Monkey Business - Who wrote the NYS SGEIS for HVHF?/ Fischer, W.C. 2/28/2012
This isn’t kindergarten
and the outcome won’t be funny.
Where could such a number have comefrom? It appears in several non peer-reviewed industry reports written by J. Daniel Arthur of ALL Consulting, Tulsa, Oklahoma in which he consistently references the
2 x 10
number to a1989 paper by Michie and Associates. The Michie report calculated a hypothetical risk based ondata from 19 of 50 oil and gas basins in the U.S., by using a computer model to estimate theprobability that an undetected and simultaneous, three mode casing failure would occur in aClass II waste water injection well in an oil field in the Williston basin, a geologic formation inNorth Dakota.How is this information relevant to assessing the probability that an underground source of drinking water (USDW) in New York will be contaminated by the High Volume Slick WaterHydraulic Fracturing (HVHF) process used to complete a natural gas well drilled into in theMarcellus formation? After earning $ 433,833.24 in research and consulting fees, the expertsseem to have missed how these two scenarios might differ. How could New York authoritiesaccept such a number as applicable to HVHF contamination when, as this very research wasbeing conducted for N
ew York’s DEC
, John Hanger, the Secretary of the Pennsylvania
DEP,publicly announced in a Dimock church that Cabot Oil and Gas had contaminated
the groundwater around 18 of 63 wells drilled in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania? How could theexperts have also dismissed a July 5
, 1989 Report by the United States General AccountingOffice, titled
Drinking water: safeguards are not preventing contamination from injected oil and gas wastes
Governor Andrew Cuomo has
stated that a decision on hydrofracking should be based “on the
facts and on the science.
The scientific method has four steps:1.
Observation and description of a phenomenon. [
contamination of USDW’s near
Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.3.
Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena. [Radioactivecontamination, increased health risks, adverse effects to indigenous flora andfauna, etc.]4.
Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independentexperimenters and properly performed experiments. [NOT DONE]One of the most critical hypotheses to be tested can be stated as:
Under a regulatory regime that enforces best management practices, HVHF will not contaminate USDWs.