The Environmental Protection Agency released an analysis on hydraulic fracturing that could potentially be game-changing — at least in the court of public opinion. The agency suggested this week that the process caused groundwater contamination in Pavillion, a small town in central Wyoming.
Hydraulic fracturing, commonly called “fracking,” forces large amounts of chemicals, water and sand into the ground to free up natural gas or oil that would otherwise be inaccessibly trapped in rock formations.
The EPA’s recent claim has gotten a lot of publicity. Since 2004, the agency has repeatedly said that fracking poses little or no threat to underground drinking water. The new analysis calls that into question.
But these findings may well be based in shoddy scientific analysis — or plain old politics. They come from a preliminary report, released before it had been peer-reviewed. And there are numerous other reasons to question the study’s credibility.
Consider: After existing water sources in Pavillion, Wyo., failed to show contamination from fracking, the EPA drilled two new test wells out of town. In constructing these, it used dense soda ash, which has a pH of 11.5, and stainless steel equipment, which is often chemically treated. Both these factors may have contaminated the samples and skewed the results.
Both EPA wells were deeper than the town’s drinking-water sources — and both were drilled into a natural hydrocarbon-bearing formation. Small wonder, then, that the EPA found hydrocarbons in their test samples.
Furthermore, the EPA’s conclusion is based on a mere four samples collected over the last two years. Different labs reported different results in analyzing these samples. In one lab, even “blank” clean samples used for comparison were reported as contaminated, which raises serious questions about the accuracy of the examination.
Given the apparent holes in this analysis, it’s not shocking that the agency didn’t let Wyoming’s governor or the state’s study group on the issue preview the report, despite a long history of cooperation with the EPA.
Wyoming is understandably peeved. Gov. Matt Mead has called the EPA’s findings “scientifically questionable.”
The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, numerous state environmental agencies, and the Bureau of Land Management have all questioned the EPA’s conclusions.
So why did the EPA rush to release the preliminary report, despite no peer review and findings that were inconclusive at best?
The EPA is looking to expand its regulatory reach in several ways beginning next year. For the oil and natural gas industry, the combination of fracking and horizontal drilling has been the last decade’s most important innovation, allowing developers to reach previously inaccessible energy sources. Regulation of it falls primarily to the states. Perhaps the EPA can’t stomach that.
The oil-and-gas industry has already sued the agency over other attempted power-grabs. But if the EPA can inspire public fear of fracking — however irrational — it may have more success in increasing its regulatory power.
Never mind that this would be bad for the nation’s economy. The shale-gas boom, largely driven by fracking, has generated over 600,000 jobs nationwide since 2002. Those are high-paying jobs, with an average hourly wage of $23.16, according to a new study by forecaster IHS Global Insight. The industry also paid $18.6 billion in taxes and royalty revenues last year — more than it takes to run the entire Environmental Protection Agency.
The Pavillion report reeks of politics. If the EPA is willing to stoop this low on matters of science, does it really deserve to get more regulatory power?
Hydraulic fracturing, commonly called “fracking,” forces large amounts of chemicals, water and sand into the ground to free up natural gas or oil that would otherwise be inaccessibly trapped in rock formations.
The EPA’s recent claim has gotten a lot of publicity. Since 2004, the agency has repeatedly said that fracking poses little or no threat to underground drinking water. The new analysis calls that into question.
But these findings may well be based in shoddy scientific analysis — or plain old politics. They come from a preliminary report, released before it had been peer-reviewed. And there are numerous other reasons to question the study’s credibility.
Consider: After existing water sources in Pavillion, Wyo., failed to show contamination from fracking, the EPA drilled two new test wells out of town. In constructing these, it used dense soda ash, which has a pH of 11.5, and stainless steel equipment, which is often chemically treated. Both these factors may have contaminated the samples and skewed the results.
Both EPA wells were deeper than the town’s drinking-water sources — and both were drilled into a natural hydrocarbon-bearing formation. Small wonder, then, that the EPA found hydrocarbons in their test samples.
Furthermore, the EPA’s conclusion is based on a mere four samples collected over the last two years. Different labs reported different results in analyzing these samples. In one lab, even “blank” clean samples used for comparison were reported as contaminated, which raises serious questions about the accuracy of the examination.
Given the apparent holes in this analysis, it’s not shocking that the agency didn’t let Wyoming’s governor or the state’s study group on the issue preview the report, despite a long history of cooperation with the EPA.
Wyoming is understandably peeved. Gov. Matt Mead has called the EPA’s findings “scientifically questionable.”
The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, numerous state environmental agencies, and the Bureau of Land Management have all questioned the EPA’s conclusions.
So why did the EPA rush to release the preliminary report, despite no peer review and findings that were inconclusive at best?
The EPA is looking to expand its regulatory reach in several ways beginning next year. For the oil and natural gas industry, the combination of fracking and horizontal drilling has been the last decade’s most important innovation, allowing developers to reach previously inaccessible energy sources. Regulation of it falls primarily to the states. Perhaps the EPA can’t stomach that.
The oil-and-gas industry has already sued the agency over other attempted power-grabs. But if the EPA can inspire public fear of fracking — however irrational — it may have more success in increasing its regulatory power.
Never mind that this would be bad for the nation’s economy. The shale-gas boom, largely driven by fracking, has generated over 600,000 jobs nationwide since 2002. Those are high-paying jobs, with an average hourly wage of $23.16, according to a new study by forecaster IHS Global Insight. The industry also paid $18.6 billion in taxes and royalty revenues last year — more than it takes to run the entire Environmental Protection Agency.
The Pavillion report reeks of politics. If the EPA is willing to stoop this low on matters of science, does it really deserve to get more regulatory power?
