Internal disputes at the EPA over the Fracking results in Dimock

[Champion Jack]

The presentation, based on data collected over 4 1/2 years at 11 wells around Dimock, concluded that "methane and other gases released during drilling (including air from the drilling) apparently cause significant damage to the water quality." The presentation also concluded that "methane is at significantly higher concentrations in the aquifers after gas drilling and perhaps as a result of fracking [hydraulic fracturing] and other gas well work."

.......

In March 2012, the EPA closed an investigation of methane in drinking water in Parker County, Texas, although the geologist hired by the regulator confirmed that the methane was from gas production. In late June, the EPA dropped a study of possible contamination of drinking water in Pavillion, Wyo., despite its earlier findings of carcinogens, hydrocarbons and other contaminants in the water.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-epa-dimock-20130728,0,4847442.story

[kristopher]

1. EPA's response

The EPA confirmed the authenticity of the presentation about the Dimock wells but said it was the work of one employee.

"This presentation represents one [on-scene coordinator's] thoughts regarding 12 samples and was not shared with the public because it was a preliminary evaluation that requires additional assessment in order to ascertain its quality and validity," said EPA spokeswoman Alisha Johnson.

"The sampling and an evaluation of the particular circumstances at each home did not indicate levels of contaminants that would give EPA reason to take further action," Johnson said. "Throughout EPA's work in Dimock, the agency used the best available scientific data to provide clarity to Dimock residents and address their concerns about the safety of their drinking water."

I highlight this because, while reading the portions causing concern to the reporter, I noted that it sounded like a presentation from early in the process of study. Further, it sounded like the purpose of the presentation was explain what was going on and why study was being done. Verbiage such as "the presentation concluded" is extremely deceptive since the presentation couch its language as possibilities, in other words, as things that were not "conclusions" but rather things that required further study - which was ongoing at the time the presentation was crafted and delivered.

It is very troubling that they dropped the studies without releasing definitive results, but this article is using evidence that proves nothing.

[pscot]

3. The point of the article is that

it looks like industry pressure trumps science in EPA's decision making.

[div class ="excerpt"]

Robert B. Jackson, professor of environmental sciences at Duke University, who has researched methane contamination in the Dimock area and recently reviewed the presentation, said he was disappointed by the EPA's decision.

"What's surprising is to see this data set and then to see EPA walk away from Dimock," Jackson said. "The issue here is, why wasn't EPA interested in following up on this to understand it better?"

....

The presentation provides charts for nine of the 11 Dimock-area wells, tracking natural gas production work in the area and the concentration of methane and metals over a four- to five-year period, depending on the well. Some wells underwent a "short-term disruption," or a rise in methane in the water six to eight months after nearby gas development activity. Over two or three years, the concentration of methane fell.

Four other wells experienced long-term disruption to their water quality, according to the presentation. In those instances, methane levels did not fall over time but remained high after an initial increase or began to climb after a period of decline. The presence of metals such as manganese and arsenic also rose over time in some of those wells.

A study by Jackson and other Duke scientists published in June indicates that drinking water wells near natural gas production in northeastern Pennsylvania, including Dimock, are at greater risk of methane contamination than those farther away.

[kristopher]

4. I know.

But the way the "evidence" was presented was contrived and dishonest. It essentially takes a research question and presents that to readers as if it were a conclusion - it wasn't.

The entire story could have been written (and would have been more convincing) without going down that road.

[pscot]

5. Forget it, Jake. It's journalism.

[kristopher]

6. At least they included the EPA's response.

I guess that makes it top notch journalism in today's world.

[hootinholler]

2. K&R n/t

[limpyhobbler]

7. K/R. Where is the leaked power point doc? I want to see what the presentation concluded.

[peoli]

8. k&r