Conversation generated at the EQC Annual Meeting: Mr. Joice, Thank you for the opportunity to provide additional details that weren’t covered in my talk because of time constraints. The Kentucky Geological Survey is a research and public service center within the University of Kentucky. Our mission is to provide citizens, researchers, industry, and government with scientifically-based information on Kentuckys geology and mineral, energy, and water resources. The KGS is committed to providing fact-based, balanced information and discussions of sometimes controversial issues. Characterization and protection of water resources is as much of our mission as energy-related issues. First: methane contamination of groundwater I stated that the flaming faucet incident in the Gasland film is not related to hydraulic fracturing. My finding is based on an investigation of the incident by the regulatory authority in Colorado, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, cogcc.state.co.us/. In response to the claims made in the Gasland film, the COGCC issued a summary of their previous investigations, cogcc.state.co.us/library/GASLAND%20DOC.pdf. In summary, they investigated complaints from 3 landowners during 2008 and 2009 (before the 2010 release of Gasland). In their report the COGCC cites a 1976 Colorado Division of Water Resources and a 1983 USGS report that both found “common” and “troublesome” amounts of methane in the water. The COGCC concluded that one landowner’s water contained methane attributable to oil and gas development and a settlement with the company was reached. The dissolved methane in the water supply at the property where the flaming faucet was depicted was found to be naturally occurring and related to the presence of coals within the aquifer. Records for the Markham water supply well (the owner shown in Gasland) indicate it penetrated four coals and the dissolved gas was finger-printed to those coals. As the Colorado report states (addressing comments by Prof. Anthony Ingraffea of Cornell) there may be conditions under which biogenic gas could migrate from drilling or fracturing operations but those (Ingraffea’s) comments do not “suggest that these circumstances apply to the Markham and McClure wells, nor does it address the extensive scientific literature establishing that biogenic methane is naturally present in the aquifer.” I never stated that drilling and fracturing could not cause the migration of methane into groundwater, I stated only that the depiction in Gasland was misleading. I stand by that statement. Of course, the kitchen in Colorado is not the only place where the occurrence of dissolved methane in groundwater has been linked to hydraulic fracturing. Osborne and others (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 2011) and Jackson and others (Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 2013) document “systematic” contamination drinking water with methane and report a correlation between the distance to a gas well and methane content (i.e., the closer the water supply to a gas well, the more dissolved methane it contained). However, Molofsky and others (Groundwater, 2013) found that dissolved methane was ubiquitous (i.e., “systematic”) in the area and that rather than being correlated to shale-gas extraction (i.e., fracking), the methane occurrence is best correlated with topographic features (valley bottoms). In that same article Molofsky and others provide a good review of the historic evidence for dissolved methane in groundwater. In this area of Pennsylvania, a finding of biogenic as opposed to thermogenic gas is not sufficient to differentiate whether hydraulic fracturing is responsible for methane contamination in groundwater. All-in-all, there is a good article by Tarek Saba in the Oil & Gas Journal, volume 111, issue 7 (2013) entitled “Evaluating claims of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing” that summarizes the complexity of the chemistry, sample collection, and laboratory methods required to assess the source of contamination in a water supply. It is not sufficient to simply ignite tap water as the Gasland movie claims. Second: induced seismicity For my discussion of earthquakes, I deliberately skipped discussion of the three magnitude 5+ events in Oklahoma. I have discussed those events in several previous presentations, but I judged it would more informative to put the question of induced seismicity in perspective. I thought the Durham study by Davis and others (2013) did a particularly good job of this issue. I had two supplemental slides that I didn’t show that were also based on the Durham study data: This slide shows the number and magnitude of induced seismic events attributed to various causes. The red caps on the magnitude 2 and 3 bars are the events caused by hydraulic fracking. (In the slide I presented, only the red shale gas fracking was differentiated from all events, eight different color classes are often hard to tell apart.) No magnitude 4 or greater events related to fracking were identified by the authors. The authors looked specifically at the range of magnitudes of the events they identified that were related to fracturing: Again, magnitude 3 or less are rarely felt and no events of magnitude 4 or greater were identified. The authors concluded: 1) Hydraulic fracturing is not an important mechanism for causing felt earthquakes 2) Fault reactivation due to hydraulic fracturing is well known and readily detected 3) Hydraulic fracturing will probably induce felt seismicity in the future I didn’t quote all of that text on the slide I presented to the EQC, but my bullet points summarized the statements. The National Research Council of the National Academies has been studying induced seismicity and I had an early, draft version of that study. In other words, I was aware of the preliminary findings of the NRC report, but the Durham report provided me the opportunity for better graphics from a finalized study. After I found the Durham study and presented the talk to the EQC, I found the final version of the NRC report, “Induced seismicity potential in energy technologies”, nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13355. The NRC found: 1) The process of hydraulic fracturing a well as presently implemented for shale gas recovery does not pose a high risk for inducing felt seismic events. 2) Injection for disposal of wastewater derived from energy technologies into the subsurface does pose some risk for induced seismicity, but very few events have been documented over the past several decades relative to the large number of disposal wells in operation. 3) CCS [carbon capture and storage] due to the large net volumes of injected fluids, may have potential for inducing larger seismic events. You are correct, I did not address the relationship between underground injection of waste water save in passing. Most specifically, I was asked to provide an update on hydraulic fracturing to the EQC. I would be happy to address induced seismicity and underground injection at an upcoming meeting of the EQC. Third: chemicals in fracking I used the ingredients for the Kashi oatmeal cookie as an analogy. The list of ingredients is publicly available, but the recipe is a trade secret. I further admitted that I didn’t know what some of the ingredients were because I hadn’t looked them up. FracFocus.org is a web site sponsored by the Groundwater Protection Council (GWPC) and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC). It is a chemical disclosure registry where anyone can find out information about chemicals and exactly which chemicals were used in stimulating individual wells. Neither the GWPC nor the IOGCC have any regulatory authority so participation in disclosure at the site is voluntary. However, 13 states (at my last count) have passed regulations requiring operators to use FracFocus to comply with that state’s disclosure requirements (and more than 70,000 wells have been registered). There are some concessions for honoring trade secrets, but I’m not an expert on this legal topic so I refer you to fracfocus.org/chemical-use/chemicals-public-disclosure. What I do know is that when you look up a well, you find the list of chemicals, what they are used for, and the concentrations used in the hydraulic fracture stimulation. For example, I looked up a random well in Sullivan County, Pennsylvania. For API number 3711320029 there is a complete list of ingredients, the supplier and their concentrations. I didn’t look up additional wells, so I can’t say whether or not this level of detail is typical. At no time did I say that the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing were OK. I said you could find out what they were by visiting the FracFocus web site. I have said that some of the chemicals are common food additives; guar gum is also used in ice cream. Some are household chemicals; the biocides used in fracking are often the same type of active ingredients that are in Lysol and similar products. Some of the chemicals are common and toxic; automotive antifreeze is ethylene glycol. And, there are many that take a long time to figure out how to pronounce. I used a pie chart slide with this kind of chemical information in my 2013 presentation to the EQC, but for time reasons I didn’t present it during the current update (it is a supplemental slide, the very last page in the PDF posted online. The point is, anyone can look up chemical information at FracFocus.org. Fourth: wells and regulations KRS 353 and 805 KAR have a number of provisions for protecting fresh water. I refer you to the Kentucky Oil and Gas Well Operator’s Manual: oilandgas.ky.gov/Documents/Oil%20and%20Gas%20Operators%20Manual.pdf. At this time, however, verification of the correct installation of casing and cement for protecting underground sources of drinking water consists of verifying that enough cement is circulated until good cement returns are noted at the surface. If not witnessed by an inspector directly, the volume of cement used is compared to the volume of the annulus between the borehole and casing. There are additional methods to verify construction of a well: pressure (mechanical integrity) testing and cement bond logs. These are not required in Kentucky at this time. Kentucky has undergone two reviews of the regulatory framework by STRONGER (State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations, sstrongerinc.org) program. You can view the most recent findings online at 67.20.79.30/sites/all/themes/stronger02/downloads/Kentucky%20Follow-up%20Review%208-2006.pdf. Here you’ll find an independent assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of Kentucky’s oil and gas regulatory program. One of their recommendations is that the “Commonwealth should reinstate full and adequate funding” for the regulatory agencies. The Division of Oil and Gas, however, remains understaffed and underfunded. The Division still doesn’t have the authority to impose administrative penalties and can only deny permits or forfeit bonds (I believe bond forfeiture requires action by the Kentucky Attorney General). Nevertheless, the Division is embarking on a review and update of the regulations with the intent to make sure drilling and production (conventional, horizontal, and fracture stimulation) is done in a manner to both prevent waste of energy resources and protect the environment. Note that the illegal dumping of waste water, whether or not the waste originates from fracture stimulation, is a surface discharge and is clearly regulated and within the purview of the Division of Water. Who regulates what and references to the appropriate KRS or KAR sections is provided in the Oil and Gas Well Operator’s Manual. At the Federal level, the Government Accounting Office prepared an assessment of “Unconventional oil and gas development, key environmental and public health requirements”, gao.gov/assets/650/647782.pdf. The origin of the exemption for hydraulic fracturing in the 2005 Energy Policy Act is discussed on pages 20 and 21. Basically, after a lawsuit that led to a two-year study, the EPA concluded in 2004 that hydraulic fracturing for coalbed methane posed little or no threat to underground sources of drinking water. The 2005 Energy Policy Act adopted language that codified the findings of the Federal Courts and the EPA study. It can be argued that hydraulic fracture stimulation of coal to produce coalbed methane (natural gas) is not the same as fracture stimulation of shale so the EPA is conducting a new study. The findings will likely be published this year; it is my opinion that the EPA will likely propose stronger regulations covering well construction and verifying that the construction meets standards. As I have continued to stress in my presentations, fresh water resources must be protected. There must be a focus on well construction and spill prevention, control, and countermeasures. We should advocate support for public disclosure (FracFocus unless Kentucky wants to develop its own system) and enforcement by the Divisions of Oil and Gas and Water. The policies to implement those protections should be developed on the basis of good science and not documentary films. I hope that the EQC and the Kentucky Water Alliance will continue their efforts to bring informed public debate to what has often become a rancorous subject. I’d like to take this opportunity to invite you to visit the Kentucky Geological Survey and tour our facilities. We’ll also be happy to set up a meeting with our researchers involved in energy, hazards (induced seismicity), and water research. Davis, R.J., Foulger, G., Bindley, A., and Styles, P., 2013, What size of earthquakes can be caused by fracking?: Durham Energy Institute, web page, url https://dur.ac.uk/resources/dei/ResearchBrief_InducedSeismicity_final.pdf, accessed 6-May-2014. Davis, R.J., Foulger, G., Bindley, A., and Styles, P., 2013, Induced seismicity and hydraulic fracturing for the recovery of hydrocarbons: Marine and Petroleum Geology, v. 45, no. August, p. 171-185. Davis, S.D., and Frohlich, C., 1993, Did (or will) fluid injection cause earthquakes? -- Criteria for a rational assessment: Seismological Research Letters, v. 64, no. 3-4, p. 207-224. Dunnahoe, T., 2013, Understanding the science behind induced seismicity: Unconventional Oil & Gas Report (OGJ), v. 1, no. 3, p. 4. Jackson, R.B., Vengosh, A., Darrah, T.H., Warner, N.R., Down, A., Poreda, R.J., Osborn, S.G., Zhao, K., and Karr, J.D., 2013, Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction: Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, v. 110, no. 28, p. 11250-11255. Molofsky, L.J., Connor, J.A., Wylie, A.S., Wagner, T., and Farhat, S.K., 2013, Evaluation of methane sources in groundwater in northeastern Pennsylvania: Groundwater, v. 51, no. 3, p. 333-349. Osborn, S.G., Vengosh, A., Warner, N.R., and Jackson, R.B., 2011, Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing: Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, v. 108, no. 20, p. 8127-8176. Saba, T., 2013, Evaluating claims of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing: Oil and Gas Journal, v. 111, no. 7. Brandon Nuttall, KRPG-1364 Kentucky Geological Survey uky.edu/kgs [email protected] (KGS, Mo-Th) [email protected] (EEC,Fr) 859-323-0544 859-684-7473 (cell) From: Tim Joice [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 12:37 PM To: Nuttall, Brandon C Cc: Cobb, James C Subject: RE: EQC presentation Mr. Nuttall, I had to duck out of the EQC meeting on Thursday before saying hello. If youll recall, we exchanged a few emails about fracking several months ago, and used some of your information about whats happening in Kentucky for our webpage. I wanted to express concern for some of the narrative of your presentation to the Commission. It is understandable that working under the subject of fracturing, things can get contentious about facts--between industry, citizen groups, and scientific organizations. Further, my understanding is that KGS is a science-based organizations intended for informing citizens, colleagues at educational institutions, and governmental agencies of the best science regarding specific issues of concern. As you are aware, your presentation was to the Environmental Quality Commission, whose mission is to: • facilitate public discussion and resolution of environmental issues; • promote partnerships to protect the environment for future generations; and • serve as an advisory board to the governor and other state officials on environmental matters. With those items in mind, and from the perspective of an organization that advocates for water quality protections and enforcement, I was disturbed by a number of statements and slides during your presentation that seemed to downplay or discard very real environmental issues related to both hydraulic and nitrogen fracking, and to simply not address other areas of concern. Again, as an organization based on providing science-based information and not being biased, this was alarming. For example, the issue of drinking water contamination is a very real concern. During your presentation, you specifically referenced the Gasland movie and lighting the tap-water on fire as being proven not connected to fracking. To my knowledge, that is a clear misrepresentation of the facts. As Im sure you are aware, industry has been able to sidestep the drinking water issue regularly by claiming biogenic gas vs thermogenic. Because this can be true, it is difficult to directly tie biogenic gas to fracking, hence why many state environmental agencies often do little in that regard. However, that does not mean that various parts of the fracking process are not resulting in the biogenic gas being released into drinking water sources where it historically had not been found, as was the case with that household. It is also relevant to point out that natural gas representatives consistently use that as a talking point, though factually incorrect, and it struck me as extremely unprofessional for an employee of KGS to do so. At the very least, it would have been much more professional and educational to explain that process, and that biogenic gas, though not extracted by fracking, can be released by fracking operations. Second, when discussing the issue of earthquakes related to fracking processes, you seemed to downplay the connection initially. It was clarified that the underground injection process has been known to cause some minor earthquakes, but that essentially--and Im paraphrasing--its not a big deal because these are really small quakes. Your presentation butressed your opinion with a Durham Energy Institute study (from the UK) that suggested fracking itself is not a significant cause of felt earthquakes, but that other processes, such as UI, could have an impact, as well as drilling on dormant faults. I questioned you on this, and mentioned the multiple 5.0+ quakes being tied to UI, and you finally conceded that yes, earthquakes are a risk and there needs to be better mapping and better understanding of UI wells. I also brought up the recent USGS studies being done and other researchers looking at data in Ohio, Oklahoma, and elsewhere that subsequently documented in the past year a relatively clear relationship between UI and earthquakes, some which were felt earthquakes. KWA agrees--there needs to be better understanding of the impacts of UI wells and over-filling of those wells, thereby causing excessive pressures and fault slips. We also think there needs to be better understanding of impacts from the fracture stimulation process itself. We would expect that, KGS, as a research and education-based public institution, would likewise support the research of those areas, and the protection of our water resources in the meantime, rather than clearly aligning itself in support of the industry. We would also expect KGS to not be biased regarding various research studies, and to likewise document both studies that illustrate that maybe fracking itself is not to blame for earthquakes, but that other parts of the process, such as UI, do play a significant role. Further, in terms of industry trade secrets, and proprietary chemicals used in the process of fracking, your presentation utilized a slide that exhibited Kashi Oatmeal Cookies ingredients. The message I believe you conveyed was that there are things in that ingredient list that are missing, but that also, there are things in that list that are likewise chemicals not normally found in cookies. But you followed that by saying that the list of chemical information is available, on sites like fracfocus.org (fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used). I may have misunderstood you--I thought you said this was a site where disclosure is required. My understanding of this website though, is that companies choose to disclose chemicals used--but they are not required to disclose those chemicals, nor are they required to disclose amounts of those chemicals, and they can choose to withhold certain chemicals. By federal law, both in the Federal Energy and Policy Act of 2005 and in the OSHA standards for Toxic and Hazardous substances, companies are not required to publicly disclose any proprietary chemicals unless requested by a medical professional and unless that medical professional details why that is necessary and signs a confidentiality agreement not to disclose any of the information they are given for any purposes other than to treat their patient, which in theory, goes against medical code of conduct in considering the health risks to others that are not yet their patients. Regardless, we acknowledge companies are required to submit to EPA the list of proprietary chemicals and their associated MSDS, though EPA cannot publicly disclose that information. As documented with the Freedom Industries spill of MCHM and other chemical compounds, the MSDS documents are often woefully inadequate in understanding and documenting the full range of health effects of chemicals, particularly when released to an environment full of variables not anticipated in a laboratory testing of rats. There are over 86,000 chemicals in use by industry today, and EPA has only had capacity to fully test less than 200 for the toxic effects to our environment and to humans (nrdc.org/health/toxics.asp). It seems rather unprofessional for KGS to suggest, as you did, that the disclosure of chemicals by select companies through a voluntary site demonstrates that those chemicals are OK. In addition, as Im sure you are aware, fracking operations are exempt under the Energy Act of 2005 from virtually all of the Safe Drinking Water Act [under the Energy Act of 2005 Congress amended the definition of “underground injection” under the SDWA to specifically exclude “the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities.” § 300h(d)(1)(B)(ii)] and certain Clean Water Act Regulatory programs. This drastically inhibits the degree of public involvement and limits on fracking operations and fracking water pollution problems. Finally, in terms of enforcement in the state, my understanding is that we have no current regulations that exclusively address hydraulic fracturing/drilling, but do have regs for long-standing nitrogen drilling/general O&G drilling. DOG is also understaffed and unable to sufficiently enforce existing regs, much less take on the capacity of developing more effective regs that focus on well construction and that provide protections for public water supply. Further, DOWs only form of enforcement at present for fracking operations is on illegal dumping of waste into waters of the Commonwealth--which only occurs if reported to the state. Otherwise, they have no permitting structures that regulate fracking operations--to my knowledge, and please correct me if Im wrong. I wanted to provide you an opportunity to address my concerns with your presentation, so please dont hesitate to respond as soon as possible. I will be sending my concerns to the EQC if I receive no response by next Friday, June 27. Respectfully, -- Tim Tim Joice | Water Policy Director | Kentucky Waterways Alliance (502) 589-8008 | [email protected] | KWAlliance.org
Posted on: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 17:23:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015