Pa. DEP head lobbies for gas drilling
www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20111123%2FNEWS%2F111230310%2F-1%2FNews
By Christina Tatu
Pocono Record Writer
November 23, 2011
Natural gas drilling would provide jobs, money and, contrary to naysayers, does not harm the environment, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Secretary Michael Krancer said at East Stroudsburg University Tuesday.
Krancer’s visit was just days after the Delaware River Basin Commission postponed a vote to allowing drilling in the Delaware River watershed.
Krancer had few comments on the delayed vote, but said it was “politically motivated” and that opponents are basing their opinions on misguided ideology, instead of facts.
The commission, which has board members representing the governors of Delaware, New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania and the White House, abruptly postponed the vote last week after Delaware Gov. Jack Markell said he would vote against the rules, making the outcome uncertain.
Pennsylvania’s Gov. Tom Corbett is a supporter of natural gas drilling and was expected to vote in favor of the regulations.
Krancer, who was at ESU for a forum on sustainability, said Pennsylvanians are sitting on a huge natural resource, one so abundant, it would give the state a powerful edge in the energy market. Pennsylvania could sell energy to its large urban neighbors, like Boston and New York City, he said.
“If we are able to gather this resource and use it, we’ll clean the air, we’ll be more healthy and economically healthy,” he said.
Opponents say the method of extracting the gas, known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, endangers drinking water. The method involves pumping large amounts of water and chemicals thousands of feet underground to break up the Marcellus shale and release the natural gas.
Krancer dismissed those concerns Tuesday.
“The chemicals make up half a percent of what’s in fracking material, and many of those chemicals found in the water are food grade,” he said.
He also said it’s untrue the chemicals from fracking could end up in drinking water since they are pumped so far underground.
In Monroe County, there aren’t any private properties within the Delaware River basin that are large enough to allow for fracking, said DEP spokeswoman Colleen Connolly. However, property owners could band together if they were interested in permitting drilling on their land. There are properties in Pike County that are large enough to allow drilling, she said.
Pesticide-resistant weeds closing in on Pennsylvania
live.psu.edu/story/56464#nw69
Friday, November 18, 2011
Credit: USDA Early growth stage of water-hemp, a weed that is becoming resistant to certain herbicides.
UNIVERSITY PARK, Pa. — The challenge of weeds that have become resistant to glyphosate — the active ingredient in Round-Up herbicide — has become an evolving national threat, with new challenges emerging and spreading annually. At least three glyphosate-resistant species on the horizon for Pennsylvania require new strategies to combat them, according to a specialist in Penn State’s College of Agricultural Sciences.
Penn State Extension weed scientist Dwight Lingenfelter said several resistant species currently are approaching Pennsylvania. These weeds were controlled routinely over the years with glyphosate-based herbicide programs, but now the effectiveness of those programs is dwindling.
“There’s a species called Palmer pigweed or Palmer amaranth, which is a huge problem — especially in cotton-growing regions,” he said. “In the past, farmers were spending only maybe $20 to $30 an acre to control pigweed; now they’re up over $90 to $100 an acre, because of its resistance to a number of herbicide modes of action.
“Currently, we don’t have any major outbreaks of it in Pennsylvania, but we’re hearing reports from Delaware and Maryland that they’re starting to find Palmer pigweed, and it’s more than likely to creep into our cropping systems, especially in the southern tier of the state.”
Lingenfelter said a second resistant species slowly invading the state, water-hemp, already is creating big problems in the Midwest and South and is resistant to numerous herbicides as well.
“We had a person bring in a sample of water-hemp this summer, so we know there are some populations in our state currently,” he said. “We’re also seeing glyphosate-resistant species of horseweed or marestail spreading throughout the state — it’s very common in the mid-Atlantic region and Midwestern states.”
While it might sound like it’s losing its effectiveness, glyphosate is still vital in “burn-down” weed-control programs, which work by killing any vegetation on a treated field.
“It’s still a very effective herbicide for a number of species in our area,” he said. “It controls a number of weeds in the burn-down period and still is a foundation or backbone for many weed-control programs. We recommend using other herbicides in combination with it to control weeds that aren’t being controlled by glyphosate alone.
“We work with farmers to explain various programs that use different techniques and management options in a situation like that,” he said. “Generally, we recommend that if you’re using glyphosate in the burn-down, you also should use something such as 2-4-D or a product like Valor XLT Sharpen prior to planting soybeans. We also encourage tank-mixing herbicides or using pre-packaged products so multiple modes of action are in the weed-control program.”
The mode of action is the way an herbicide affects the weed to kill it, Lingenfelter explained. “There are about 10 different major modes of action available, and you can combine those to get control of the particular species you’re going after. We highly recommend having at least two modes of action that act on that particular weed species.”
Newer herbicide products introduced in the last five years can help control resistant species in burn-down programs. But Lingenfelter pointed out that, while “new” products are being introduced on the market, the industry hasn’t produced a formulation that employs a new mode of action in more than 15 years.
“The reality is that many companies are repackaging products and giving them different trade names so it looks like we have a lot of new herbicides when in reality we do not. And if they were to discover a new mode of action in some lab today, we wouldn’t reap the benefits of it for at least 10 years, because it takes that long to get through all of the testing phases and field trials before it would hit the market.”
Lingenfelter said the diversity and rotation of crops grown in Pennsylvania gives it an advantage over states in the Midwest and South when it comes to fighting resistant weeds. Corn, cotton and soybeans are the primary field crops in the Midwest and South, and more than 90 percent of the acres are sprayed with glyphosate, so weeds are pushed to develop resistance.
“Here in Pennsylvania, we typically rotate between corn, soybeans, alfalfa, small grains and sometimes various vegetable crops, depending on the area of the state,” he said. “Because of this, we use a variety of weed-control methods. Not only does this allow for different herbicides and a rotation of herbicide modes of action, but it allows for other weed-management techniques — such as mowing forage crops or the addition of cover crops — and other cultural tactics such as variations in planting date, seeding rate or row spacing.
“We still use a lot of Round-Up-ready corn and soybeans, but glyphosate is not the primary means of control. Also, different types of weeds are common in different crops depending on life cycles and growth habit. Our diverse rotations should hold off resistance pretty well, but we’ll have to start thinking about different techniques to handle it.”
Lingenfelter said Pennsylvania growers can learn a lesson from watching the experience of their neighbors in states to the south and west. “The majority of the resistance problem in these other regions is they were relying on a single mode of action — that being glyphosate.”
For more information, contact Dwight Lingenfelter at 814-865-2242 or dxl18@psu.edu.
Federal environmental and health agencies collect data from Dimock families
citizensvoice.com/news/federal-environmental-and-health-agencies-collect-data-from-dimock-families-1.1232108#axzz1e4UZpkud
By Laura Legere (Staff Writer)
Published: November 14, 2011
Officials from federal environmental and public health agencies met with residents of Dimock Township late last week to discuss the impacts of Marcellus Shale natural gas drilling and to gather water-test results from families affected by methane migration.
Three representatives from the Environmental Protection Agency and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry visited Thursday with families around Carter Road, an area of Susquehanna County where state regulators have linked increased methane in water supplies to faulty natural gas wells.
“They wanted information; they wanted documentation,” Dimock resident Scott Ely said. “They are looking to see if there is any environmental impact that would threaten life or health.”
Efforts to reach an EPA spokeswoman were unsuccessful Friday, when government offices were closed for Veterans Day.
Natural gas drilling is largely regulated in Pennsylvania by the state Department of Environmental Protection, but the EPA is conducting a multiyear study to determine if there is a link between hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and contaminated water supplies.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry is an arm of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that works to prevent harmful exposures to toxic substances.
Dimock resident Victoria Switzer said the agencies were interested in copies of water sample results from her well, including data gathered by scientists not affiliated with the state or natural gas drilling contractors.
She also outlined her concerns that the state Department of Environmental Protection weakened enforcement actions against Cabot Oil and Gas Corp., the operator that DEP deemed responsible for increased methane in water supplies. Cabot denies it impacted the water and says the elevated methane pre-existed its operations.
“The watchdog is licking the hand of the thief that is giving it a steak,” she said. “We want to get this issue to a high place.”
Efforts to reach a DEP spokeswoman were unsuccessful Friday.
llegere@timesshamrock.com
Gas impact fee bill wins in House
www.timesleader.com/news/Gas_impact_fee_bill_wins_in_House_11-18-2011.html
By Steve Mocarsky smocarsky@timesleader.com
November 18, 2011
Most area legislators oppose the measure as favoring drillers. Next stop is Senate.
HARRISBURG – The state House of Representatives on Thursday passed GOP-backed House Bill 1950, which imposes an impact fee on gas drillers.
The bill passed 107-76 and now moves to the Senate for consideration.
State Rep. Tarah Toohil, R-Butler Township, was the only legislator from Luzerne County to vote in favor of the bill, which would levy a $40,000-per-well fee in the first year of production that would decline $10,000 each year in the second through fourth years and remain at $10,000 through the 10th year. About 75 percent of the revenue would go to local governments, and 25 percent to statewide initiatives.
“This legislation is a fair compromise for the people of Pennsylvania and the natural gas industry,” Toohil said. “I believe it protects both our citizens and the environment and, at the same time, allows for continued job growth in an industry that holds such great economic promise for our state.”
State Rep. Karen Boback, R-Harveys Lake, said she prided herself “on voting with my constituents on this issue” when she cast a no vote. “Of the hundreds of comments I have received, not one person suggested I should vote for this legislation.”
Boback said the bill does not go far enough to protect the water and air, and “usurps the rights of local governments. While I did support amendments to increase local control in comparison to the original language, these revisions did not go far enough.”
Boback said the bill fails to address gas pipelines laid in non-drilling counties. Luzerne County, in which pipelines and compressor stations are planned, “deserves an opportunity to collect an impact fee and rectify any problems caused by the industry,” she said.
State Reps. Phyllis Mundy, D-Kingston, and Eddie Day Pashinski, D-Wilkes-Barre, respectively called the bill “an early Christmas present for big oil and gas” and “a bad bill for the taxpayers.”
Mundy said the bill “raises little revenue from corporations that are making huge profits from the Commonwealth’s natural resources, erodes local control over drillers and gives the secretary of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources nearly unfettered power to take land for this industry” through eminent domain.
Pashinski said the bill’s effective maximum tax rate of 1 percent per well was “extremely low” compared to other natural gas producing states, such as Texas’ 5.5 percent and West Virginia’s 6 percent rates.
“Polls show the public overwhelmingly supports a fair tax on drillers, but this bill is nothing more than political cover for many Republicans,” he said.
The Senate on Tuesday separately passed a companion bill that removed more authority over drilling from local government. The two bills must now be reconciled.
Key Delaware River gas drilling vote postponed
www.timesleader.com/news/ap?Key-Delaware-River-gas-drilling-vote-postponed&a=2209283&e=30097
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) — With two of five members opposed, a multistate agency that has spent years developing regulations for natural gas drilling in the Delaware River watershed has delayed a key vote scheduled for Monday.
The Delaware River Basin Commission announced Friday it was postponing a vote on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, to give the agency’s five commissioners more time to review the draft regulations. No new meeting date has been set.
The rules need three votes to pass, though the commission had been hoping for unanimous support.
Delaware Gov. Jack Markell told the commission Thursday that he would not support the regulations because of concerns over drinking water protections. Earlier, New York had announced it would vote no. New Jersey and Pennsylvania had not announced how they would vote, but it was believed both would vote yes. It’s not known how the fifth member, the federal Army Corps of Engineers, was planning to vote.
Fracking involves injecting water, sand and chemicals underground to break up shale and rock, releasing natural gas.
The commission manages water use for the Delaware River Basin, and environmentalists say the drilling would threaten drinking water for 15 million people.
The proposed rules would allow 300 natural gas wells in the Delaware River Basin, followed by a commission review before more are phased in. The eventual total could reach many thousands of wells.
Pennsylvania already allows drilling outside the watershed area. New Jersey has no Marcellus shale, so its interest in the issue revolves around water quality.
The federal Environmental Protection Agency is studying the effects of fracking, with a draft report due next year.
Environmental groups have gathered more than 73,000 signatures on a petition opposing drilling in the watershed.
New Waterless Fracking Method Avoids Pollution Problems
insideclimatenews.org/news/20111104/gasfrac-propane-natural-gas-drilling-hydraulic-fracturing-fracking-drinking-water-marcellus-shale-new-york
By Anthony Brino, InsideClimate News and Brian Nearing, Albany Times-Union
Nov 6, 2011
Little-noticed drilling technique uses propane gel, not water, to release natural gas. Higher cost, lack of data and industry habit stand in the way.
Tanks labeled as "Brine Water" on a property in Dimock, Pa. In conventional fracking, wastewater can be several times saltier than sea water and tainted with chemicals and mild radioactivity.
ALBANY, N.Y.—In the debate over hydraulic fracturing for natural gas, two facts are beyond dispute: Huge amounts of water are used to break up gas-bearing rock deep underground and huge amounts of polluted water are returned to the surface after the process is complete.
Tainted with chemicals, salts and even mild radioactivity, such water, when mishandled, has damaged the environment and threatened drinking water, helping fuel a heated debate in New York and other states over whether gas drilling is worth its risk to clean drinking water, rivers and streams.
Now, an emerging technology developed in Canada and just making its way to the U.S. does away with the need for water. Instead, it relies on a thick gel made from propane, a widely-available gas used by anyone who has fired up a backyard barbecue grill.
Called liquefied propane gas (LPG) fracturing, or simply “gas fracking,” the waterless method was developed by a small energy company, GasFrac, based in Calgary, Alberta.
Still awaiting a patent in the U.S., the technique has been used about 1,000 times since 2008, mainly in gas wells in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and New Brunswick and a smaller handful of test wells in states that include Texas, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Oklahoma and New Mexico, said GasFrac Chief Technology Officer Robert Lestz.
Like water, propane gel is pumped into deep shale formations a mile or more underground, creating immense pressure that cracks rocks to free trapped natural gas bubbles. Like water, the gel also carries small particles of sand or man-made material—known as proppant—that are forced into cracks to hold them open so the gas can flow out.
Unlike water, the gel does a kind of disappearing act underground. It reverts to vapor due to pressure and heat, then returns to the surface—along with the natural gas—for collection, possible reuse and ultimate resale.
And also unlike water, propane does not carry back to the surface drilling chemicals, ancient seabed salts and underground radioactivity.
“We leave the nasties in the ground, where they belong,” said Lestz.
Read Full Article
New Waterless Fracking Method Avoids Pollution Problems, But Drillers Slow to Embrace It
Lawyer: Dimock water unsafe; deliveries should go on
thetimes-tribune.com/news/gas-drilling/lawyer-dimock-water-unsafe-deliveries-should-go-on-1.1227996#axzz1cqCyvXh1
By Laura Legere (Staff Writer)
Published: November 5, 2011
Attorneys for Dimock Twp. families suing a natural gas driller over contamination claims are asking the state’s chief oil and gas regulator to reverse his decision allowing fresh water deliveries to the families to end.
Tate Kunkle, a lawyer representing the 11 families in a suit against Cabot Oil and Gas Corp., wrote to the head of the Department of Environmental Protection’s Office of Oil and Gas Management on Thursday to rebut Cabot’s claim that the families’ well water is safe and that proposed treatment systems work.
He cited tests over the past 22 months showing elevated levels of lead, aluminum, iron, toluene, methane and manganese in some of the water supplies, as well as detection of chemicals found in synthetic sands, hydraulic fluid and antifreeze that “are not naturally occurring and that are associated with natural gas drilling.”
“The fact is that the water in the Dimock/Carter Road Area remains unsafe for drinking, even with Cabot’s proposed ‘whole house treatment system,’ ” Mr. Kunkle wrote.
The DEP determined that faulty Cabot Marcellus Shale wells allowed methane to seep into aquifers in the Susquehanna County township, a finding the company disputes. Families have been relying on deliveries of fresh bottled and bulk water for drinking, bathing and cooking for nearly three years.
On Oct. 19, the agency found that Cabot had met the obligations necessary to end delivery of the water supplies outlined in a December settlement between Cabot and DEP. The settlement was reached after the Rendell Administration abandoned plans to build a public waterline to the homes and sue Cabot for the costs.
Those obligations included funding escrow accounts for 19 affected families with twice the tax-assessed value of their properties and offering to install methane-removal systems in the homes. The obligations did not include restoring the residents’ well water to its original quality or reducing levels of dissolved methane in the aquifer.
A DEP spokeswoman referred to a recent letter to the editor published by DEP Secretary Michael Krancer in the (Chambersburg) Public Opinion for his comments on the issue.
Mr. Krancer wrote that Cabot met the requirements outlined in the December agreement “and the law, in turn, requires DEP to follow its obligations – which we have done.
“The real issue here is not safety,” he continued. “It’s about a very vocal minority of Dimock residents who continue to demand that taxpayers should foot the bill for a nearly $12 million public waterline along Route 29 to serve about a dozen homes.”
Cabot argues that the methane in Dimock water supplies occurs naturally and is not a result of its gas-drilling activities. It has produced data showing naturally occurring methane is detectable in 80 percent of Susquehanna County water supplies.
The company plans to stop the fresh water deliveries on or before Nov. 30.
Cabot spokesman George Stark said Friday that the company is reviewing Mr. Kunkle’s letter. “Cabot continues to fully cooperate with the DEP regarding our operations,” he said.
In his letter, Mr. Kunkle quoted email messages from a Dimock resident who accepted a Cabot treatment system and found it failed to treat turbidity and metals in her water.
Mr. Kunkle accused Cabot of misrepresenting or selectively reporting water-quality test results and charged DEP with colluding with and “coddling” Cabot while abandoning the regulatory requirement for drillers to restore or replace tainted water supplies.
“To be sure, PADEP has taken a stance: profits of a private corporation from Texas are more important than the constitutional right to pure water of the Commonwealth’s residents,” he wrote.
Contact the writer: llegere@timesshamrock.com
Pa DEP to Issue Technical Guidance on Wastewater Treatment Permitting
www.sacbee.com/2011/11/03/4028012/pennsylvania-dep-to-issue-technical.html
By Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Published: Thursday, Nov. 3, 2011 – 8:53 am
HARRISBURG, Pa., Nov. 3, 2011 — /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The Department of Environmental Protection will soon offer new technical guidance designed to ensure compliance with updated wastewater-treatment regulations.
The guidance explains revisions to Title 25 Chapter 95 of the Pennsylvania Code that require new or expanded sources of natural gas wastewater to treat the wastewater to the federal drinking water standard of less than 500 milligrams per liter of total dissolved solids prior to discharge.
“This technical guidance is another step in this administration’s continuing efforts to protect Pennsylvania’s water resources,” DEP Secretary Mike Krancer said. “This document clearly communicates to any facility seeking to increase its discharge of treated wastewater or to any facility seeking to start accepting wastewater that they must meet certain obligations.”
Krancer also said the guidance will ensure consistency in the department’s decision-making process in issuing these permits.
In April 2011, Krancer called on the natural gas industry to stop sending unconventional gas production wastewater to facilities that were permitted prior to revisions to the Chapter 95 regulations, which took effect in August 2010. The industry quickly complied. To ensure the continued protection of state waterways, the department is now issuing this guidance to explain the regulations governing new and expanded sources of discharged wastewater.
The technical guidance document, to be published in the Nov. 12 Pennsylvania Bulletin, will assist DEP’s permitting staff in implementing the new total dissolved solids effluent standard for discharges of treated natural gas wastewater. The revised Chapter 95 regulations ensure that drinking water, waterways, and watersheds in the state are not impacted by high levels of total dissolved solids. The most common total dissolved solids in Pennsylvania are chlorides and sulfates.
The guidance also clarifies that all facilities that accept shale gas extraction wastewater that has not been fully pre-treated to meet the discharge requirements must develop and implement a radiation protection plan. Such facilities must also monitor for radium-226, radium-228, uranium and gross alpha radiation in their effluent.
The department will host web-based trainings in the coming weeks to explain the implementation of the guidance document to treatment plants and their customers.
DEP regulates the treatment and discharge of industrial wastewater in the state as part of its administration of the federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
For more information, visit www.dep.state.pa.us or call 717-783-4693.
Media contact: Kevin Sunday, 717-787-1323
SOURCE Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Critic disputes Penn State findings and thinks potential well water contamination overlooked
www.timesleader.com/news/Study__Gas_drilling_not_polluting_water_11-04-2011.html
Posted: November 4
By Steve Mocarsky smocarsky@timesleader.com
Staff Writer
Study: Gas drilling not polluting water
The natural gas industry is pointing to a Penn State University study to boost its mantra that gas drilling is not linked to pollution of water wells.
But a drilling critic says the study found increased levels of a harmful chemical in water wells after gas drilling occurred nearby. He thinks other aspects of the study overlooked potential well water contamination.
“The Impact of Marcellus Gas Drilling on Rural Drinking Water Supplies” was authored by Penn State water quality experts led by Elizabeth Boyer, associate professor of water resources, director of the Pennsylvania Water Resources Research Center and assistant director of the Penn State Institutes of Energy & Environment.
The research was sponsored by a grant from the Center for Rural Pennsylvania, a bipartisan legislative agency within the state General Assembly. The goal was a large-scale study of water quality in private water wells in rural Pennsylvania before and after nearby Marcellus Shale drilling.
For the study, the researchers evaluated water sampled from 233 water wells near gas wells in 2010 and 2011. The first phase focused on 48 private water wells located within 2,500 feet of a nearby shale well pad. The second phase focused on 185 private water wells located within 5,000 feet of a shale well pad.
During the first phase, researchers collected pre- and post-drilling water well samples and analyzed them for water quality. In the second phase, researchers or homeowners collected only post-drilling water well samples and analyzed them for water quality. The post-drilling analyses were compared with existing pre-drilling test records.
John Krohn, spokesman for Energy In Depth Northeast Marcellus Initiative, noted excerpts from the report that said analysis of the water tests “did not suggest major influences from gas well drilling (or hydraulic fracturing) on nearby water wells.”
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is the high-pressure injection of millions of gallons of water, sand and chemical additives deep underground to extract natural gas trapped in shale rock.
The study also found no clear link between methane migration and natural gas production, Krohn said.
Methane is a gas that some residents living near gas wells have lit on fire as it escaped from their kitchen faucets along with their well water.
Krohn also noted 40 percent of the water wells tested failed at least one safe drinking water standard, mostly for coliform bacteria, turbidity and manganese, before drilling occurred. This shows a need for uniform water well construction standards that don’t exist in Pennsylvania, as well as a need for education of water well owners.
Dr. Tom Jiunta, founder of the local Gas Drilling Awareness Coalition, said study findings of increased levels of bromide and sediment/metal levels in wells after drilling/fracking were of particular concern to him.
“This finding alone shows that many wells near drilling sites are impacted by migration of underwater brines and possible drilling muds, both hazardous to drinking water supplies,” he said.
Bromide itself is not a health threat, but elevated levels “can create an indirect health issue as it may combine with other elements in water to cause carcinogenic compounds,” the report states.
Jiunta said nearly 80 percent of the water wells were not pre-tested for methane, bromide or oil/grease because well owners couldn’t afford the expensive tests. “This skews the data,” he said.
Jiunta also said the study considers only short-term changes in well water after nearby gas wells were drilled – less than three-month time periods. He said that time period is “inadequate for determining contamination,” citing a Temple University engineering professor who said most problems with underground water contamination would most likely take several years to be detected.
The Penn State study was released as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency begins a federal probe into whether hydraulic fracturing is spoiling and diminishing drinking water supplies.
The agency’s final study plan was released Thursday. The first results will be available in 2012.
EPA to probe gas drilling’s toll on drinking water
www.chron.com/news/article/EPA-to-probe-gas-drilling-s-toll-on-drinking-water-2250420.php
MICHAEL RUBINKAM
November 4, 2011
ALLENTOWN, Pa. — The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday released the outlines of its long-awaited probe into whether hydraulic fracturing — the unconventional drilling technique that’s led to a boom in domestic natural gas production — is contaminating drinking-water supplies.
Investigators will try to determine the impact of large-scale water withdrawals, aboveground spills of drilling fluids, and the fracturing process itself on water quality and quantity in states where tens of thousands of wells have been drilled in recent years.
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves the high-pressure injection of millions of gallons of water, along with sand and chemical additives, deep underground to extract natural gas trapped in shale rock. Energy companies have greatly expanded their use of fracking as they tap previously unreachable shale deposits, including the lucrative Marcellus Shale formation in Pennsylvania and neighboring states.
The industry has long contended that fracking is safe, but environmentalists and some residents who live near drilling sites say it has poisoned groundwater. The EPA study, mandated by Congress last year, is the agency’s first look at the impact of fracking in shale deposits.
EPA will examine drilling sites in Pennsylvania, Colorado, Louisiana, North Dakota and Texas. The earliest results will be available in 2012.
Industry groups said Thursday they are confident the study will vindicate their position that fracking does not harm the environment or human health.
“The industry has taken the lead in working with state regulators to constantly improve operations, industry practices and guidelines as well as improve communications with local communities,” said Stephanie Meadows, a senior policy adviser at the American Petroleum Institute.
The institute and five other industry groups recently complained to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson that agency staff began collecting field data and water samples months before the study plan was finished. The industry groups, in an Oct. 20 letter to Jackson, also questioned the study design itself and said it could undermine the credibility of the findings.
The EPA said it began work over the summer so that it could finish the study by 2014.
The federal agency has studied fracking before, in 2004, looking at its use in coalbed methane deposits. It concluded then that the technology is safe, but its methodology was widely criticized as flawed.
The new EPA study will look at the entire water lifecycle of hydraulic fracturing in shale deposits, beginning with the industry’s withdrawal of huge volumes of water from rivers and streams and ending with the treatment and disposal of the tainted wastewater that comes back out of the wells after fracking. Researchers will also study well design and the impact of surface spills of fracking fluids on groundwater.
The EPA has taken steps recently to boost federal regulation of fracking, announcing it will develop national standards for the disposal of the briny, chemical-laced wastewater and proposing for the first time to control air pollution at oil and gas wells, particularly where fracking is used.
Drillers have resisted enhanced federal regulation, saying it should be left up to individual states.