There were frustratingly few answers for Pavillion-area residents, and interested parties throughout the nation in the most recent report in the ongoing groundwater pollution investigation in central Wyoming. At the same time, industry officials say the report helps to affirm that there’s still no evidence to connect polluted drinking water to oil and gas activity.
The latest: There’s missing information both for domestic-water and natural-gas wells, and the investigation requires a “comprehensive geologic and hydrologic study of the Wind River Formation within the Pavillion Field,” according to the report.
It’s been nearly 10 years since residents first reported their drinking water wells went bad overnight as nearby natural gas wells were fracked, and it may be a year or more before there are definitive answers as to whether there’s an evidentiary connection.
“I’m 64, my wife is 60,” said Louis Meeks, who was among the first residents in the area to experience a sudden change in their domestic water wells. “We’re getting tired. I’d like to get out of here but I just can’t do it.”
Meeks said he can’t afford to move unless or until he’s made whole to restore running water for both domestic and agricultural use. That would require holding somebody accountable, if they are to blame.
The preliminary “Pavillion Field Well Integrity Review” was made public Aug. 6. The report is now under a 30-day public comment period (read on to find out how to comment).
It’s the first new report since the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency turned the investigation over to the state of Wyoming more than a year ago, an action that capped a couple of highly contentious years between the EPA and Gov. Matt Mead’s administration. The EPA in 2011 preliminarily determined that chemicals commonly used in fracking contributed to contaminated drinking water. State and industry officials pointed to several deficiencies in the drilling and testing methods of two monitoring wells commissioned by EPA, which led to the federal agency’s preliminary finding.
In handing control of the investigation back to the state of Wyoming, EPA has said it will stand by its preliminary findings. None of the parties have backed away from its assertions. While residents and landowner advocates contend there may not yet be a comprehensive picture to connect or exonerate oil and gas activity, the Pavillion field operator, Encana, says the latest report helps support its position.
“From our standpoint, the report confirms natural gas wells in the Pavillion field were soundly constructed and provide no pathway to domestic water wells,” Encana spokesman Doug Hock told WyoFile. “There are still questions to be answered … but we feel good about the conclusion of this (preliminary report.)”
The preliminary Integrity Review is one of three reports the state of Wyoming promised to conduct in its Pavillion groundwater investigation. The other two reports that the state is working on concurrently include a look at oil and gas surface pits (some known to be contaminated) and a review of domestic water wells and water resources in the area.
What’s in the report
The well-integrity review is headed by Bob King on behalf of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. King began the work while serving as interim Oil and Gas Conservation Commission supervisor. The state commissioned him to continue the work as a consultant after it hired a permanent supervisor.
King reviewed 50 oil and gas wells close to 15 domestic water wells identified by the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality as having “quality and palatability issues.” The 15 domestic water wells ranged from 3- to 750-feet deep.
“Of the fifteen domestic water wells reviewed in this report, three water wells were drilled to a depth deeper than the surface casing depths of oil and gas wells in the surrounding one quarter mile area,” the report says.
Longtime oil and gas geologist Jimmy Goolsby said he agrees with the analysis in the report that suggests the surface casing not extending as deep as the bottom of the domestic wells does not mean there’s an open pathway from gas wells to water wells.
“It means you don’t have double protection,” Goolsby told WyoFile. “You’ve got casing (of the gas well bores) below where water wells produce, it’s just not surface casing. … What you may or may not have … is cement between the pipe and the rock.”
“While that is not ideal, go back to the fact they found no (leaks),” Hock told WyoFile. “This alone doesn’t determine if gas will migrate,” he said, adding that the state’s review showed no evidence of pressure differentials that would indicate communication or leaky gas wells.
King’s review also notes missing data of cement-bonding logs for some gas wells, but he reiterated that none of the missing data in the overall review of oil and gas wells indicates a likelihood or potential for leaks. The missing data doesn’t seem to mask the potential for leaks, according to King.
“We saw no evidence that there was communication” between targeted gas production zones and domestic water zones, King told WyoFile.
King said the data he analyzed is missing detailed information of frack jobs performed in the 1980s and 1990s. He said that while the field operator supplied all information as required by the state during its activities in the mid-2000s, the state now requires a more comprehensive set of well-activity reporting. However, his analysis still shows no evidence of the potential for leaks.
In his preliminary report, King suggests a thorough analysis cannot be complete without a “comprehensive geologic and hydrologic study of the Wind River Formation within the Pavillion Field.” This is information, King said, he did not have. It should require no new field work to gather the data, he said, but the inclusion of existing geologic and hydrologic characterization of the Pavillion field would help complete the picture. Much of this information may be gathered from the U.S. Geological Survey, the Wyoming State Geological Survey and Encana. Encana’s geological and hydrological database, as is common in the oil and gas industry, is considered proprietary.
“If (the state had) a geologic review that included work done by all the parties I think it would add to the picture to look at the likelihood of communication between gas wells and water wells,” King told WyoFile.
Further complicating the incomplete database under review by the state is the fact that some Pavillion area residents have not allowed the state to inspect their domestic water wells, according to the state.
“I don’t think it’s simple,” said geologist Goolsby. “Obviously if it was, it would have been figured out.”
No satisfaction
Goolsby said the geology of the Pavillion field is complex and highly invariable. Water- and gas-production zones are intermingled. Some water zones also contain gas. Petroleum production here dates back many decades, as does agricultural use.
“Will we ever have a complete picture? It may be in the eye of the beholder,” said Goolsby.
In the meantime, the state of Wyoming continues with its three-pronged investigation focusing on natural gas wells, surface pits, and domestic water wells. Industry claims some level of validation based on the fact that this latest preliminary report finds no smoking gun — albeit there are missing data.
Meeks and several of his neighbors still mistrust Encana and the Mead administration for their gusto in lashing out against EPA for its initial findings in 2011, and for the fact that it’s been nearly 10 years of living with temporary water solutions and few answers.
“Somebody needs to be accountable for this,” said Meeks who, like his neighbors, contend their domestic water wells were mostly fine before Encana’s frack jobs in the mid-2000s. “People say if you don’t like it, then move out. Well I’ve got everything invested in this place.”
To comment on the state’s preliminary report: Comments may be submitted to the WOGCC by letter or email. Send emails to mark.watson@wyo.gov no later than Sept. 6, 2014. Send written comments to Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 2211 King Blvd, P.O. Box 2640, Casper Wyo. 82602.
Here’s the document that spells out the findings and conclusions. For the rest of the report, click here.
Who is now paying for the imported domestic water in the homes of those with polluted groundwater? Has anyone considered estimating the cost of buying out all adversely affected properties, perhaps at prices established using comparable properties, but without drinking water contamination problems? Or the cost of buying all of Pavillion? It’s not a nice prospect, but neither is it nice for Mr. and Mrs. Meeks, and others, to have the market value of their property reduced to just about nothing, with years of fraught studies and public debate swirling around, while they are without the option of viable market-based relief. Knowing those numbers, even roughly or grossly, might be easier than answering the question of what caused the water to become foul. It would highlight the general financial magnitude of the problem and advance discussion about who might pay affected owners to leave. It would also help inform a potential landowner takings suit, of possibly novel scope, in which the property owners might allege that the state effectively took their property by failing to protect a basic public resource, (safe drinking water), and therefore owes them just compensation.
In response to Randy, just wanted to weigh in that the minerals in question here are split estate minerals. They are mostly tribal minerals under deeded land. Actually, the majority of minerals in WY are not owned the surface landowner. Most split estate situations are government/private (where the government, mainly federal) owns the minerals thanks to the homesteading acts. But a growing number of split estate situations are private/private because of subdividing interests over the years. In many cases, a surface landowner cannot say no to oil and gas development, and in all cases, a neighbor to oil and gas development cannot say no. That is why increasing the state setback (distance b/t an oil or gas well and a home), improving our baseline water quality rule, requiring full disclosure of chemicals used in oil and gas operations, and other mitigating measures are very important.
How would this work out if you lived in a country where the State owned all of the minerals? Thank the stars that we live in a country where the landowner can own the minerals on his/her property….
I would agree with Mr. LeResche”s last statement. Unfortunately Wyoming’s public disclosure laws have been interpreted in such a way to make holding one report until all are done, practically impossible.
It will be interesting to see the other two prongs of the state report when they are issued.
Just because a well has been drilled “properly” does not mean you cannot contaminate existing sources of water. While the EPA report was a stretch, interpreting this report as a clean bill of health for the industry is a stretch as well. I think Mr. Goolsby points out the most critical aspect of this issue – the geology in the area is very complex and needs further study – so the report really does not tell us much – yet.
You cannot trust the State, you cannot trust the EPA, you cannot trust industry either. All parties involved have a considerable amount at stake and nobody wants to be left holding the bag – let’s hope this continues to be a high profile topic that does not get swept under the rug.
We personally have taken what has happened at Pavillion and continue to have our own domestic wells and neighbors wells tested from time to time to establish the baseline(s) that our water is clean and contaminant free. It’s not cheap, but a good insurance policy. Hopefully we never have to use the data.
Well written article Dustin, thank you.
This first piece of the “investigation” is pretty silly, spending most of its time smashing down open doors. What does it matter whether the work was “properly permitted,………….and operated in compliance with applicable ………..rules and regulations?” The question is whether the permits, rules and regulations are worth a damn.
And since everybody knows that cement jobs are but one factor, why didn’t the investigators look into the others? (Pressure differentials, formation rock permeability & porosity, gas-H2O contacts, respective locations, mud characteristics, etc etc.?) Are they going to submit this “study” to the Science Fair?
“Also missing is information on what was done to stimulate the wells.” WHAT?? Unbelieveable. Why did they bother?
Bob King, for whom I have great respect, properly points out that much relevant data was excluded from the analysis, but still comes to the most disingenuous conclusion that “We saw no evidence that there was communication” between targeted gas production zones and domestic water zones. Of course not, as long as a vast amount of data are left un-analysed.
The Commission would much better serve the people of Pavillion and Wyoming by resisting the urge to release such superficial and incomplete reports before all the work is done.