The EPAs arrogance and incompetence keeps America dependent on foreign oil
Marita Noon
The riots, rage, and ruin that have spread throughout the Middle East
over the past few days emphasize the urgency of opening up and bringing
online America’s vast resources—yet, as Congressman Pete Olson (R-TX)
states: “The EPA is the biggest obstacle to energy independence.”
Olson’s comment specifically addressed the Hydraulic Fracturing Study
requested by Congress as a part of the FY 2010 appropriations bill,
which states:
“The conferees urge the Agency to carry out a study on the
relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, using a
credible approach that relies on the best available science, as well as
independent sources of information. The conferees expect the study to be
conducted through a transparent, peer-reviewed process that will ensure
the validity and accuracy of the data. The Agency shall consult with
other Federal agencies as well as appropriate State and interstate
regulatory agencies in carrying out the study, which should be prepared
in accordance with the Agency’s quality assurance principles.”
A study “on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and
drinking water” sounds like a great idea. No one wants their drinking
water filled with toxic elements, and, if the EPA followed the mandate, a
work of global importance could result. American private enterprise and
initiative has lead the world in developing and implementing horizontal
drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques that are safe and are
uniquely responsible for totally transforming the energy
landscape—making previously unrecoverable resources, recoverable.
Therefore, the final study from the EPA has worldwide implications for
oil and natural gas supplies. It must be done right.
Instead of moving forward with a “Hydraulic Fracturing Study” as
requested by Congress, the EPA has done what is characteristic of this
administration; they’ve blown it out of proportion—making it something
bigger, requiring additional personnel, and creating more management, at
greater expense. Final results are not due until 2014—four years after
Congress requested a simple study. Lisa Jackson’s EPA has expanded the
study’s scope to encompass numerous peripheral elements related to oil
and gas exploration and production activities; a full lifecycle analysis
of everything remotely associated with unconventional recovery.
Congress requested a report based on “best available science,” not
opinion, yet the EPA has included items such as “environmental
justice”—which has nothing to do with science, and “discharges to
publicly owned water treatment plants”—which are no longer a part of the
hydraulic fracturing process.
The additional elements exponentially exacerbate the study’s potential complications.
Meanwhile, America could be undergoing a robust development of our
resources. Instead, as Congressman Mike Conaway (R-TX) explained,
“Industry is holding back because it is not sure what the regulatory
future holds.” He called the study’s evolution beyond the scope of what
was requested: “mission creep.” Until a definitive answer on “the
relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water” is
produced, a constant cloud of legal threat hangs over possible
development, and potential jobs, such as in New York’s Marcellus Shale,
are deferred.
These concerns, plus many others, prompted industry to independently engage, at their own expense, Battelle Memorial Institute to conduct a collaborative, side-by-side study with the EPA. Congressman Andy Harris
(R-MD), Chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, says that Battelle is “a highly
respected independent science and technology organization.” (It is
important to note that Battelle’s business is heavily dependent on
government contracts, so accepting the responsibility of doing a
collaborative study held risks for the company—coming out with a
different result from that of the EPA could mean the loss of future
contracts. Additionally, they do a lot of work with the EPA, so their
opinions should be trusted by the EPA.) Despite the EPA’s rejection of
industry’s offer, Battelle moved forward with a scientific review of the
EPA’s study plan to ensure that the EPA is taking a rigorous and
adequate approach, as quality cannot be built into the back end of a
science-based project.
Battelle’s report
is complete. On Thursday, Battelle’s team provided a briefing on
Capitol Hill that was attended by more than 30 Representatives and/or
staffers from the Natural Gas and Marcellus Shale Caucuses. Numerous
concerns were presented. The EPA’s study plan reflects a deadly
combination of arrogance and incompetence.
Arrogance
Hydraulic Fracturing is a highly technical process that has evolved
since its initial use more than 60 years ago—continuously undergoing
improvements. Hundreds of thousands of wells have been drilled. The
expertise and experience lies within the industry, yet the EPA has
specially rejected industry’s attempts to collaborate—despite the fact
that the original mandate requires: “a transparent, peer-reviewed
process that will ensure the validity and accuracy of the data.” In a
letter to the EPA, Marty Durbin, Executive Vice President, American
Petroleum Institute (API), says: “We have repeatedly offered the
expertise of our members to both the agency and the Scientific Advisory
Board (SAB) peer review process and, unfortunately, have been
disappointed by the lack of follow through and acceptance.” Battelle’s
report states: “Industry collaboration is not envisioned.”
Additionally, the requirements, published in the Federal Register
calling for nominations, for the SAB, are set so that they specifically
exclude experts from industry. “Selection criteria” includes “absence of
financial conflicts of interest.” The call for SAB nominations
continues: “government officials” will “determine whether there is a
statutory conflict between a person’s public responsibilities and
private interests and activities, or the appearance of a lack of
impartiality.” Presumably those from academia and NGO’s would be
acceptable. However, as the API letter points out, the “EPA should
recognize that most individuals nominating themselves for potential SAB
membership have some financial stake in the business—academics seek
grants, NGOs seek donations, regulators seek programmatic funding,
consultants seek contracts from government, as well as industry.”
Industry representatives with direct history of working in the modern
oil and gas industry have a long record of valuable, unbiased
participation in many other SAB committees and panels, yet for this
watershed study, they have been excluded.
Additionally, the Congressional study request calls for consultation
“with other Federal agencies as well as appropriate State and interstate
regulatory agencies.” To date, there is no evidence of working with
Pennsylvania, Texas, Colorado—or any other state with extensive
hydraulic fracturing experience. Numerous studies have been done, but
the EPA doesn’t appear to be incorporating their discoveries. For
example, in August 2011, the Groundwater Protection Council published
its own study of “state determinations regarding causes of groundwater
contamination resulting from oil and gas industry E&P activities,”
examining nearly 400 contamination incidents over 25 years in Ohio and
Texas, and concluding that “[n]either state has documented a single
occurrence of groundwater pollution during site preparation or well
stimulation.”
Obviously, the arrogance of the EPA believes they know best and they
don’t want input from anyone who might disagree with their preconceived
bias.
Incompetence
According to Battelle’s report, the EPA has a rigorous Data Quality
Assessment process established for internal studies, but is not using it
when setting up this study—which can impact the data quality and
scientific rigor. If strict standards are not met, the entire report can
be brought into question, as was the case with the Pavillion, Wyoming, study released a year ago. The results must be defensible to achieve the study’s goals.
The sites selected for study show a bias with the potential to skew
the data and therefore the study. Instead of using a representative
sampling of well sites from the hundreds of thousands of wells that have
been drilled, the EPA has chosen to focus on only seven sites—a
statistically insignificant number. Of the seven, five have known
contamination problems, but no baseline data. Therefore, there is no way
to tell whether the complaints are in any way related to hydraulic
fracturing or to any specific thing. There are known examples of
naturally occurring drinking water contamination—as was found with the
widely publicized Dimock, Pennsylvania, case.
The five retrospective sites are the subject of complaints by
individuals who may now be stakeholders in potentially lucrative
litigation against operators. The concern is that the “it has problems,
so let’s study it to see if it has problems” approach will limit the
scientific validity and usefulness of case study findings. At Thursday’s
briefing, the limited sampling was likened to using five traffic
accidents in some parts of America to draw conclusions about how to
construct and regulate traffic and road safety in all of the country to
avoid future accidents.
Instead, the study should focus more heavily on prospective sites
where baseline data is gathered before drilling and before the use of
hydraulic fracturing. The Battelle report states: “Two prospective sites
cannot deliver the range of data required for scientifically rigorous
treatment of all the research questions asked.”
Focusing primarily on sites with known issues also ignores the
current state of the technology. Chemicals used now are very different
from what was used five years ago. Analysis from these sites will be
virtually useless in making a meaningful recommendation regarding
current or future hydraulic fracturing activities. Battelle’s report
points out that “the site data collected from the companies are from
2006-2010, and the final report will be in 2014. The changes occurring
at these sites in the intervening years will likely render the data
obsolete for purposes of the study.”
All of this may seem of little relevance to the person struggling to
fill up their tank at today’s high gasoline prices. However, it is of
utmost importance.
All sides benefit from a study that can withstand intense scrutiny.
If there are foundational problems and the overall study results prove
that hydraulic fracturing is safe and doesn’t contaminate drinking
water, as the industry believes they will, the environmentalists, who
oppose hydraulic fracturing, will appeal it. If the reverse is proven,
industry will seek an appeal. In either case, appeals will delay the
much-needed robust development of American resources—not to mention the
waste of time and taxpayer dollars spent on the study.
If the events that have erupted in the Middle East over the past few
days show us anything, it is that the US dependence on Middle Eastern
oil must come to an expeditious end. With America’s new-found oil and
gas reserves, recovered through hydraulic fracturing, we now know that
energy independence is possible, if, as Congressman Olson told me, “We
reign in the EPA.”
The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy
(CARE). Together they work to educate the public and influence policy
makers regarding energy, its role in freedom, and the American way of
life. Combining energy, news, politics, and, the environment through
public events, speaking engagements, and media, the organizations’
combined efforts serve as America’s voice for energy.