EPA seeks experts to review Wyo. pollution study

1 of 20 | Share

Fracking and natural gas drilling

CHEYENNE, Wyo. — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is seeking nominees for a peer review panel that will be asked to take a close look at an EPA draft report that theorizes a link between hydraulic fracturing and groundwater pollution in a Wyoming gas field.

A notice published in the Federal Register on Tuesday says the EPA is seeking panelists with technical experience in areas including petroleum engineering, hydrology, geology and chemistry. The panelists must also be impartial and not have any conflicts of interest.

Those interested may self-nominate. Nominations are due no later than Feb. 17.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a method for breaking open rock deposits inside oil and gas wells. The EPA draft report released last month theorized that industry activity including fracking might have polluted groundwater in the Pavillion area.

Local residents for years have complained about their well water reeking of chemicals, although the report did not speculate that fracking polluted their well water. That part of the report focused on two wells drilled to test for groundwater pollution.

Environmentalists welcomed the report as confirmation of their long-held suspicions, while the petroleum industry, including Encana Corp., the major operator in the Pavillion gas field, has cast doubt on the EPA’s methodology and preliminary conclusions.

The EPA has addressed some of Encana’s concerns but not others, including those having to do with construction of the monitoring wells and quality assurance of the results, Encana spokesman Doug Hock said Thursday.

“This is of particular note as these are the two primary areas of concern that Encana, the state of Wyoming and others have focused on in addressing questions as to EPA’s methodology,” Hock said.

Gov. Matt Mead said the EPA has committed to having a Wyoming representative on the panel. The EPA has not committed to Mead’s request for additional testing before the panel meets, however.

“We have reviewed a few names with the EPA and we will continue to evaluate those names and others to determine who to nominate through the formal process that started this week. Any names we submit must go through an evaluation by an independent consultant and be free of conflicts of interest, both of which are appropriate,” Mead said through spokesman Renny MacKay.

The 30-day peer review will follow a public comment period on the report that began Dec. 14.

11 Comments

  1. NoWhining

    Running this again?
    Review of unrepeatable results is junk science. Anyone finding credibility in unrealiable data are shills for the enviro-terrorists.

    #1
  2. Trail_Tramp

    I think this is a good thing. The EPA is not going to go away anytime soon. At least they can learn to obtain samples in a verifiable manner for future studies.

    #2
  3. tboyinhouston

    Where are the wing-nuts calling the President a socialist?

    #3
  4. Diogenes

    Headline should read: EPA seeks enviro-whackos and greenie-weenies to make up ‘evidence’ to support their position on Oil Industry excesses and abuses. Only Sierra Club Life Members need apply.

    #4
  5. CAD1936

    A major problem in this area is that the O & G industry has proven itself to have so little credibility!

    #5
  6. justbob

    number 1 requirement,
    left wing extreme green goonie bird.

    #6
  7. townes

    As a young scientist who has been a part of delivering a few (more than 50) horizontal wells when I worked in the industry, I have to say that the anti-EPA attitudes strike me as “throw caution to the wind.” Exploration has always been a risky venture. With uncon, a great deal of the geological risk is minimized, but operational risks still exist. Add in the demand to deliver so many wells per year, and once in a while the unexpected will happen. There is the other problem as well- people don’t like to get caught making mistakes, so they tend to cover their tracks when things go awry.

    Hydraulic fracturing needs more study. Granted it has been happening for decades, but not at the current scale, nor in such a mix of geological environments. Ask a completions engineer to draw you a 3D map of fracture networks from a job they completed and they will look at you like you have two heads. Hydraulic fracturing is very effective at getting hydrocarbons out of source rocks, just as caffeine is very effective at keeping someone awake- but we (as a government) have taken the time to learn about the effects of caffeine on the human body. The government, in due diligence to protect the shared interest of our citizens, has a right and responsibility to scientifically study the effects of hydraulic fracturing, primarily because it is not in the economic interest of the industry to do so.

    Signed,
    another left wind extreme green goonie bird

    #7
  8. pacificoil

    @townes…it is not a completions engineers job to draw you a 3D map of fracture networks – they have geologists and geophysicists to do that. Not quite sure what point you are trying to make with that statement. Also, in many areas 3D mapping does exist and knowledge of the fracture networks is quite detailed.

    #8
  9. Dollar

    I’m sure that this guy at Cornell, I think his name is Howarth, would be glad to tell the EPA what they want to hear.

    If he’s busy, I’m sure he can recommend others from the Cornell faculty to get the job done.

    I don’t know why the EPA is having so much trouble here, just dial 444-Cornell

    #9
  10. Mark

    So how do you determine that someone is not biased? I can live with people who are biased – as long as they are honest about it AND are willing to try to set aside their bias in order to honestly evaluate the facts. My contempt is for those who lie and say they are objective and when you point out their bias they become indignant.

    #10
  11. Mark

    @ townes – driving on the roads can be risky; eating processed food can be risky; living in a house that has been built in the past 50 years can be risky; using DEET for mosquitos can be risky; typing on a keyboard can be risky; kissing someone can be risky – so, may I suggest that you avoid all of the activities also?

    As to the “anti-EPA” attitude – yes, having acquantances who work for EPA and having to work alongside EPA officials when I worked for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, I do have a strong anti-EPA attitude. Many in the agency do not believe that Americans as smart enough to make their own choices and that it is their job to lead the dumb masses down the path that they, in their self-wisdom, have determined to be “best.”

    #11