Posts Tagged ‘Environmental Protection Agency’

BY BORYS KRAWCZENIUK (STAFF WRITER)
Published: July 29, 2010

A provision to require disclosure of all chemicals used in fracturing Marcellus Shale to extract natural gas could wind up as part of the scaled-down national energy bill the U.S. Senate might consider soon.

Sen. Bob Casey said he convinced Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to fold disclosure provisions of his Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act into the energy bill.

“It’s a great breakthrough,” he said. “It’s a substantial step forward. … It gives people information they wouldn’t have otherwise about what’s happening underneath their property.”

Senate leaders are hoping to pass the bill before the summer recess Aug. 6, after realizing they did not have the votes to pass a more comprehensive energy bill. Even if the smaller energy bill gets through the Senate, the House would have to pass it before President Barack Obama can sign it. Neither is assured.

Industry groups said the fracturing chemicals are already well known to the public and state regulators, and further disclosure would harm the development of natural gas.

“We fundamentally believe that regulation of hydraulic fracturing is best addressed at the state level, and we have been unable to reach a consensus with congressional advocates on how this program would be overseen by the federal government,” America’s Natural Gas Alliance said in a statement.

Congress and the federal Environmental Protection Agency are studying whether the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing of shale contaminate drinking water.

Energy In Depth, an industry group, argues regulation should be left to states, which “have effectively regulated hydraulic fracturing for over 40 years with no confirmed incidents of groundwater contamination associated with (fracturing) activities.”

At public meetings on gas drilling, local residents regularly dispute the claim.

Though the industry argues the chemicals it uses are well known, a Times-Tribune investigation determined that DEP scientists who analyzed spilled fracturing chemicals at a Susquehanna County well site in September found 10 compounds never disclosed on the drilling contractor’s material safety data sheet.

None of the 10 was included in a state Department of Environmental Protection list of chemicals used in fracturing, a list developed by the industry. When DEP posted a new list earlier this month, none of the 10 was on it.

Mr. Casey dismissed the industry criticism.

“That’s why I called it a substantial step forward, if they’re attacking it,” he said. “If they’re feeling that this is giving information to people that they are reluctant to disclose, that’s why I think it’s an important change, and it’s progress on an issue that some would have thought would have taken years to get done.”

Mr. Casey’s legislation would amend the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, which requires employers to disclose what hazardous chemicals they use.

The amendments would require:

– Well-drilling operators to disclose to state regulators and the public a list of chemicals used in fracturing, commonly known as fracking. The requirement would cover chemical constituents but not chemical formulas whose manufacturers are allowed by law to keep the formulas secret, according to Mr. Casey’s office.

– Disclosure to be specific to each well.

– Disclosure of secret formulas or chemical constituents to doctors or nurses treating a contamination victim in an emergency.

– An end to thresholds for reporting chemicals normally required by law so all amounts of chemicals are reported.

In an analysis of the legislation, Energy In Depth said it would “chill” investment in innovations in fracturing and place “unrealistic burdens” on natural gas producers by requiring them to disclose secret chemical compounds whose composition they legally can know nothing about.

In an interview, DEP Secretary John Hanger said he welcomed the federal legislation, argued Pennsylvania already requires more disclosure than his bill and believes companies should disclose the volume and mix of chemicals they use in fracking.

Contact the writer: bkrawczeniuk@timesshamrock.com

View article here.

Copyright:  The Scranton Times

Canonsburg, Pa. – Tonight, Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC) president and executive director Kathryn Klaber will deliver the following remarks at a public EPA forum on hydraulic fracturing. Excerpts and full text — as prepared for delivery — of her remarks are below:

• “Fracturing is considered a safe and essential part of the responsible development of natural gas, which studies have shown has the potential to create nearly 212,000 new jobs throughout Pennsylvania over the next decade.”
• “Our industry is working tirelessly to ensure that fracturing is done effectively, prudently and in a way that continues to create thousands of good-paying jobs and stable supplies of homegrown energy for U.S. consumers.”

My name is Kathryn Klaber, and I have the tremendous privilege of serving as the Marcellus Shale Coalition’s first president. And on behalf of the MSC – the organizational body that represents the vast majority of shale gas producers and midstream companies operating in the Commonwealth – I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the significant role hydraulic fracturing continues to play in the responsible development of clean-burning, job-creating natural gas.

As the MSC said at the outset of this study in March, our industry is confident that an objective, science-driven, and peer-reviewed evaluation of fracturing will reach the same conclusions produced by a host of other studies, including most notably one issued by your agency in 2004.

In that report — the product of an intensive, four-year course of study first initiated under the Clinton administration — EPA found “no evidence” suggesting the fracturing of shallow coalbed methane reserves posed a threat to underground drinking water supplies. Certainly you’re aware that coalbed methane strata reside thousands of feet closer to the water table than shale formations, and that the technology used today to access clean-burning natural gas from these formations is much more advanced and sophisticated than what was available in the past.

Here in Pennsylvania, fracturing has been in use for more than 50 years, and has been tightly regulated by the state almost before we had a name for it. Today, as you know, fracturing is considered a safe and essential part of the responsible development of natural gas, which studies have shown has the potential to create nearly 212,000 new jobs throughout Pennsylvania over the next decade.

Because of tight regulations and laws in place, coupled with the commitment from industry to protect the environment, there’s never been a single case of groundwater contamination associated with fracturing, as noted by PA DEP, top EPA officials, other state regulators, and the Groundwater Protection Council.

As EPA’s study moves forward, it’s critical to consider what the top officials responsible for regulating fracturing in the Commonwealth have said. Scott Perry, director of DEP’s bureau of oil and gas management – with whom my members work closely with – said this in May:

• “We’ve never seen an impact to fresh groundwater directly from fracking.”
• “No one’s ever documented drinking water wells that have actually been shown to be impacted by fracking.”

Pittsburgh Congressman Mike Doyle has said that state officials have “done a great job in regulating” Marcellus Shale exploration.

Unfortunately, while perceptions remain that our industry continues to resist regulations, the truth is quite the opposite. In fact, my member companies met earlier today with top DEP officials about well-casing standards; the second of such productive meetings in just months.

Our industry is working tirelessly to ensure that fracturing is done effectively, prudently and in a way that continues to create thousands of good-paying jobs and stable supplies of homegrown energy for U.S. consumers.

Once again, thank for the opportunity to speak here tonight about the critical role that hydraulic fracturing continues to play in realizing the Marcellus’s promise.

NOTE: Click HERE to view these remarks on-line.

Agency convenes hearing in Canonsburg tomorrow to discuss scope of upcoming hydraulic fracturing study. But has EPA forgotten about its 2004 report?

Tomorrow night in Canonsburg, the EPA will convene its third public hearing on its upcoming study on hydraulic fracturing, a key technology that’s been used to produce energy in Pennsylvania for more than a half-century, but one that’s become especially important lately as efforts to convert the enormous potential of the Marcellus into jobs and revenues for Pennsylvanians move forward across the Commonwealth.

But for those keeping tally at home, this new study by EPA isn’t the first time the agency has looked into the safety and performance of fracturing technology. In a report released by EPA in June 2004, federal officials found the fracturing of coalbed methane formations “poses little or no threat” to underground sources of drinking water – despite that fact that coal seams generally reside close to formations carrying drinking water underground. In remarks set to be delivered at tomorrow’s hearing, MSC president and executive director Kathryn Klaber lays out some additional details (and context) associated with this landmark study:

In that report — the product of an intensive, four-year course of study first initiated under the Clinton administration — EPA found “no evidence” suggesting the fracturing of shallow coalbed methane reserves posed a threat to underground drinking water supplies. Certainly you’re aware that coalbed methane strata residethousands of feet closer to the water table than shale formations, and that the technology used today to access clean-burning natural gas from these formations is much more advanced and sophisticated than what was available in the past.

For their part, natural gas critics contend that EPA’s 2004 study on fracturing’s application to coalbed methane reserves somehow isn’t relevant to the current conversation about the Marcellus Shale. Come again? If the fracturing of shallow coalbeds near the water table was found to be safe by EPA, how is it that the fracturing of deep shale formations is any less so? After all, we’re talking about shale strata that reside thousands and thousands of feet below both the water table and the coal beds themselves.

Thursday’s forum in Canonsburg is expected to address some of these questions, and more generally lay out the direction that EPA will take in engaging in its second study on hydraulic fracturing in 70 months. And you know what? It’s an effort we support in full. With fracturing, we’re talking about a technology that’s been deployed more than 1.1 million times in the 60-plus years in which it’s been in commercial use. And in all that time, not a single government regulator – including the EPA – has made a single claim suggesting it’s a threat to groundwater. Assuming this new study is science-based and peer-reviewed, there’s no reason to believe its findings will diverge from what the agency has consistently found in the past.

So what will the latest installment of EPA’s hydraulic fracturing study series look like when it hits the shelves sometime in the next two or three years? Tough to say for sure, but if it ends up drawing on the testimony of regulators in the states, experts in the field, and everyday Americans whose lives are being made better and more prosperous thanks to the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity of shale gas in America – it should be quite a page-turner indeed.

In the meantime, folks interested in coming out to tell EPA what they think of responsible shale gas development in Pennsylvania have a few outstanding tasks to complete before they arrive tomorrow night. First order of business: Register for the meeting, which is easily accomplished by navigating to this page. Second: Make sure to stock up on all the facts. MSC fact sheets have been developed on a range of topics likely to be addressed in some form – from the full disclosure of materials involved in the fracturing process, to the many ways in which natural gas can be used as a workhorse in PA to deliver a clean, secure and affordable energy future. The full arsenal can be accessed here.

So that should just about do it. Pre-registration for the event starts at 5:00 p.m. sharp, and the address for the Hilton Garden Inn is 1000 Corporate Drive in Canonsburg. Hope to see you out there.

Copyright: Marcelluscoalition.org

Canonsburg, Pa. – Earlier today, the Pittsburgh City Council passed a resolution calling for a statewide ban on clean-burning natural gas from the Marcellus Shale for an entire year, including the development of those resources on privately-owned land. Kathryn Klaber, president and executive director of the Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC), issued this statement in response to Council’s resolution, which carries no legal authority:

“Today’s action by the Pittsburgh City Council is unfortunate, unnecessary, and frankly, ill-advised. Most troubling, it comes at a time when the responsible development of clean-burning natural gas from the Marcellus is creating tens of thousands of jobs for residents all across the Commonwealth, breathing new life into our economy at a time and place when it’s perhaps never been needed more.

“Unfortunately, Council appears to have bought wholesale into the argument that Marcellus exploration represents a threat to our water and surrounding environment, notwithstanding a mountain of evidence from EPA, DEP and a just about every environmental regulator across the country that says precisely the opposite. Council has instead decided to take a position that’s unsupported by science, an affront to the rights of landowners, and very much at odds with a budget picture that could be significantly improved under a scenario of safe development and enormous revenue generation within the boundaries of the Council’s jurisdiction.

“Producing more energy here at home creates good-paying jobs, and helps drive down our nation’s dependence on unstable and unfriendly regions of world for the energy we need to fuel our economy. Pennsylvanians overwhelmingly understand this. Job-creators and small business owners understand this, too. It’s unfortunate that Pittsburgh City Council does not.”

Copyright: Marcelluscoalition.org

Study says millions of PA residents relying on private water wells that may contain contaminants – none of which are related to the Marcellus Shale

Nearly 20,000 new wells are drilled in Pennsylvania every year. And among these, not a single one of them has anything to do with oil or natural gas.

Instead, these wells are drilled for the purpose of accessing underground sources of water. In Pennsylvania, more than three million residents rely on private wells for essential sources of potable water – second most in the entire nation behind Michigan. So lots of wells must mean lots of good, high-quality drinking water, right? Not according to a report issued last year by researchers from Penn State.

The study, available here and commissioned by the Center for Rural Pennsylvania, was conducted over two years and drew on samples from more than 700 individual private water wells installed all across the state. What did the researchers find? For starters, a full 40 percent of tested wells failed to meet the state’s drinking water standards for safety. Keep in mind that Pennsylvania supports more than 1 million private water wells – which means it’s possible that more than 400,000 water wells, serving roughly 700,000 residents, are of a quality and nature of potential concern. And the worst thing about it? According to the survey, very few of these well owners even knew they had a problem.

With more than 1,300 Marcellus wells developed in Pennsylvania this year, it’s become a popular thing to assume that wells drilled for the purpose of tapping enormous and clean-burning reserves of natural gas 5,000 to 9,000 feet below the water table are having a deleterious impact on underground drinking water. The alleged culprit? A commonly deployed well stimulation technology known as hydraulic fracturing, a technique that’s been used more than a million times over the past 60 years not just for oil and natural gas, but forgeothermal production and even by EPA for Superfund clean-ups.

But as mentioned, the report on private water wells from Penn State was issued in 2009, roughly 50 years removed from the first-ever application of fracturing technology in the Commonwealth — and five years after the fracturing of the first-ever Marcellus Shale well. In other words, hydraulic fracturing has been around an awful long time in Pennsylvania, and so has the development of oil (1859) and natural gas (1881). So if the critics are right, those activities must have been identified by researchers as the greatest threats to the state’s underground water resources, right?

Take a look for yourself:

Of the 28 variables measured for each well, the results demonstrated that natural variables, such as the type of bedrock geology where the well was drilled, were important in explaining the occurrence of most pollutants in wells. Soil moisture conditions at the time of sampling were the single most important variable in explaining the occurrence of bacteria in private wells. … Inadequate well construction was strongly correlated with the occurrence of both coliform and E. coli bacteria in wells.

That’s right – we forgot to mention the fecal coliform (exactly what you think it is) and E. coli bacteria. According to the report, it turns out that 33 percent of private water wells in PA were found to be contaminated with the coliform, while a staggering 14 percent tested positive for E. coli. Another contaminant of concern is naturally occurring arsenic. Two percent of tested wells had increased levels of that, which potentially translates into 20,000 water wells across the state. According to the report, arsenic “most often occur[s] naturally from certain types of rocks but it can also come from treated lumber and pesticides.” Incidentally, Pennsylvania is among the only states in the nation without regulations governing the construction of private water wells or the periodic testing of the quality of water that comes from them.

This presentation prepared by the U.S. Geological Survey will take a minute or two to load, but take a look at slide 23 if you get the chance. Turns out Pennsylvania’s water wells are among the only ones in the nation with “high contaminant concentrations” for every one of the Big 3: arsenic, nitrates and radon. Again: Nothing in the report remotely related to Marcellus Shale activities. But don’t take our word for it – ask DEP (by way of Scott Perry, director of DEP’s Bureau of Oil and Gas Management):

“If there was fracturing of the producing formations that was having a direct communication with groundwater, the first thing you would notice is the salt content in the drinking water. It’s never happened. After a million times across the country, no one’s ever documented drinking water wells that have actually been shown to be impacted by fracking.”

Protecting underground sources of drinking water is and will always be our top priority – after all, we live here too. But if we expect the quality of our water to improve, first we’ll need to be honest about how it got where it is today, and then we’ll need to get serious about what needs to be done to improve it. That, we think, is what you’d do if you genuinely cared about the state and status of Pennsylvania’s private water wells. Unfortunately, too many folks seem all too willing to blame the entire phenomenon on the development of the Marcellus Shale – irrespective of the science, and blind to the history of the past 60 years.

Copyright: Marcelluscoalition.org

By Steve Mocarskysmocarsky@timesleader.com
Staff Writer

SCRANTON – U.S. Sen. Robert Casey wants the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to investigate and respond to groundwater contamination that the state has linked to a natural gas well in Susquehanna County.

In a letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, Casey noted that natural gas drilling in the Marcellus Shale region has led to job creation, strengthened the state economy and reduced dependence on foreign oil.

However, Casey writes, “the highly variable and unpredictable nature” of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) “that can lead to the contamination of drinking water is of great concern.” He noted the gas and oil industry is exempt from complying with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

Casey said there are many reasons for requesting EPA involvement, including recent incidents in the state that “raise the question of whether the necessary steps have been taken to protect Pennsylvania families and communities against the detrimental side effects of drilling.”

He pointed to methane gas infiltration into private water wells in Dimock Township and noted that several wells have exploded because of a suspected buildup of natural gas.

Casey said the state Department of Environmental Protection fined Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. $240,000, ordered the plugging of three natural gas wells believed to be the source of the contamination, prohibited Cabot from drilling in the vicinity for one year and required Cabot to install permanent water treatment systems in affected homes.

Casey also noted that, according to DEP, between 6,000 and 8,000 gallons of fracking fluid leaked from a pipe at a drill site and contaminated the surrounding area and a wetland in Susquehanna County in two separate spills on the same day in September 2009 – one in the afternoon that leaked 25 to 50 barrels of fluid, another in the evening that leaked 140 barrels.

“I commend DEP for taking action, but I remain concerned that the current status of federal and state oversight of gas drilling may be inadequate” to protect families living near drilling sites, Casey wrote.

The senator asked for a meeting with appropriate EPA officials to discuss natural gas drilling and whether the agency could investigate water and environmental contamination. He said he hopes Science Advisory Board officials would also attend the meeting to discuss the scope, timing and methodology of a congressionally mandated study the EPA has launched on hydraulic fracturing.

An EPA spokeswoman said officials are reviewing Casey’s letter and expect to respond in the near future.

Steve Mocarsky, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 970-7311.

Copyright: Times Leader

Green Party rally on Earth Day protests environmental concerns regarding fracking.

By Sherry Longslong@timesleader.com
Staff Writer

WILKES-BARRE – Local environmental activists used this year’s Earth Day to address their viewpoints on gas drilling.

Members of the Luzerne County Green Party held a rally on Public Square around lunchtime Thursday explaining their fears that gas companies drilling throughout Northeastern Pennsylvania will cause more environmental harm than good by drilling.

This year was the 40th anniversary of Earth Day, the international movement to bring awareness to economical issues.

Party co-chairman Carl Romanelli thinks the state needs to enact stiffer guidelines to protect the water resources because the gas drillers were given what he called a loophole in 2005 in the federal Clean Water Act.

He believes the hydro-fracturing system, also known as fracking, used to extract gas from deep within the earth could be harmful because it uses what he calls a “toxic soup” of chemicals.

“It is essential that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania step up to protect its citizens and natural resources of Pennsylvania and not sell us out,” Romanelli said.

Chris Tucker, a spokesman for the Marcellus Shale Coalition, an organization based near Pittsburgh, created to support gas drilling throughout the state, disagreed with Romanelli. He said gas drilling is more environmentally friendly than other drilling practices of decades past.

“Because of hydraulic fracking and horizontial drilling, we today produce 10 times the amount of energy with one-tenth the number of wells drilled. We are reducing land disturbance, reducing the need for infrastructure and reducing all types of environmental foot prints because we are drilling fewer wells,” Tucker said.

The primary elements used in fracking are excessive gallons of water and sand with a small amount of chemicals mixed in, he added. Those chemicals help push the water down nearly two miles deep into the surface, which then forces the gas upward.

He said fracking has been around for 60 years and is used by the federal Environmental Protection Agency to clean up severely toxic sites and dig nine out of every 10 wells, including water wells across the nation.

John Hanger of the state Department of Environmental Protection said the state monitors fracking very closely and there have been no instances of where fracking has contaminated anyone’s drinking water.

Copyright: Times Leader

Sporting groups, conservationists and anti-drilling neighbors protest the large-scale gas exploration.

MICHAEL RUBINKAM Associated Press Writer

PLEASANT MOUNT, Pa. — A few hundred yards from Louis Matoushek’s farmhouse is a well that could soon produce not only natural gas, but a drilling boom in the wild and scenic Delaware River watershed.

Energy companies have leased thousands of acres of land in Pennsylvania’s unspoiled northeastern tip, hoping to tap vast stores of gas in a sprawling rock formation — the Marcellus Shale — that some experts believe could become the nation’s most productive gas field.

Plenty of folks like Matoushek are eager for the gas, and the royalty checks, to start flowing — including farmers who see Marcellus money as a way to keep their struggling operations afloat.

“It’s a depressed area,” Matoushek said. “This is going to mean new jobs, real jobs, not government jobs.”

Standing in the way is a loose coalition of sporting groups, conservationists and anti-drilling neighbors. They contend that large-scale gas exploration so close to crucial waterways will threaten drinking water, ruin a renowned wild trout fishery, wreck property values, and transform a rural area popular with tourists into an industrial zone with constant noise and truck traffic.

Both sides are furiously lobbying the Delaware River Basin Commission, the powerful federal-interstate compact agency that monitors water supplies for 15 million people, including half the population of New York City. The commission has jurisdiction because the drilling process will require withdrawing huge amounts of water from the watershed’s streams and rivers and because of the potential for groundwater pollution.

The well on Matoushek’s 200-acre spread in the northern Pocono Mountains in Wayne County is up first. The commission is reviewing an application by Stone Energy Corp. of Lafayette, La., to extract gas from the well — the first of what could be thousands of applications by energy companies to sink wells in an area roughly the size of Connecticut.

Stone Energy’s application has already generated more than 1,700 written comments to the DRBC. The company, which paid a $70,000 penalty for drilling the Matoushek well without DRBC approval in 2008, has already received a permit from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection.

Eager gas companies have leased more than 300 square miles of watershed land, conservation officials estimate.

“This is certainly just the start. There’s a lot of acreage out there, and a lot of people interested in leasing their land,” said Tracy Carluccio, deputy director of the anti-drilling Delaware Riverkeeper Network.

The Marcellus Shale is a rock formation 6,000 to 8,000 feet beneath Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia and Ohio, including about 36 percent of the Delaware River basin. New drilling techniques now allow affordable access to supplies in the Marcellus and other shales in the U.S. that once were too expensive to tap.

Energy companies combine horizontal drilling with hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” a technique that injects vast amounts of water, along with sand and chemicals, underground to break up the shale and release the gas.

While gas companies refuse to identify the chemicals they use — claiming that is proprietary information — critics cite contamination problems in other natural gas drilling fields. They worry that unregulated fracking can taint drinking water, deplete aquifers and produce briny wastewater that can kill fish. In Dimock, Pa., about 40 miles west of the Matoushek well but outside the Delaware basin, state environmental regulators say that cracked casings on fracked wells have tainted residential water supplies with methane gas.

The Environmental Protection Agency announced last month that it will study the impact of fracking on the environment and human health. The EPA said in 2004 there was no evidence that fracking threatens drinking water quality, but critics, including a veteran engineer in the Denver regional EPA office, argued that report’s methodology was flawed.

The industry contends environmental concerns are overblown. It says the drilling techniques are safe and that there has never been a proven case of groundwater contamination caused by fracking — in part because fracking occurs far below the water table. Congress exempted hydraulic fracturing from federal oversight in 2005.

Dozens of people told the DRBC at a recent public hearing why they oppose the watershed drilling. A few supporters called it an economic boon and a property-rights issue.

Richard Kreznar, who owns property in the Pennsylvania riverfront community of Damascus, said gas drilling primarily benefits large landowners and exploration companies.

“After the Delaware River and the stream next to my house are messed up, what compensation will I get? Who will put it back together again?” he asked DRBC staff.

Lee Hartman, the Delaware River chairman for Trout Unlimited, worries that large water withdrawals required for fracking will create low stream flows in the Delaware’s tributaries, damaging fish habitat. For the Matoushek well, Stone Energy wants to take 700,000 gallons a day from the Lackawaxen River’s narrow west branch.

Hartman and others say the DRBC should first study the cumulative environmental impacts of drilling in the Delaware watershed, and pass drilling regulations, before it allows any gas extraction to take place. The agency has asked for $250,000 in federal funds for a study, but commissioners have not said whether they will wait before voting on Matoushek’s well.

Opponents say they will sue if Stone Energy’s application is approved.

Downstream communities that rely on the Delaware for drinking water are worried about the coming gas boom. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg opposes any drilling in the watershed, while the Philadelphia City Council has asked the basin commission for an environmental study.

New York state regulators have put a moratorium on drilling in the Marcellus region, saying they won’t approve permits until they are finished drafting new regulations.

Back in northeastern Pennsylvania, Matoushek, 68, a semiretired farmer who signed a lease with Stone Energy three years ago, said he is counting on royalty checks from gas production to help fund his golden years and secure the land for future generations of his family. As far he’s concerned, the benefits far outweigh any theoretical harm.

Copyright: Times Leader

Elected official who held hearing in area last week on natural gas drilling says he was responding to pro-energy group attack.

By Steve Mocarskysmocarsky@timesleader.com
Staff Writer

A state representative says he was unfairly attacked in a press release by a pro-energy group after holding a public hearing in the Back Mountain last week.

State Rep. Camille “Bud” George, majority chair of the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee, issued a rebuttal Friday, saying that “money and misinformation are the hallmarks of a gas industry attack titled, ‘Rep. George’s Fact-Free Fact-Finding Mission.’”

Energy In Depth sent the press release to media outlets on Thursday, a day after George convened a committee hearing at 1 p.m. in the Lehman Township Municipal Building to hear testimony on the impact of Marcellus Shale drilling and proposed legislation that would put more environmental safeguards in place.

State Rep. Phyllis Mundy, D-Kingston, invited George to have a hearing in her district, where EnCana Gas & Oil USA plans to drill the first natural gas exploratory well in Luzerne County in May or June. The well will be drilled in Lehman Township.

Area residents and lawmakers are concerned for many reasons, including the fact that the drill site would be less than two miles from the Huntsville and Ceaseville reservoirs, which supply drinking water to nearly 100,000 area residents.

Energy In Depth’s press release classified the hearing as a “pep rally staged by anti-energy activists and like-minded public officials in Northeast Pennsylvania.”

“Characterized as a ‘field hearing’ by … George, who held the event as far away as he could from his home in Clearfield County, the forum included representatives from the Sierra Club and Clean Water Action league, as well as testimony from a local podiatrist and someone describing himself as a ‘naturalopathic’ physician. The only thing missing? Anyone in possession of real, genuine facts related to responsible gas exploration in the Commonwealth,” the release stated.

In response, George said the most troubling aspect of “the attack by Energy In Depth, whose members include the Pennsylvania Independent Oil and Gas Association, is its slur of concerned lawmakers and citizens of Northeastern Pennsylvania as anti-energy activists.”

George noted that the committee had a hearing on Feb. 18 in Clearfield County, where the president of the Marcellus Shale Coalition and executives from some of the leading gas companies in Pennsylvania, including Range Resources and Chesapeake Energy, testified. He also participated two weeks ago in a House Democratic Policy Committee hearing in Ebensburg that included testimony from Chief Oil & Gas and Chesapeake. Ebensburg is in the Altoona area.

“The industry has not been an unwanted stranger at hearings,” George said.

Energy In Depth’s press release then listed quotes – pulled from a story in The Times Leader – of people who testified and rebutted them with quotes from gas industry representatives, a state Department of Environmental Protection fact sheet and Gov. Ed Rendell.

Energy In Depth pointed to testimony from Mundy in which she said she supports House Bill 2213 “which would among other things … require full disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing.”

The organization then pointed to a DEP fact sheet which states that drilling companies “must disclose the names of all chemicals to be used and stored at a drilling site … that must be submitted to DEP as part of the permit application process. These plans contain copies of material safety data sheets for all chemicals … This information is on file with DEP and available to landowners, local governments and emergency responders.”

But George said that “full disclosure of the chemicals – not just the trade names – and how they are used is not (now) required.”

“The precise chemical identities and concentrations and how and when they are employed can be crucial to emergency responders and remediation efforts after spills, and is at the crux of efforts to remove the infamous ‘Halliburton Loophole’ that exempts the industry from oversight by the Environmental Protection Agency,” George said.

“The gas industry can bloat campaign coffers with money, buy discredited and ridiculed studies and poison the debate by taking statements out of context. However, its ‘best management practices’ should never be taken at face value to be the best for Pennsylvania,” George said.

Steve Mocarsky, a Times leader staff writer, may be reached at 970-7311.

Copyright: Times Leader