The Associated Press headline reads “EPA METHANE REPORT FURTHER DIVIDES FRACKING CAMPS.”
Kevin Begos (I might have mentioned him previously) leads with a false statement about environmentalists being divided by the news on emissions. Then, as he always does, he provides a quote from a fringe source that supports his statement.
The new EPA data is “kind of an earthquake” in the debate over drilling, said Michael Shellenberger, the president of the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental group based in Oakland, Calif. “This is great news for anybody concerned about the climate and strong proof that existing technologies can be deployed to reduce methane leaks.”
Who? The Breakthrough Institute? Did fracking’s Joe Camel give you their number?
FYI, Begos and your AWOL editors: The Breakthrough Institute tent is NOT in our camp. Never was. The Breakthrough institute is in the camp that attacks Rachel Carson–NOT OUR CAMP.
Next, and again this is typical, he quotes a fracking Joe Camel. For future reference see: Resources for journalists who report on fracking. NOTE TO BEGOS: Just for the novelty of it, try writing something were where you don’t use this type of source.
Let’s be very clear: the EPA estimates are ESTIMATES provided by industry not real measurements. (Begos did touch on this fact.) There is no information provided in the article for the emissions sources included in the estimates. Are emissions from every stage of production and delivery included? Doubt it.
We have ACTUAL measurements of methane released from gas production from NOAA that Begos could have cited but that would be more like real reporting.
Here’s what Begos said:
The scope of the EPA’s revision was vast. In a mid-April report on greenhouse emissions, the agency now says that tighter pollution controls instituted by the industry resulted in an average annual decrease of 41.6 million metric tons of methane emissions from 1990 through 2010, or more than 850 million metric tons overall. That’s about a 20 percent reduction from previous estimates. The agency converts the methane emissions into their equivalent in carbon dioxide, following standard scientific practice.
Here’s what Begos missed:
The decrease in methane emissions due to EPA’s lowering some of its emission factors, is more than compensated for by the EPA now increasing the GWP of methane from 21 to 25: a 19% increase in climate changing impact. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-04-02/pdf/2013-06093.pdf
Remember my blogpost about GWP. The GWP for methane is actually 105 x when considered on a 20-year timeframe.
He also didn’t get a direct quote from the EPA, but he writes “The EPA said,” which personalizes what he writes without having to attribute the source to anyone specific. Begos routinely does this. If he is quoting from a press release or the executive summary, he should say so. I think I might have contacted the EPA for a direct quote with attribution and skip the Joe Camel quote.
Buried at the end of the article, which is again typical Begos, is the quote from a real scientist who studies climate change.
Also note that the EPA still says natural gas operations are the leading source of methane.
A more accurate headline for this Associated Press article would be:
EPA Methane Report Gives Opportunity for Groups that Deeply Disagree to Continue Disagreeing
Also see: The real story about methane and the EPA estimates
{ 15 comments… read them below or add one }
“…The Environmental Protection Agency has dramatically lowered its estimate of how much of a potent heat-trapping gas leaks during natural gas production…”
Keywords: DURING NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION
nothing about after production, or pipelines….
let’s assume numbers are correct for a moment. As gas drilling activity increases so do the number of potent heat-trapping gas leaks. More gas wells, more pipelines, more leaks…. do the math
are gas corps going to dig up gajillion miles of pipelines to fix those leaks? I don’t think so
“While environmental groups likely will dispute the Franklin Forks findings, Pennsylvania officials are making perfectly clear that nearby fracking simply could not be responsible for the elevated methane levels.
“The water samples taken from the private water wells was not of the same origin as the natural gas in the nearby gas wells,” the DEP said.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/apr/29/pa-environment-agency-debunks-fracking-water-claim/#ixzz2RwsQo3yK
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
Here’s what people living in the gas patch know: When they frack, our water gets contaminated. As long as guys like you continue to deny the real and documented impacts, the opposition will grow and grow and grow.
Pak152 – please define fracking.
According to the dictionary: hydraulic fracturing
noun
a process in which fractures in rocks below the earth’s surface are opened and widened by injecting chemicals and liquids at high pressure: used especially to extract natural gas or oil.
Fracking in one small part of the drilling process. To isolate that one small part and apply it to the whole is deceptive.
According to: Technical Report
The Modern Practices of Hydraulic
Fracturing: A Focus on Canadian Resources
The Petroleum Technology Alliance of Canada
March 2013 Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology Tech_Report_313.pdf
http://www.spe.org/ejournals/spe/JCPT/2013/03/Tech_Report_0313.pdf
“the term hydraulic fracturing is often confused, purposely or inadvertly with the entire development lifecycle. Environmental contamination can result from a multitude of activities that are part of the oil and gas exploration and production process.
From Reading Beyond the Headlines: Fracking and Water Contamination | February 17, 2012 | By Mose Buchele | StateImpact.npr.org
“While the study found no direct link between water contamination and fracking itself, it did cite surface spills of fracturing chemicals as a risk to groundwater. It also found blowouts underground during fracking operations have been under-reported.”
The Facts Behind the Frack
Scientists weigh in on the hydraulic fracturing debate
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/343202/description/The_Facts_Behind_the_Frack
how far down and how the methane traveled aren’t clear, says Duke’s Jackson, a coauthor of the study, published last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. He proposes four possibilities. The first, most contentious — and, says Jackson, the least likely — is that the extraction process opens up fissures that allow methane and other chemicals to migrate to the surface. A second possibility is that the steel tubing lining the gas well, the well casing, weakens in some way. Both scenarios would also allow briny water from the shale and fracking fluid to migrate upward. The well water analysis found no evidence of either.
Newly fracked gas wells could also be intersecting with old, abandoned gas or oil wells, allowing methane from those sites to migrate. “We’ve punched holes in the ground in Pennsylvania for 150 years,” Jackson says. Many old wells have not been shut down properly, he says. “You find ones that people plugged with a tree stump.” In some places in Pennsylvania, West Virginia and elsewhere (especially those with existing coal beds), methane turned up in well water long before hydraulic fracturing became widespread.
A fourth possibility, which Jackson thinks is most probable, is that the cement between the well casing and the surrounding rock is not forming a proper seal. Cracking or too little cement could create a passageway allowing methane from an intermediate layer of rock to drift into water sources near the surface. Such cases have been documented. In 2007, for example, the faulty cement seal of a fracked well in Bainbridge, Ohio, allowed gas from a shale layer above the target layer to travel into an underground drinking water source. The methane built up enough to cause an explosion in a homeowner’s basement.
So, Pak152, as you can see there are multiple ways for water to contaminated, this is a known problem, the industry knows it.
Hi Sharon and Dory,
Right on Dory, we don’t care how our water becomes contaminated, the bottom line is that no one takes responsibility and residents bear the risks and damages.
pak152, industry’s gas migration is a huge issue, one they don’t seem to be able to get a handle on. The industry knows it, the regulators know it, our governments know it and of course, now we know it.
According to industry and regulator reports, it’s a:
-“Big problem”
-“Expensive to fix”
-“A technical solution which totally eliminates the problem may never be possible.”
– “A Husky 1993 report states: ‘Gas migration has received increasing attention in recent years….industry and regulators have become more cognizant [of] the problem, in terms of the numbers of wells affected, the potential cost to address the problems and the technical difficulty of completely stopping the leakage….the expected costs to eliminate gas migration are $300,000 per site overall.’
Husky reported that ‘roughly half the wells’ in the area they studied were affected but ‘little consistent data was obtained with respect to the causes of the problem or what might be done about it…a technical solution which totally eliminates the problem may never be possible.’
Husky asked if part of the gas migration problem is caused by ‘natural sources’ or biogenic swamp gas using industry wellbores as conduits.
The Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) presented that the ‘shallower, upper part’ of industry well bores (where the biogenic gas is) have ‘higher potential for leakage’ than deep production zones.14 Dr. Karlis Muehlenbachs presented in November 2011 in Washington that 70% of casing gases come from intermediate layers of well bores, not the target zone, and questioned how effective casings are at preventing migrating gas from reaching the surface.15
– The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) noted the problem of methane migration dramatically increased when drilling density increased.16 This trend has also been reported in the United States.17 Alberta researchers reported natural gas leakage along well bores of about 50% of oil wells in western Canada.18 CAPP reported that well bores were leaking gas and contaminating groundwater long before the new high pressure and densely drilled hydraulic fracturing began.19
– Isotopic fingerprinting of several aquifer gas samples collected for Imperial Oil in the Cold Lake area ‘indicate a contribution of hydrocarbons from deeper geologic strata that reflect known releases of production fluids from leaks in well casing’.30 In 2006 a water sampling company noted that natural gas leaks from surface casing vents in western Canada had ‘the potential to contaminate ground-water, kill vegetation and become a safety concern.’31
– A 2002 field study by Trican Well Service and Husky Energy reported that the percentage of leaking wells ranged from 12% in the Tangleflag area in eastern Alberta to as high as 80% in the Abbey gas field in southern Alberta32. In 2004 the ERCB reported that the number of leaking gas wells in the Wabanum Lake area increased from none in 1990 to more than 140 in 2004.33
– Schumblerger Well Cementing Services reports gas migration problems at 25% in Alberta’s heavy oil fields.34 Although the ERCB reported that there were ‘3810 wells with active surface casing vent flow and 814 with gas migration problems in Alberta,’35 since 1999 it no longer makes this data public.
– A peer reviewed paper36 published in 2009 by the Society of Petroleum Engineers co-authored by the ERCB states that the regulator ‘records well leakage at the surface as surface-casing-vent flow (SCVF) through wellbore annuli and gas migration (GM) outside the casing, as reported by industry’ and maintains information on ‘casing failures’ but that details are ‘not publicly available.’ The paper reports that ‘SCVF is commonly encountered in the oil and gas industry….high buildup pressures may potentially force gas into underground water aquifers’ and that soil GM occurs when deep or shallow gas migrates up outside the wellbore ‘through poorly cemented surface casing.’ The paper concluded that the factors affecting wellbore leakage ‘can be generalized and applied to other basins and/or jurisdictions.’
– In 2006, the Texas Railroad Commission recorded 351 cases of groundwater contamination due to oil and gas activity.89 In 2007, New Mexico recorded 705 incidents of groundwater contamination due to oil and gas development since 1990.90
– A comprehensive investigation in Kansas demonstrated that leaking industry gas had migrated more than six miles.93 The migrating gas caused explosions in 2001 in Hutchinson that destroyed two businesses and damaged many others. Two people died from injuries in a subsequent explosion three miles away the next day caused by the migrating gas.94″
http://banmichiganfracking.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/2012-01-12-updated-gas-migration-paper-Ernst-to-NYDEC.pdf
They also know the frac’ing is only going to make it worse.
“‘The shale gas boom combined with hydraulic fracking will cause wellbores to leak more often than run-of-the-mill conventional wells,’ says Karlis Muehlenbachs, a geochemist at the University of Alberta. ‘The problem is going to get worse, not better.’
Muehlenbachs, who has been fingerprinting leaking gases since 1994, says that hydraulic fracking, which injects water, chemicals and sand into rock formations at high pressures, may create more leaks in wellbores overtime.
‘They’ll frack each well up to 20 times. Each time the pressure will shudder and bang the pipes in the wellbore. The cement is hard and the steel is soft. If you do it all the time you are going to break bonds and cause leaks. It’s a real major issue. ‘
Although petroleum engineers now admit that companies routinely blast fluids and gas into other industry wells hundreds of metres away (B.C., Texas and North Dakota have all documented such cases), they still claim that ‘fracture communication incidents’ can’t happen with groundwater.
Muehlenbachs, who has documented numerous cases of groundwater contamination, calls such denials dishonest.
Whenever methane leaks from one well into a neighboring wellsite, ‘industry says let’s fix the leaks,’ says Muehlenbachs. ‘But as soon as the leaks enter groundwater, everyone abandons the same logic and technology and says it can’t happen and the denials come out. In Alberta, it’s almost a religious belief that gas leaks can’t contaminate groundwater.'”
http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/12/19/Fracking-Contamination/
Until the EPA and the Pennsylvania’s DEP change their water and food standards; they and the gas industry can continue to say that that our water and food meet the “standards”. I challenge the EPA and ALL state agencies, by changing the standards according to the industry operating in a “producing” area or where water is consumed. Like my Food inspector said,” You won’t find “it” if you are NOT looking for “it.” You better start looking for “IT”
It may be true that the ACT of fracking may not have contaminated nearby drinking water wells with methane from deep formations. But change in groundwater chemistry and biogeochemical reactions that result in methanogenesis can result from disturbances in subsurface hydrology during drilling, fracking or water withdrawal activities. You may not get hit with the wrecking ball, but if the building collapses on you, who is responsible?
I first heard about the “Breakthrough Institute” back in January, in a (drum roll) Kevin Begos AP piece on FrackNation:
QUOTE:: One leading environmentalist welcomed “FrackNation’s” take and said he can’t wait to see it. “It’s great this guy’s done this documentary. I think it’s sort of a second wave to the more hysterical first reaction” to fracking, said Michael Shellenberger, president of the Breakthrough Institute, a Berkeley, Calif., nonprofit that argues for new ways to address environmental problems. ::QUOTE
A “leading environmentalist”?? We need Dory to connect the dots behind this Shillenberger dude and Breakthrough Institute…
http://williamahuston.blogspot.com/2013/01/kevin-begos-of-ap-celebrates-phelim.html
William Huston recently posted..Fracking Teddick Site – 4-25-13
The wells closest to Franklin Forks, the DePue and Hollenbeck have both been cited by PA DEP for casing failures or inadequate casing. Several others on the same pads have been noted as having bubbles at the annulus which would also indicate poor casings yet they haven’t been cited. So the fact that its not Marcellus gas is hardly a clean bill of health for the industry in the area.
Casing problems would allow communication between other formations and not necessarily between the Marcellus and the aquifers. Any void or cracks in the casing along its length could be causing formations above the Marcellus to communicate with the aquifers and causing these problems. Had these pathways not been opened by drilling this gas may have never made it to the surface.
http://thetimes-tribune.com/news/state-searching-for-cause-of-methane-in-franklin-twp-water-wells-1.1286095
And all that aside. The industry and their apologists are trying to paint this as a “get out of jail free” card for EVERY methane contamination case in the country. Thats not really going to float as several industry spokesmen including Mark Boling of SWN V+ have been documented admitting that methane migration from casing failure is one of the biggest hurdles the industry faces today.
http://environment.yale.edu/envirocenter/post/webinar-recap-an-industry-perspective-on-the-shale-gas-debate/
Pa Fracking Water Study – Read Between the Lines
http://blog.shaleshockmedia.org/2013/03/12/pa-fracking-water-study-read-between-the-lines/
By now there is probably many discussions going on regarding the recent article “Pa. water study shows spill concerns small” by Kevin Begos from the Associated Press (AP).
The article/press release mollifies the concerns of the general reader about rivers and waterways being contaminated from fracking.
Begos’ article didn’t mention the name of the study, and it’s not until paragraph 7 that even a clue as to the origin of the study is mentioned.
This is where we need to read between the lines and do the research Begos should have done.
Letter to Editor, Re: Kevin Begos
http://westmorelandmarcellus.blogspot.com/2013/04/westmoreland-marcellus-citizens-group_12.html
AP Editor-Energy
info@ap.org
I cancelled my subscription to the Latrobe Bulletin, a newspaper I have enjoyed tremendously, due to the inadequate and biased reporting of Kevin Begos on hydraulic fracturing. I ask that you please replace him with a journalist who is able to present news that balances the benefit of profit versus the deleterious effects of drilling on environment, property rights, and health. I do not know if the problem is Kevin Begos or a general AP position on drilling. I will provide a few examples of skewed writing by Begos. I have seen other on- line comments by readers disgusted with Begos’s reporting. (I have also quoted a few lines from a letter to the editor by Stephen Luffy of Latrobe PA)
Begos wrote of environmental organizations that were considering supporting fracking, quoting the benefits of drilling. He wrote nothing of the numerous organizations such as Clean Water Action, Mountain Watershed, Penn Environment, NRDC, (there are many more) that have serious concerns regarding hydraulic fracturing as one of the most toxic industrial operations to invade Pennsylvania communities.
Begos quoted PennFuture’s statement that gas powered plants burn cleaner, but twisted that to a claim that gas results in improved overall air quality: “natural gas is having a positive effect on air quality”. He omitted any testimony from scientists who state unequivocally that gas operations will increase serious health and environmental problems in areas fractured for gas.
Begos wrote about the Duke University brine migration study, interpreting it as a vindication of the industry. The headline of his article read, “Drilling Did Not Contaminate Drinking Water Wells”, emphasizing that the brine examined was not from fracking. But he ignored important data that was actually the headline of other news articles:
“ But there is concern that the presence of the brine suggests there are “natural pathways” leading up to aquifers from far below the surface, and that these pathways might allow gases from shale-gas wells to put drinking-water supplies at risk.”
Begos cited sources that denied any basis for linking Texas gas facility pollution to breast cancer increases, writing that there were virtually no reports available that indicated an increase in breast cancer. . He did not cite sources that did point to a link.
From the Denton Record Chronicle:
“According to the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality’s 2010 inventory of gas production equipment in the 24 counties of the Barnett Shale, the same six counties with rising rates of invasive breast cancer also have the highest count of compressors, separators, tanks and other above-ground points of emissions”. While not proof of causation, this data raised concerns.
Begos also takes issue with reports on air pollution from gas operations, arguing that coal plants emit more pollution than gas-powered plants. Apples and oranges. Begos ignores irrefutable data about pollution from total gas operations i.e., wells, compressor stations, processing plants, valves, and condensate tanks. Combined, these facilities, being built near homes and schools, produce huge amounts of toxic air pollution: thousands of pounds of nitrogen oxide, VOCs, and disease- causing chemicals like benzene, toluene, and formaldehyde.
When AP covered shale waste being moved by barge in Pittsburgh the reporter, this unsigned article, did quote Clean Water Action. The reporter then quoted John Jack of GreenHunter Water as saying “nobody told us that we couldn’t move shale wastewater by barge.“ The AP reporter left out an important clarifying quote that other news sources carried- that is the quote from the Coast Guard stating unequivocally that moving the waste by barge was illegal:
“CMDR Roldan of the Coast Guard, noted that current regulations are confusing but said, “No they’re not allowed. You may want to tell them before we catch them.” (Post Gazette, Emily Demarco)
When Begos covered information from Carnegie Mellon researchers on water quality problems in the Mon River that may have been linked to drilling, he wrote an entire article about how the problem was disappearing but never included data that the very same researchers released noting that the Allegheny is having conductivity problems.
Here’s that story from another source: “The good news is that bromine levels in the Monongahela have decreased significantly, bromine content being a direct marker for disposed fracking wastewater. As reported by Carnegie Mellon researchers, the same was not true for the water in the Allegheny River, suggesting that dumping of untreated frack water is still occurring north of Pittsburgh. The bad news is that there are as many as 200,000 abandoned gas wells in Pennsylvania, and they can provide pathways for methane gas released by fresh drilling to leak to the surface, as happened at a Shell operation in June. Problem is, DEP does not know where all these old wells are.”
The shale news Begos reports is almost always positive, for example, “Billions in Gas drilling Royalties Transform Lives.” But the negative side of those reports and other critical issues receive little or no coverage: local zoning destroyed by the industry, community groups fighting for their rights, farmers report sick cattle, numerous violations not receiving fines, property values negatively affected, families’ health affected- the now common frack rash, nosebleeds, and other health problems which arose after drilling started ( The list of those harmed in PA has now reached over 800 individuals). Readers have to look to the Post Gazette’s Don Hopey, Pro Publica, Alternet, EWire, and other sources to find that news.
I quote this from another reader who wrote of Begos’s bias: “Readers should expect fair and accurate information from reporters who are paid to do their homework. Sound, unbiased reporting can serve to help achieve better regulation of the industry and justice for residents working to preserve their communities.” What we are getting is poor journalism without the data checks and investigation readers expect from AP news.
Isn’t this the same reporter who accused another reporter of being in the “fracking opposition”?
Oh yeah. I had forgotten that. I did a FOIA on correspondence regarding that story. I might share it someday.
RS’s blog had good picture of the well water going strange after fracking started nearby her old home.
the breakthrough institute was part of the climate change disinformation campaign. http://www.salon.com/2009/04/22/romm_cap_and_trade/ their strategy is = fred luntz.
what’s next, ann coulter quoted on fracking mechanics?