EPA investigators explained that because they had no idea what to test for, they were relegated to an exhaustive process of scanning water samples for spikes in unidentified compounds and then running those compounds like fingerprints through a criminal database for matches against a vast library of unregulated and understudied substances. That is how they found the adamantanes and 2-BE.
An EnCana representative told the crowd that the company was as concerned about the contamination as the residents were, and pledged to help the EPA in its investigation.
Some people seemed confounded by what they were hearing.
"How in god’s name can the oil industry dump sh*t in our drinking water and not tell us what it is?" shouted Alan Hofer, who lives near the center of the sites being investigated by the EPA.
"If they’d tell us what they were using then you could go out and test for things and it would make it a lot easier, right?" asked Jim Van Dorn, who represents Wyoming Rural Water, a nonprofit that advises utilities and private well owners on water management.
"Exactly," said Luke Chavez, the EPA’s chief Superfund investigator on the project. "That’s our idea too."
Now that the EPA has found a chemical used in fracturing fluids in Pavillion’s drinking water, Chavez said the next step in the research is to ask EnCana for a list of the chemicals it uses and then do more sampling using that list. (An EnCana spokesman told ProPublica the company will supply any information that the EPA requires.) The EPA is also working with area health departments, a toxicologist and a representative from the Centers for Disease Control’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to assess health risks, he said.
Depending on what they find, the investigation in Wyoming could have broad implications. Before hydraulic fracturing was exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act in 2005, the EPA assessed the process and concluded it did not pose a threat to drinking water. That study, however, did not involve field research or water testing and has been criticized as incomplete. This spring, EPA administrator Lisa Jackson called some of the contamination reports "startling" and told members of Congress that it is time to take another look. The Pavillion investigation, according to Chavez, is just that.
"If there is a problem, maybe we don’t have the tools, or the laws, to deal with it," Chavez said. "That’s one of the things that could come out of this process."
Abrahm Lustgarten is an investigative reporter for ProPublica, an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces journalism in the public interest.
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.