(by Daniel Gilbert and Russell Gold, The Wall Street Journal, WSJ.com) – The Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] has dropped its claim that an energy company contaminated drinking water in Texas, the third time in recent months that the agency has backtracked on [its accusations] linking natural-gas drilling [fracking] to water pollution.

On Friday, the agency told a federal judge it withdrew an administrative order that alleged Range Resources Corp. had polluted water wells in a rural Texas county west of Fort Worth. Under an agreement filed in U.S. court in Dallas, the EPA will also drop the lawsuit it filed in January 2011 against Range, and Range will end its appeal of the administrative order.

In addition to dropping the case in Texas, the EPA has agreed to substantial retesting of water in Wyoming after its methods were questioned. And in Pennsylvania, it has angered state officials by conducting its own analysis of well water—only to confirm the state’s finding that water once tainted by gas was safe.

…Some experts say these [false accusations] could hurt the agency’s credibility at a time when federal and state regulators seek ways to ensure that natural-gas drilling is done safely.

A growing number of industry, academic and environmental experts say that while drilling can cause water contamination, that can be avoided by proper use of cement seals and other safety measures.

By year’s end, the EPA is set to release initial results of a study on the impact on water of hydrofracturing, or fracking, which involves using a high-pressure mixture of water, sand and chemicals to break apart energy-rich rocks. State officials contend they are in a better position to evaluate drilling procedures and safety in their areas, but they have been accused of laxity by environmentalists and local governments officials.
…………
On Dec. 7, 2010, the EPA publicly accused Range of causing natural gas to seep into water wells near some of its gas wells in north Texas. The agency largely based its decision on an analysis that compared the chemical makeup of the gas in Range’s production wells and the gas found in private water wells, concluding they matched.

The EPA bypassed the Texas Railroad Commission, which it said failed to address an “imminent and substantial endangerment” to public health. It ordered Range to supply water to the affected residents, identify how gas was migrating into the aquifer, stop the flow and clean up the water.

After the EPA sued Range for not complying with its order, Range appealed, arguing that the agency’s analysis was inconclusive. It pointed to nearby water wells that were known to contain high concentrations of gas long before it began drilling.

The Texas Railroad Commission, which regulates oil and gas, concluded last year that gas most likely seeped into the aquifer from a shallow pocket of gas nearby, not the Barnett Shale, thousands of feet underground, from which Range was producing gas.

On Friday, the Railroad Commission accused the EPA of “fear mongering, gross negligence and severe mishandling” of the case, calling for the firing of Al Armendariz, administrator of the region that covers Texas. The EPA would not make Mr. Armendariz available for an interview, and he did not respond to an e-mailed request for comment. …..

In Pennsylvania, state regulators fined Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., a Houston company that was found responsible for gas escaping into an aquifer in Dimock and that agreed to take remedial steps to clean up the water. After residents complained the efforts weren’t good enough, the EPA in January said it would test drinking water at about 60 homes.

Earlier this month, the EPA released results from well water testing at 11 homes in Dimock and said the results “did not show levels of contamination that could present a health concern.” This finding has been criticized by environmental groups, which argue that tests have found unsafe levels of gas and arsenic.

The EPA is also facing scrutiny from the gas industry and Wyoming’s governor over an investigation of possible water contamination related to fracking near Pavillion, Wyo.

In December, the EPA released draft findings that groundwater there contained unsafe levels of benzene, a carcinogen, and other chemicals “consistent with gas production and hydraulic fracturing fluids.”

But state officials and others disputed the findings, and the EPA has agreed to take more water samples and postpone a peer review of the findings. This process could take several more months, according to a spokesman for Republican Gov. Matt Mead.

Copyright 2012 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Reprinted here for educational purposes only. Visit the website at wsj.com.

Questions

1.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is an agency of the federal government charged with protecting human health and the environment by writing and enforcing regulations based on laws passed by Congress.
What lawsuit has EPA agreed to drop in Texas?

2.  Why has the EPA agreed to re-test groundwater located near gas drilling operations in Wyoming?

3.  What do a growing number of experts say about how fracking affects water safety?

4.  What were the results of EPA testing of well water located near a fracking site in Dimock, PA?

5.  a) On what information did the EPA (a federal government agency) base its accusation against Range Resources?
b)  How did the analysis of the Texas Railroad Commission (a state government agency) differ from that of the EPA?
c)  Why did the EPA chose to ignore the Texas Railroad Commission’s report?

6.  Read the information under “Background” and “Resources” below the questions.  
Do you think the EPA was unreasonable in its lawsuit against energy company Range Resources?  Explain your answer.

7.  Commentating on the environmentalist opposition to fracking, Rick Moran of the AmericanThinker.com wrote: “It’s not that fracking never causes water pollution – only when it is done incorrectly. Rather than banning the entire process, as most environmentalists want the EPA to do, the solution is adequate oversight at the local level to ensure that the water supply is safe and hefty fines and clean up costs for those companies that fail to take proper care in drilling.”

Background

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING (FRACKING): (from instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/05/03/hydraulic-fracturing-is-it-safe)

  • Less than a decade ago, natural gas prices in the U.S. were among the highest in the world.
  • However, in the last five years, domestic natural gas reserves have grown 30% due to technological advances in the use of hydraulic fracturing, a drilling method that is coupled with directional drilling to access underground reservoirs of oil and gas.
  • This technological breakthrough had an immediate impact on natural gas prices, causing them to plummet and remain low to the present time.
  • Hydraulic fracturing has come under attack.  It was featured in the 2010 movie Gasland, which dramatized the allegation that hydraulic fracturing had been the cause of groundwater contamination.
  • Understandably, these reports have caused much public consternation, and have prompted both regulators and legislators to contemplate whether hydraulic fracturing should be subject to additional federal regulation. But are they accurate?
  • While the controversy over hydraulic fracturing is new, hydraulic fracturing itself is not. First used in 1947, hydraulic fracturing has been employed in more than a million wells to extract more than 7 billion barrels of oil and 600 trillion feet of natural gas from deep underground shale formations. 
  • Geologists have long known that shale rock formations contain large amounts of natural gas and oil, but the fossil fuel resources were trapped in layers of rock and could not easily be extracted.
  • Two studies conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) – the national association of state ground water and underground injection agencies whose mission is to promote the protection and conservation of ground water – found that there have been no confirmed incidents of groundwater contamination from hydraulic fracturing.
  • This is particularly noteworthy in consideration of the fact that approximately one million wells have been hydraulically fractured in the United States.
  • Furthermore, according to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCC) – the multi-state governmental agency representing states’ oil and gas interests – each IOGCC member state has confirmed that there has not been a case of groundwater contamination where hydraulic fracturing was attributed to be the cause.
    (read more at instituteforenergyresearch.org/2011/05/03/hydraulic-fracturing-is-it-safe)

NATURAL GAS: (from instituteforenergyresearch.org/energy-overview/natural-gas)

Resources

Read about hydraulic fracturing at hydraulicfracturing.com/Process/Pages/information.aspx.

What is hydraulic fracturing? Watch a video below:

Get Free Answers

Daily “Answers” emails are provided for Daily News Articles, Tuesday’s World Events and Friday’s News Quiz.