Some of the EPA’s most cautious scientists are beginning to agree.
"It starts to finger-point stronger and stronger to the source being somehow related to the gas development, including, but not necessarily conclusively, hydraulic fracturing itself," said Nathan Wiser, an EPA scientist and hydraulic fracturing expert who oversees enforcement for the underground injection control program under the Safe Drinking Water Act in the Rocky Mountain region. The investigation "could certainly have a focusing effect on a lot of folks in the Pavillion area as a nexus between hydraulic fracturing and water contamination."
The Superfund investigation follows a series of complaints by residents in the Pavillion area, some stemming back 15 years, that their water wells turned sour and reeked of fuel vapors shortly after drilling took place nearby. Several of those residents shared their stories with ProPublica, while other information was found through court and local records. Several years ago, one resident’s animals went blind and died after drinking from a well. In two current cases, a resident’s well water shows small pooling oil slicks on the surface, and a woman is coping with a mysterious nervous system disorder: Her family blames arsenic and metals found in her water. In two of those cases, the Canadian drilling company EnCana, which bought most of the area’s wells after they were drilled and assumed liability for them, is either supplying fresh drinking water to the residents or has purchased the land. In the third case, a drilling company bought by EnCana, Tom Brown Inc., had previously reached an out-of-court settlement to provide water filtering.
Though the drilling companies have repeatedly compensated residents with the worst cases of contamination, they have not acknowledged any fault in causing the pollution. An EnCana spokesman, Doug Hock, told ProPublica the company wants "to better understand the science and the source of the compounds" found in the water near Pavillion before he would speculate on whether the company was responsible.
Precise details about the nature and cause of the contamination, as well as the extent of the plume running in the aquifer beneath this region 150 miles east of Jackson Hole, have been difficult for scientists to collect. That’s in part because the identity of the chemicals used by the gas industry for drilling and fracturing are protected as trade secrets, and because the EPA, based on an exemption passed under the 2005 Energy Policy Act, does not have authority to investigate the fracturing process under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Using the Superfund program gave the agency extra authority to investigate the Pavillion reports, including the right to subpoena the secret information if it needs to. It also unlocked funding to pay for the research.
EPA officials have repeatedly said that disclosure of the fluids used in fracking – something that would be required if the bill being debated in Congress were passed – would enable them to investigate contamination incidents faster, more conclusively and for less money. The current study, which is expected to end next spring, has already cost $130,000.
About 65 people, many in jeans, boots and 10-gallon hats, filled Pavillion’s community hall on Aug. 11 to hear the EPA’s findings. They were told that a range of contaminants, including arsenic, copper, vanadium and methane gas were found in the water. Many of these substances are found in various fluids used at drilling sites.
Of particular concern were compounds called adamantanes, a natural hydrocarbon found in gas that can be used to fingerprint its origin, and 2-BE, listed as a common fracturing fluid in the EPA’s 2004 research report on hydraulic fracturing. That compound, which EPA scientists in Wyoming said they identified with 97 percent certainty, was suspected by some environmental groups in a 2004 drilling-related contamination case in Colorado, also involving EnCana.
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentI would expect SciAm to know that the information in this story comes from a news release from Earthwatch, and not from any direct statements from EPA. In fact, the news release claims in its headline that EPA has confirmed such contamination, and then in the first sentence says that EPA is conducting a study. Kind of like saying someone is guilty before they are proven innocent -- backwards. I would also expect SciAm to know that this area of Colorado has experienced many contamination episodes from this chemical not related to drilling, but to other industrial contamination in the area. In fact, this substance is so common, EPA may never be able to determine where its actually come from.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSciAm is really hurting its credibility as a scientific source by continually reprinting and reposting the work of Mr. Lustgarden, who is not a scientist. His continual efforts to confuse the already confusing world of natural gas extraction become more desperate with each installment, as his reporting is debunked by more knowledgeable people. Please stop tarnishing your reputation .
I would suggest a way to track the fracturing fluids involvement in water contamination. Just mandate that any fracturing fluid must be 'painted' with artificial substances, for example some radionuclides, in low, but detectable quantities. Now if any are found in water or in other wrong places, then it's clear where did they come from.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOn the other hand I think that indirect evidence can be enough too when there is no other reason for changes in water. As an example if I would dig an 100 foot deep hole in my lot and would need to pump out a lot of water to keep it empty of rising water, I bet anybody would blame me for the drying well of a neighbor. If something going into ground or coming out of it in one lot does appear in the lot next to it, it should be no rocket science to ask and verify whether that activity is the culprit. Of course, it will not help if they don't reveal what they are using. But then they should take the burden when scientists have to use more expensive means to find out what those substances are.
This article was based on entirely original news reporting. I am the author, and am an investigative reporter who has been covering this issue in depths for the past 18 months. In the course of that reporting I have made several trips to Wyoming and other similarly affected areas, interviewing most of the people directly involved. I was present at the EPAs meeting on August 11 in Pavillion, WY, and followed up on that meeting with private conversations with officials from Wyomings Department of Environmental Quality and numerous Environmental Protection Agency officials both in Denver and in Washington, DC.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt should also be noted that Rita McConnell is employed as a contractor for EXCO Resources, a Dallas-based energy company involved in natural gas exploration in Pennsylvania, one of the states in which my reporting has documented extensive methane water contamination related to drilling.
I would have to say that Rita has made it an art form to distort facts which is unfortunate...I have seen her postings in numerous places....the bottomline is the "cat is out of the bag" and it is getting increasingly harder for big gas corps to cover up their dirty secrets...critical mass will hit sooner than later and the real truth about how dirty natural gas really is will be common knowledge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would have to say that Rita has made it an art form to distort facts which is unfortunate...I have seen her postings in numerous places....the bottomline is the "cat is out of the bag" and it is getting increasingly harder for big gas corps to cover up their dirty secrets...critical mass will hit sooner than later and the real truth about how dirty natural gas really is will be common knowledge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would have to say that Rita has made it an art form to distort facts which is unfortunate...I have seen her postings in numerous places....the bottomline is the "cat is out of the bag" and it is getting increasingly harder for big gas corps to cover up their dirty secrets...critical mass will hit sooner than later and the real truth about how dirty natural gas really is will be common knowledge.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIsn't it a fantastic thing when a journalist seeks to make clear the means by which he ascertained his information. It demonstrates true journalistic integrity, something we just don't have enough of these days.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNaturally, this Rita person was not going to reveal her obvious conflict of interest when she posted her politically-slanting information. It is a sad thing that the scientific community has to fight through this garbage in the process of broadening mankind's understanding of reality. What will Rita and Co try next I wonder.
And while I'm at it, what an ironically vindicating thing to learn that the environmental groups Rita seeks to whimsically portray as...whatever it is she's hoping they'll look like...are more closely following actual science than industry. As if that was a surprise really.
How far apart are the fresh water aquifer & the formation that was frac'd? Has anyone tested the casing integrity of the oil/gas wells?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the formations are within a couple of hundred feet of each other, I suspect science could link the incidence to frac communication. If they are more than 1,000' apart then it is physically impossible for that to have occurred.
The most likely case of fresh water contamination is from either surface polution or failure of the steel casing & cement that was supposed to be properly set to isolate the fresh water from the wellbores.