to:
• The EPA study concedes that "detections in drinking water wells
are generally below [i.e., in compliance with] established health
and safety standards." The dangerous compound EPA says it found in
the drinking wells was 2-butoxyethyl phosphate. The Petroleum
Association of Wyoming says that 2-BE isn't an oil and gas
chemical but is a common fire retardant used in association with
plastics and plastic components used in drinking wells.
• The pollution detected by the EPA and alleged to be linked to
fracking was found in deep-water "monitoring wells"—not the
shallower drinking wells. It's far from certain that pollution in
these deeper wells caused the pollution in drinking wells. The
deep-water wells that EPA drilled are located near a natural gas
reservoir. Encana Corp., which owns more than 100 wells around
Pavillion, says it didn't "put the natural gas at the bottom of
the EPA's deep monitoring wells. Nature did."
• To the extent that drilling chemicals have been detected in
monitoring wells, the EPA admits this may result from "legacy
pits," which are old wells that were drilled many years before
fracking was employed. The EPA also concedes that the inferior
design of Pavillion's old wells allows seepage into the water
supply. Safer well construction of the kind normally practiced
today might have prevented any contaminants from leaking into the
water supply.
• The fracking in Pavillion takes place in unusually shallow wells
of fewer than 1,000 to 1,500 feet deep. Most fracking today occurs
10,000 feet deep or more, far below drinking water wells, which
are normally less than 500 feet. Even the EPA report acknowledges
that Pavillion's drilling conditions are far different from other
areas of the country, such as the Marcellus shale in Pennsylvania.
This calls into question the relevance of the Wyoming finding to
newer and more sophisticated fracking operations in more than 20
states.
***
The safety of America's drinking water needs to be protected, as
the fracking industry itself well knows. Nothing would shut down
drilling faster, and destroy billions of dollars of investment,
than media interviews with mothers afraid to let their kids brush
their teeth with polluted water. So the EPA study needs to be
carefully reviewed.
But the EPA's credibility is also open to review. The agency is
dominated by anticarbon true believers, and the Obama
Administration has waged a campaign to raise the price and limit
the production of fossil fuels.
Natural gas carries a smaller carbon footprint than coal or oil,
and greens once endorsed it as an alternative to coal and nuclear
power. But as the shale gas revolution has advanced, greens are
worried that plentiful natural gas will price wind and solar even
further out of the market. This could mean many more of the White
House's subsidized investments will go belly up like Solyndra.
The other big issue is regulatory control. Hydraulic fracturing
isn't regulated by the EPA, and in 2005 Congress reaffirmed that
it did not want the EPA to do so under the Safe Drinking Water
Act. The states regulate gas drilling, and by and large they have
done the job well. Texas and Florida adopted rules last week that
followed other states in requiring companies to disclose their
fracking chemicals.
But the EPA wants to muscle in, and its Wyoming study will help in
that campaign. The agency is already preparing to promulgate new
rules regulating fracking next year. North Dakota Governor Jack
Dalrymple says that new EPA rules restricting fracking "would have
a huge economic impact on our state's energy development. We
believe strongly this should be regulated by the states." Some
3,000 wells in the vast Bakken shale in North Dakota use fracking.
By all means take threats to drinking water seriously. But we also
need to be sure that regulators aren't spreading needless fears so
they can enhance their own power while pursuing an ideological
agenda.