Collaboration, Not Confrontation with EPA

EPA’s big study of the impact of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water is due in 2014, but an interim report might surface as early as the end of the year. Needed is focused, scientifically solid research that that will advance public discussion of shale energy development that has so much potential for our economy and future energy security.

Unfortunately, EPA’s study plan has deficiencies that ultimately could sap the integrity of the study’s findings. That’s one of the conclusions in a new analysis by the Battelle Memorial Institute. Stephanie Meadows, API upstream senior policy advisor, shared some of the study findings in a conference call with reporters:

“Battelle’s analysis of the plan, which we are releasing today, reinforces many of our previously stated concerns and raises some new ones. It finds deficiencies in the rigor, funding, focus and stakeholder inclusiveness of EPA’s plan. … We’re not calling on EPA to stop its study. We’re calling on them to do it right.”

API and America’s Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA) commissioned the Battelle study after EPA declined to engage with industry in a collaborative review of hydraulic fracturing. Battelle’s Bernard Metzger said his broad-based multidisciplinary team of engineers, oil and natural gas experts, toxicologists and others examined EPA’s study plan to determine its soundness. The findings include:

EPA is reaching beyond the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water resources, which was its charge from Congress, to broader oil and natural gas industry production activities.The expanded scope suggests there will be added complexity, risk, and uncertainty in EPA’s study, raising the level of difficulty in ensuring a scientifically rigorous result.Site data collected from companies comes from the years 2006-2010, making it likely some data in the final 2014 report could be nearly 10 years old. Changes at company sites in the intervening years likely will “render the data obsolete for the purposes of the study.”Case studies were selected from a limited and statistically biased pool and lack necessary baseline information which may result in incorrect and flawed conclusions. The plan suffers from a lack of “significant” industry collaboration, given industry’s extensive experience and expertise in hydraulic fracturing and associated technologies.

Metzger said gaps in EPA’s study planning can impact data quality:

“Quality cannot be built into the back end of a project through rigorous review; it must be built into each step of a scientifically rigorous process to ensure that the end product is high quality data that is defensible and achieves the study goals.”

ANGA’s Amy Farrell:

“We continue to believe a well-designed, scientifically rigorous study of hydraulic fracturing will confirm our industry’s ongoing commitment to safe and responsible development and that communities don’t have to trade the protection of the environment for the many economic, energy security and clean air benefits natural gas offers. We hope (EPA) will not only consider additional efforts to collaborate with the industry and other key stakeholders moving forward, but that they will carefully review the (Battelle) report and consider the critiques and recommendations for improvement and make adjustments as appropriate.”

View the original article here

Bakken Shale: Supplying Energy, Supporting Communities

Check out a couple of new videos from North Dakota in which Hess employees and others talk about how energy development in the Bakken Shale formation is changing lives and growing the state’s economy.

Part 1:

Part 2:

The narrative isn’t complicated. As Hess’ Steven Fretland notes in the first video, the Bakken is believed to hold between 8 billion and 40 billion barrels of oil reserves. Companies developing the energy resources need workers, and workers need places to live and services to support their lives. Fretland, who was raised in North Dakota, says Bakken energy is reversing historic trends:

“Younger kids, after they left, you know, you hated to see them go but then they come back and they decide … it’s where they’re going to have their home and raise a family and hopefully retire with the industry.”

In the second video, Hess’ Steve McNally says hydraulic fracturing that has revolutionized energy development is responsible for North Dakota’s jobs boom:

“The impact on the North Dakota area and the U.S. in the short term is numerous jobs. There’s a tremendous amount of employment opportunities here. For anyone who wants to work, you can get a job.”

The point, underscored in this new industry spot, is that fracking has made an old frontier state like North Dakota a new energy frontier. Previously unreachable shale resources are now available in abundance through responsible development. Learn more at Energy From Shale.org.

View the original article here

Editorially Speaking, New York Times is Behind the Curve on Shale Gas

Here’s what caught our eye in an otherwise relatively benign New York Times editorial on shale natural gas and hydraulic fracturing:

“For their part, the oil and gas companies — both the ExxonMobils and the mom-and-pops that abound in hydrofracturing — need to drop their warfare against necessary regulations.”

And later:

“Stronger federal rules are plainly needed.”

Last things first: Stronger federal rules? Where has the Times’ editorial board been the occasions when EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has downplayed the notion of federal shale gas regulation overlaying existing state regulation? Here’s Jackson last fall:

“We have no data right now that lead us to believe one way or the other that there needs to be specific federal regulation of the fracking process. … So it's not to say that there isn't a federal role, but you can't start to talk about a federal role without acknowledging the very strong state role.”

And a couple of days later, on MSNBC:

“States are stepping up and doing a good job. It doesn’t have to be EPA that regulates the 10,000 wells that might go in.”

It’s likely Jackson knows there’s not much the feds could add to the competent, efficient oversight that state regulators already are providing. And the Times doesn’t explain what it believes federal regulation – probably duplicative, almost certainly unnecessary – would accomplish.

In fact, industry recognizes the need for regulation. We just believe it’s best handled by the states. That’s why we’ve worked with the states through the STRONGER organization to develop regulatory regimes tailored for their specific circumstances. API and its members also have worked hard to develop industry standards that often form the basis for state regulations – on wellbore integrity, water management, community relations and more. Industry supports disclosure through the FracFocus online chemical registry.

All of the above address the editorial’s other assertion – that energy companies need to “drop their warfare” against regulation. Sorry, but the real warfare here has been waged by the Times in its “Drilling Down” series, a collection of inaccuracies, misrepresentations and manipulations that the Council on Foreign Relations’ Michael Levi dubbed a “war on shale gas.” This has included flawed reporting on mortgages, leases and the economic future of shale gas – at one point drawing a penalty flag from the newspaper’s own ombudsman. 

So, while noting the editorial’s positive points about shale gas, we encourage the newspaper’s editorial board to get up to speed on the good work states are doing to regulate industry activity, as well as industry efforts to get shale gas development right.

View the original article here