Water

BLM: Natural gas drilling not linked to Pinedale area groundwater contamination

2013-11-22T08:00:00Z BLM: Natural gas drilling not linked to Pinedale area groundwater contaminationBy BENJAMIN STORROW Star-Tribune staff writer Casper Star-Tribune Online

Natural gas operations are not linked to groundwater contamination in the Pinedale area, according to a new Bureau of Land Management report.

But that finding did not quell the concerns of some local environmentalists, who said the study failed to explain groundwater contamination in the region.

The report, released Wednesday, said low levels of hydrocarbons detected in groundwater wells in what's known as the Pinedale Anticline Production Area were largely attributable to natural processes. It found there was no widespread evidence linking those chemicals to spills, leaks or other byproducts of natural gas development. And it concluded no further mitigation efforts were needed to address water pollution in the area.

The study was developed in response to concerns about water quality in a region that is home of the Jonah field, one of Wyoming's largest natural gas developments.

“By and large, looking at the data, I think the conclusion is sound,” said Merry Gamper, a BLM fluid minerals and physical scientist specialist. “These are good results for us.”

Environmentalists disagreed. Linda Baker of the Upper Green River Alliance, a Pinedale-based advocacy group, was still sifting through the nearly 300-page report, its associated tables and laboratory results on Thursday. She said she had unanswered questions about BLM’s methodology and whether the agency had pinpointed the sources of groundwater contamination.

Mostly she was worried about the bureau’s conclusion. Baker pointed out that the study detected low levels benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes in many wells.

“It seems to me that the BLM is saying our groundwater has low levels of carcinogenic substances naturally. That’s not something that has ever been brought up in the history of water use in Wyoming, to my knowledge,” Baker said. “That this should be discovered in the same area where natural gas is being discovered is curious.”

Elaine Crumpley, chairwoman of Citizens United for Responsible Energy Development, a Pinedale environmental group, noted that ozone levels in the region have exceeded federal standards on several occasions in recent years. Water used in natural gas production is one source for ozone emissions, and yet the BLM report finds no connection between water contamination and energy production, she said.

“They say there is nothing wrong with it. Then why do we have these problems?” Crumpley asked.

The study stems from 2006 testing results that detected hydrocarbons in approximately 80 groundwater wells in the anticline area, according to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality. Some wells have since cleared up, and eight are in the state's Voluntary Remediation Program, said Keith Guille, a department spokesman. Of those, four have been cleaned and closed, one is in active cleanup and three are under evaluation.

The study proves groundwater in the region is safe, Shell, Ultra and QEP Resources said in a joint media release.

"Industry practices are in place to protect groundwater, and this has been validated by the study," the companies said in a statement. "We will ensure that practices continue to protect groundwater into the future. We look forward to working with the BLM, DEQ, and EPA to put a final monitoring and mitigation plan in place which considers the important findings of this study."

Gamper said the low level of hydrocarbons found in wells were below drinking water standards. The hydrocarbons there did not have the chemical signature of substances used in energy production, leading researchers to conclude the contamination must be largely natural, she said.

The report gives regulators a better idea of how groundwater moves through the anticline and how it interacts with surface water. Gamper said the results would be used to develop a more refined water monitoring system than the one put in place in 2004, enabling regulators to target the contaminants that were found in the production area.

She noted that there is some work still to be done, especially in the area of well integrity.

“That is not a new issue for the oil and gas industry,” she said.

The BLM will hold a public meeting at the bureau's Pinedale field office to discuss the findings at 2:30 p.m. today.

Reach energy reporter Benjamin Storrow at 307-266-0535 or benjamin.storrow@trib.com. Follow him on Twitter @bstorrow

Copyright 2015 Casper Star-Tribune Online. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(2) Comments

  1. Mark Chesler
    Report Abuse
    Mark Chesler - November 22, 2013 12:51 pm
    …In a June 26, 1994, Cleveland Plain Dealer article entitled Environmentalists Leery of Possible Loopholes, Chris Trepal, co-director of the Earth Day Coalition in Northeast Ohio, lambasted the enabling VAP legislation as “one of the poorest public policy measures I’ve ever seen.” A clairvoyant Richard Sahli, executive director of the Ohio Environmental Council, echoed his sentiment in the May 26, 1994, Cincinnati Post, “We do predict there will be a lot of shoddy cleanups under this bill the state will never catch.” Testifying before the House Energy & Natural Resources Committee on behalf of the Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers, Cincinnati environmental lawyer David Altman asserted, “This bill is a definite bait-and-switch. What it is supposed to do and what it does is two different things.”.

    A seminal, 152 page 2001 Gund Foundation funded study by the Green Environmental Council confirmed the critics’ predictions. A dearth of agency resources to provide meaningful regulatory oversight combined with the lack of a credible, established enforcement mechanism has rendered the feckless, industry aligned program toothless. “It’s a broken program – it doesn’t work,” declared the council’s Bruce Cornett in an interview with the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Both the Sierra Club and Ohio Citizen Action opposed the 2000 $400 million Clean Ohio state bond issue out of concern the fungible proceeds could be utilized to prop up the lame Voluntary Action Program and create a trojan horse polluters slush fund. “This is the governor’s attempt to whitewash his EPA,” charged Jane Forrest Redfern, environmental projects director for Ohio Citizen Action in a November 1, 2000, Cleveland Plain Dealer article. Dedicated professionals, veteran Ohio EPA bureaucrats attempted to rectify the problem. According to the October 4, 2000, Cleveland Plain Dealer, “EPA staffers who shared some of the environmentalists’ concerns, at one point launched a quiet but unsuccessful campaign to disband the program.”.

    For six years after the Voluntary Action Program’s 1996 implementation, the U.S. EPA refused to extend program participants federal immunity and threatened to decertify the Ohio EPA due to the VAP’s expansive, inhibiting secrecy provisions and tangible lack of transparency. In a brokered, bifurcated modification to the Ohio VAP that “frankly doesn’t make sense at all,” according to Ohio Public Interest Research Group director Amy Simpson (Akron Beacon Journal, February 24, 2001), an alternative “memorandum of agreement” VAP track with enhanced public access was crafted. Companies that elect the original, opaque, “classic” option, which conceals under an embargo the extent and nature of contamination, will not be afforded U.S. EPA liability insulation. “Why Ohio would want a two-headed monster is beyond me,” quipped the Ohio Environmental Council’s Jack Shaner. In SCA’s case, the jaundiced, green and incompliant wants to hide what you can’t see.

    Mark Chesler
    Oberlin, Ohio
  2. Mark Chesler
    Report Abuse
    Mark Chesler - November 22, 2013 12:48 pm
    …In a June 26, 1994, Cleveland Plain Dealer article entitled Environmentalists Leery of Possible Loopholes, Chris Trepal, co-director of the Earth Day Coalition in Northeast Ohio, lambasted the enabling VAP legislation as “one of the poorest public policy measures I’ve ever seen.” A clairvoyant Richard Sahli, executive director of the Ohio Environmental Council, echoed his sentiment in the May 26, 1994, Cincinnati Post, “We do predict there will be a lot of shoddy cleanups under this bill the state will never catch.” Testifying before the House Energy & Natural Resources Committee on behalf of the Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers, Cincinnati environmental lawyer David Altman asserted, “This bill is a definite bait-and-switch. What it is supposed to do and what it does is two different things.”.

    A seminal, 152 page 2001 Gund Foundation funded study by the Green Environmental Council confirmed the critics’ predictions. A dearth of agency resources to provide meaningful regulatory oversight combined with the lack of a credible, established enforcement mechanism has rendered the feckless, industry aligned program toothless. “It’s a broken program – it doesn’t work,” declared the council’s Bruce Cornett in an interview with the Cleveland Plain Dealer. Both the Sierra Club and Ohio Citizen Action opposed the 2000 $400 million Clean Ohio state bond issue out of concern the fungible proceeds could be utilized to prop up the lame Voluntary Action Program and create a trojan horse polluters slush fund. “This is the governor’s attempt to whitewash his EPA,” charged Jane Forrest Redfern, environmental projects director for Ohio Citizen Action in a November 1, 2000, Cleveland Plain Dealer article. Dedicated professionals, veteran Ohio EPA bureaucrats attempted to rectify the problem. According to the October 4, 2000, Cleveland Plain Dealer, “EPA staffers who shared some of the environmentalists’ concerns, at one point launched a quiet but unsuccessful campaign to disband the program.”.

    For six years after the Voluntary Action Program’s 1996 implementation, the U.S. EPA refused to extend program participants federal immunity and threatened to decertify the Ohio EPA due to the VAP’s expansive, inhibiting secrecy provisions and tangible lack of transparency. In a brokered, bifurcated modification to the Ohio VAP that “frankly doesn’t make sense at all,” according to Ohio Public Interest Research Group director Amy Simpson (Akron Beacon Journal, February 24, 2001), an alternative “memorandum of agreement” VAP track with enhanced public access was crafted. Companies that elect the original, opaque, “classic” option, which conceals under an embargo the extent and nature of contamination, will not be afforded U.S. EPA liability insulation. “Why Ohio would want a two-headed monster is beyond me,” quipped the Ohio Environmental Council’s Jack Shaner. In SCA’s case, the jaundiced, green and incompliant wants to hide what you can’t see.

    Mark Chesler
    Oberlin, Ohio

    http://www.loraincounty.com/oberlin/discussion.shtml?id=260067&f=62&v=
Untitled Document

Civil Dialogue

We provide this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters.

If your comment was not approved, perhaps...

  1. You called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).

  2. You rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.

  3. YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.

  4. You have issues with a business. Have a bad meal? Feel you were overcharged at the store? New car is a lemon? Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns.

  5. You believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. It would be better to write the editor at editors@trib.com, or call Editor Jason Adrians at 266-0545 or Content Director David Mayberry at 266-0633. This is a forum for community discussion, not for media criticism. We'd rather address your concerns directly.

  6. You included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.

  7. You accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.

  8. Your comment is in really poor taste.

Add Comment
You must Login to comment.

Click here to get an account it's free and quick