Pavillion driller blasts EPA contamination findings
The Environmental Protection Agency collects groundwater samples in Pavillion, WY, in January 2010. The EPA released a draft report earlier this year linking hydraulic fracturing to groundwater contamination in the town. Encana Co., the main driller in Pavillion, has called on the EPA to withdraw the report for sloppy research conduct. (Courtesy of the EPA — click to enlarge)
Reprinted with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. Not for republication by Wyoming media.
Encana Corp., fighting accusations that its gas wells contaminated drinking water in Pavillion, Wyo., is calling on U.S. EPA to withdraw a draft report that linked hydraulic fracturing in Wyoming to groundwater contamination there.
Encana, the main driller in the Pavillion field, said in a press call yesterday that any contaminants detected in EPA’s monitoring wells were either naturally occurring or were introduced by the agency during “sloppy” well construction or lab testing.
Encana interpretation of test well results
EPA drilled two monitoring wells after homeowners near the oil field complained about foul water they began noticing in 2005. In a draft report released a year ago, the researchers said they had found fluid from fracking not in drinking water, but in deep groundwater.
Encana’s David Stewart, who handles environment, health and safety issues in Wyoming, said EPA’s analysis of deep groundwater was misguided, and “EPA should withdraw the draft report.” He said the agency was assuming natural gas development was the culprit instead of considering naturally occurring contaminants and other sources.
The criticism is similar to that voiced recently by the American Petroleum Institute (EnergyWire, Oct. 19).
The U.S. Geological Survey used EPA’s wells to conduct its own study, which replicated some of EPA’s results but not others. And it threw out data from one of the monitoring wells due to low flow rates. That well had shown the presence of benzene at 49 times EPA’s maximum contaminant level.
Some compounds, including three types of glycols, were detected by EPA but not USGS in the other well. Encana said the EPA results were likely false positives. EPA has defended its testing methods and reiterated today that USGS’s data is “generally consistent” with its own findings released in the draft report. The agency declined to comment this week on Encana’s allegations of faulty testing methods.
Both federal agencies detected methane, propane and ethane in the deep groundwater. All are components of natural gas that Encana says are naturally occurring. They also both detected phenol and benzoic acid. The company contends that those also occur naturally and leach from polyvinyl chloride plastics used by EPA to construct the monitoring wells.
“The important point is that these are naturally occurring and have existed in these zones for eons. Encana didn’t put them there; nature did,” company spokesman Doug Hock said in an email.
Stewart acknowledged that robust base-line water quality information would have headed off many of the discrepancies over whether compounds are natural or drilling-related. Encana now has a standard practice of examining base-line data for groundwater in all oil and gas plays and new wells, he said.
Reporter Mike Soraghan contributed.
Facebook
Twitter
Flickr
RSS
{ 6 comments }
@Mark you have a good point they can bluff as much as they want until the someone calls them on it. However no one currently is in a position where they want to call the bluff so it goes on.
Of course, much of this could be put to rest if companies like Encana would tell us what chemicals are in their fracking fluids and what are not. Until they do so, they are free to deny responsibility for ANY contamination they may or may not have caused. Hard to play poker against a guy who says, “I have a straight flush. TRUST me.”
“Encana interpretation of test well results”
Of course, if the truth be known, a multibillion dollar corporation can’t be bothered with trivial matters, like people, profit margins must be met, politicians must be paid off to keep those taxpayer subsidies flowing,, right, Ms. Lummis?
It has been proven time and again that science can be bought, to find anything you want them to find, or not,,,
english.eastday.com:
“PETROCHINA Co has agreed to pay Canadian natural gas producer Encana Corp C$2.18 billion (US$2.2 billion) for a near-half stake in a shale gas project in Alberta.”
The company that produces oil sands bitumen, one of the worst forms of crude ever to be developed, before and after, usage.
Mother Jones, Fri Mar. 9, 2012:
“A story this week in the Canadian online magazine The Tyee outlines how, 20 months after a pipe carrying tar sands “dil-bit” burst on the Kalamazoo River near Marshall, residents and local Environmental Protection Agency officials are still struggling to clean up the river. It was the first-ever major spill of this type of heavy oil, and it blindsided EPA cleanup crews: recovering the 1.2 million gallons of oil that have been cleaned up so far has cost the pipe’s owner, Enbridge Energy Partners, roughly $725 million—10 times as much, per liter, as the average spill of conventional crude.”
These People Don’t Care,, PERIOD!!!
“The 2010 documentary film “Gasland” showed homeowners near fracked wells igniting the water that flowed from their faucets. A year later, the EPA linked fracking to contaminated drinking water in Pavillion, Wyoming. The agency is retesting the Wyoming wells. A separate report from the U.S. Geological Survey this year confirmed the environmental agency’s initial finding; it detected levels of methane, ethane, diesel compounds and phenol, which the EPA had identified in 2011.”
This paragraph should be cited in every journalism or media school in the nation as a prime example of how shoddy much of American journalism has become.
The iconic igniting of the tap water in the movie “Gasland” has long been debunked as being related to fracking or drilling for hydrocarbons. Indeed, this was determined and documented by authorities in Colorado long before the movie was made, and the producer was well of it.
Furthermore, the statement that separate report from the U.S.G.S. confirmed the EPA draft report linking fracking to contaminated drinking water in Pavillion, Wyoming, is false. Consider this report: “EPA drilled two monitoring wells after homeowners near the oil field complained about foul water they began noticing in 2005. In a draft report released a year ago, the researchers said they had found fluid from fracking not in drinking water, but in deep groundwater…….The U.S. Geological Survey used EPA’s wells to conduct its own study, which replicated some of EPA’s results but not others. And it threw out data from one of the monitoring wells due to low flow rates. That well had shown the presence of benzene at 49 times EPA’s maximum contaminant level.”
The reality is that the magnitude and origin of contaminants in the deep groundwater (not drinking water) in Pavillion is very much in doubt, and it is not true that the U.S.G.S. study confirmed the EPA study.
The EPA and the USGS should get their findings straight on this issue because there is too much at stake here to get the science wrong. Perhaps they should get an outside scientific panel to review the findings and either choose which one is correct or agreed to do an independent study.
Robust groundwater testing — before, during and long after a drilling/fracking program would provide better insights into what is going on.
However, the interested party of Encana’s concerns have to be taken with a dash of salt, even a dumptruck load of salt. Whether true or not, Encana’s concerns cannot be taken at 100 percent face-value, simply because the company is desperately concerned that it might get stuck with the clean-up bill from past and present industry practices. That’s awkward for Encana and a public that’s still trying to figure out who is to blame for groundwater pollution in the Pavillion area.
Ultimately, who is going to make things right for the residents of Pavillion? Encana is trying to avoid responsibility while the state is trying to avoid making that determination, out of fear it would damage a sacred cow — that fracking is wonderful and profitable and no problem here, folks, nothing to see, move along…