By Madeline Detelich
Today's EPA announcement on new methane rules for oil and gas comes on the heels of a summer of unsettling reports on the Barnett Shale area in North Texas. In June, researchers from UT Arlington published a report on water quality in the region. In July, the U.S. Geological Survey named the region among the top water users among the energy sector, and new research sponsored by the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) found higher methane emissions than EPA estimates. This news should be seen as a reminder that the fracking industry needs to be carefully monitored and additional safeguards, inspections and enforcement need to be developed in order to keep our shale regions safe.
Groundwater Quality
For A Comprehensive Analysis of Groundwater Quality in the Barnett Shale Region, published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology, UTA researchers analyzed 550 groundwater samples taken from both private and agricultural wells and municipal water supplies in and around the Barnett Shale. The researchers tested the samples for the presence of select chemical compounds used in fracking in addition to various metals and ions.
Elevated levels of ten different metals and nineteen different chemical compounds were detected. Of the chemical compounds detected, one of the most alarming was benzene, a very carcinogenic volatile organic compound. It was detected in 34 wells, 91% of which were located in the Barnett Shale with 83% coming from Montague County, one of the heaviest areas of production. In all 34 wells, the benzene concentration exceeded the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 0.005 mg/L. Benzene is part of a class of compounds found in petroleum derivatives known as BTEX compounds in addition to toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene. At least one BTEX compound was detected in 381 of the 550 samples. Toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene, detected in 240, 22, and 240 wells, respectively, were all found at levels below their MCL.
The researchers also discovered methanol and ethanol, two compounds used in unconventional drilling as anti-corrosive and gelling agents, in 35 and 240 wells, respectively. The majority of these wells were in the Barnett Shale.
Using historical water quality data, the scientists were able to demonstrate a change in the presence of contaminants before and after oil and gas operations began in the region. However, the researchers could not show that the occurrence of contaminants correlated with the distance from drilling operations, evidence needed to prove the source of the contamination. This was because the voluntary participation in the study favored participants already concerned about their water quality because of their proximity to operations. To accurately determine the source of the contamination, an even distribution of samples inside and outside the region would be necessary.
The researchers were, however, transparent about their sample bias. They concluded that the discovery of harmful contaminants such as benzene provides evidence that groundwater in the region should be further monitored and analyzed.
Water Usage
Another report published this summer was the U.S. Geological Survey’s analysis of energy sector water use. According to the report, companies that frack the Barnett Shale were collectively among the top water users in the energy sector. According to the report, 2.6–9.7 million gallons of water per well were used from 2011-2014.
Methane Leaks
Eleven studies were published in July as part of a larger, collaborative effort led by EDF to better understand methane emissions from the U.S. natural gas supply chain. Among the findings was the discovery that methane emissions from the Barnett region may be almost 50% higher than current EPA estimates.
Methane, the primary component in natural gas, is a greenhouse gas much more effective at capturing heat than carbon dioxide. Natural gas may seem preferable to coal, as it releases less carbon dioxide when burned, but excessive leakages along the supply chain can negate its benefits. Therefore, it is very important to have an accurate picture of the sources and quantities of methane emissions coming from natural gas production areas.
The studies used a diverse array of techniques to gather measurements from multiple points of view. Measured emissions ranged from 0.01-47.8%. The median rate was 2.1%, indicating that the majority of the emissions were at the low end. According to one of the studies, “emissions from natural gas production sites are characterized by skewed distributions, where a small percentage of sites—commonly labeled super-emitters—account for a majority of emissions.”
In addition to gathering leakage data, researchers examined the costs associated with reducing methane emissions. When compared to the money lost by allowing so much of their product to escape, reducing methane emissions is relatively inexpensive. The studies illuminated a lamentable fact: in states where measures to combat methane emissions are largely optional, like Texas, companies are not addressing the issue.
EDF Vice President in the Climate and Energy Program, Mark Browstein, summed up the importance of the findings very well: “The Barnett papers tell us there’s a pervasive but manageable pollution problem occurring across the entire supply chain that requires a comprehensive, systematic, monitoring effort and effective repair regime to address it.”
Industry Responds
Energy in Depth (EID), an online publication launched by the Independent Petroleum Association of America, had a few things to say about the UTA and EDF studies.
They responded to the water contamination research with an article that shows flippant disregard for the potentially serious findings. Without being able to dismiss the study outright, the author chose to solely discuss what he believes are its flaws. The author focused especially on the study’s inability to name a source of the contamination, but he did not deny that contaminants were indeed discovered. The author does not attempt to explain the discovery of fracking chemicals in the wells or offer any potential alternative sources.
For the author's final act of hand-waving, he reminds readers that the EPA found no evidence of widespread water contamination—which they announced in a report earlier this summer—as if to say that the question of whether or not fracking can contaminate local water sources is permanently resolved. The author completely ignores the key message of the UTA report – that more research and monitoring should be pursued to understand how the toxic chemicals got to be present in a significant number of the wells. Even if the sources of the contamination are unclear at this point, the discovery of benzene and other harmful chemicals should be deeply troubling, especially if you’re living in the area.
In response to the methane studies, EID published an article with the remarkable headline, “New Methane Studies Find Exceedingly Low Leakage Rates”. The report is bafflingly congratulatory of the industry, highlighting progress in lowering leakage rates and overall rates meeting environmental standards. Instead of attempting to explain the existence of super-emitters that can lose nearly half of the natural gas they extract, or discussing meaningful plans to clean them up, the article implies that because super-emitters are outliers, their existence is irrelevant.
Yes, “high emissions were the exception rather than the rule.” However, that doesn’t seem to be a convincing reason to just accept that methane emissions are under control. How many of these super-emitters need to exist before it’s a problem the industry thinks it, or the Railroad Commission, should deal with? While the existence of sloppy operators may not be the fault of the entire industry, it is a pretty compelling argument for more monitoring and tighter regulations—a conclusion that the industry constantly balks at, and our state leaders routinely pass over.
(One bit of potentially good news is that the EPA just announced new regulations on methane emissions from oil and gas facilities. Read Sierra Club President Michael Brune's press statement here.)
These studies have a common thread in that neither was designed to be an indictment of the fracking industry, yet the industry reacted defensively. This body of research increases our understanding of a complex and undeniably intensive process. Moreover, these attempts to delineate the problems related to unconventional oil and gas drilling methods should benefit the oil and gas industry if, as they say, they are truly invested in conducting their operations safely.
With every new piece of evidence that fracking can put the environment and public health at risk, the industry’s PR machine puts out the same tired response. They obfuscate the data by questioning the scope of the research and/or simply ignore key findings. They are doubling down on their commitment to the status quo in the face of mounting evidence that, in an ideal world, should compel them to act. It should also motivate regulatory bodies, like the Railroad Commission, and elected bodies, like the Texas Legislature, to respond and protect the safety and well being of their stakeholders and constituents. But with the easy passage of HB 40 last session, Texans know all too well what little importance their constituents are compared to oil and gas industry profits. Fortunately, with the Railroad Commission about to go through a Sunset Commission review, now is the right time to call on our legislators to finally take action and put safeguards in place to protect our land, water, and air.
Photo courtesy of albradenphoto.com.