used Range’s comment, nearly in full, during your recent coverage of naturally occurring methane in Parker County. However, there are numerous inaccuracies or points that have not been fully reported by WFAA. Two national publications reported many of these facts the same day that WFAA continued to omit these keys details and critical facts, which I have attached to the end of this document. Hopefully, this latest email will provide you with the information that your viewers deserve. Although this is the third and fourth time that many of these facts have been presented to WFAA to date, they have not yet been shared with your viewers. If you’ve not had a chance to review the box of documents that we sent you last year related to the Texas Railroad Commission’s hearing on this matter, I would be happy to resend those documents. I’ve reattached the original letter from 2013 to serve as a guide for you. Additionally, despite national news stories to the contrary your coverage has created some additional confusion with some people and we will be sharing this document with interested parties and wanted to make you aware as part of our commitment to transparency in this matter.

… the EPA’s Office of Inspector General determined the agency was justified in issuing an emergency order against the gas well operator, Range Resources. *** The OIG report also states the EPA had sufficient information in 2010 to conclude that the Range gas well "was the most likely contributor to the contamination of the aquifer."

The EPA stated that they were justified in the sense that they do not require proof of wrongdoing or contamination to issue an order. When no level of proof or evidence is necessary, an order against any person or entity would have been “justified.” In fact, EPA scientist Doug Beak wrote an internal memo prior to the order being issued, which was referenced in the Texas Railroad Commission’s hearing, “[T]his is not conclusive evidence because of the limited data set…The only way now to compare the data would be to make assumptions to fill in data gaps and I don’t believe we have enough experience at this site or data to do this at this time.” John Blevins, EPA representative agreed and eventually admitted under oath that the EPA “did not make a definitive conclusion” as to where the methane was originating.

EPA scientists linked the contamination with the drilling operation. In 2010, the agency issued an emergency order, directing the operator — Range Resources — to conduct tests and fix the problem.

The EPA never linked the contamination to Range and the OIG report confirmed this.

Range disagreed with the EPA findings, but agreed to conduct additional tests. Those new tests, they say, show only low levels of methane in the water.

Range’s tests indicate that methane levels are consistent with historical levels, which vary over time and for various reasons. The Texas Railroad Commission made the same determination and recently publicly reaffirmed those findings. Further, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, now called the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, expressed concerns of natural gas and related compounds occurring in water wells in the same area as far back as 1995.

Range says any methane is naturally-occurring, and may be the result of water wells drilled too deep into a gas formation.

Range and multiple state agencies have confirmed this fact, dating as far back as 1995, over a decade prior to Range’s wells being drilled. For example, the Lake Country Acres public water supply, which is located about a mile east of the Lipsky property, has test results dating back to 1995 that show the presence of natural gas in the water. Notably, the signage on the Lake Country Acres water storage tanks warns “DANGER: FLAMMABLE GAS” and “DANGER: NO SMOKING, NO OPEN FLAMES, NO SPARKS,” warnings not typically associated with water wells or water storage. Another example is the Hurst water well, which is about 800 feet west of the Lipsky property. This water well was drilled four years before Range drilled either the Butler or Teal wells. Photographs taken in 2005 and submitted during the Texas Railroad Commission’s hearing on the matter show that natural gas was so prevalent that it pushed the water out of the well and flared. Further, Range and separately the Texas Railroad Commission determined that water wells drilled into the Strawn, specifically some of those depicted in your news segment, as well as additional draws on the water table, like the manmade ponds and residential water features shown in your news segment, also contribute to methane migration by drawing down the water table and creating a pathway for methane migration.

Neighbor Shelly Purdue learned she could light her water well on fire, too.

Just as with Mr. Lipsky, the video of Ms. Perdue shows a flame from the vent of Ms. Perdue’s water well, not the well’s water line. The purpose of the vent, which is a recommended design feature of water wells, is to ventilate gases that may accumulate in the headspace of the well. As shown in the evidence and testimony presented by John McBeath, P.E. at the Railroad Commission hearing (which Range previously provided to you), Ms. Perdue’s water well was drilled approximately 71 feet into the gas-bearing Strawn formation. Before 2010, Ms. Perdue did not have a vent on her well. Following Range’s testing of her water well in 2010, Range immediately notified her that she should have her well vented and arrangements were made to have that done. Further, Ms. Perdue does not light water from her well – she lights methane that collects in her water well headspace and is directed to a “flare stack,” which is a recommended practice across the country. If the well were properly vented – continually and unobstructed, she should not be able to light methane from her well headspace.

“The EPA did not review or approve Range Resources’ sampling protocol, nor did it review or approve the data collection and analytical methods during the course of the study,” the OIG report states.

The OIG report is factually incorrect. Range provided full Quality Assurance information for the first sampling event (field notes, trip blanks, etc.) and summary of the same for the subsequent events. In November of 2013, all EPA information requests surrounding Range’s sampling were satisfied. By December 24, 2013 when the report was issued, the EPA had the information it requested for more than a month. Since the time Range submitted the data to the EPA in November, Range has not been asked for additional data.

The Texas Railroad Commission, however, is already on record supporting the industry claim that the methane in the Parker County water wells is naturally-occurring.

The Railroad Commission thoroughly investigated Mr. and Mrs. Lispky’s claim, conducted a two-day evidentiary hearing, which the EPA and the Lipskys were invited but unfortunately refused to attend, and ultimately determined that Range’s activities had no impact on the water aquifer or the water wells in question. A number of highly qualified, independent experts testified during the hearing and presented credible evidence that Range’s activities were not

responsible for any gas in the water wells and that the methane in the groundwater is a wellknown naturally occurring event in this area of Parker County. WFAA was in attendance for the duration of this hearing and yet did not report on many of these key findings and revelations for some reason. I’m sure you may even still have footage of these facts and findings in your archives. Dr. Mark McCaffrey (B.A., Harvard; PhD., MIT), an independent geochemical gas fingerprinting expert with over 20 years of experience, analyzed gas samples from Range's Butler and Teal wells and 25 water wells, and utilized compositional and isotopic data from published scientific literature and a proprietary geochemical database. His geochemical fingerprinting analysis, together with the all the other evidence presented during the Railroad Commission hearing in 2011, make it abundantly clear that the gas in the Lipsky well is a match to the much shallower Pennsylvanian Strawn formation, and not from the Barnett Shale located a mile below the aquifer. These findings have been publicly presented at AAPG Conferences and published in geosciences publications and websites.

Claims made by researchers from Duke

It’s impossible to respond to the results claimed by Duke researchers because they refuse to share their data, despite multiple requests from Range. It’s equally troubling that WFAA never notified Range of these allegations levied against our research, which would have allowed us an opportunity to defend ourselves against these claims and provide you and your viewers with those facts. However, if you have the data that you reported on in your program, please send it to Range and we would be happy to review it and provide our reaction. It should be noted that while methane levels vary over time due to a number of variables and natural conditions, Range’s findings and testing methodology are consistent with historical data collected by state agencies that long pre-dates Range’s activity, which was also submitted during the Texas Railroad Commission’s hearing that WFAA attended. However, Range’s tests did not find the same levels of methane as the researchers from Duke, but even if they had, they would not have proven anything about Range’s activities, because the gas was not and is not coming from the Butler or Teal wells, which have passed countless tests and have been found to be correctly engineered, properly constructed and functioning safely with no impacts on methane levels in the Trinity aquifer. Lastly, your report indicates that the Duke study is “independent,” can you please share your source for that statement? While we are not aware of their funding sources for this project, in the past the researchers from Duke have acknowledged that they receive funding for studies related to hydraulic fracturing by foundations with a stated bias against natural gas development. Some of those foundations have also provided funding for anti-drilling films that some regulators have called “propaganda.” Despite the funding for this particular research that prior bias at least seems noteworthy for your viewers.

Commentary that Lipsky “manufactured” methane from his well

The news report showed David Porter Commissioner at the Texas Railroad Commission speaking to Congress and that he indicated Lipsky is “manufacturing” the methane from his well. Mr. Porter explained that a judge found that “Mr. Lipsky knowingly and deceptively attached a water hose to the water well’s gas vent, and not to the well’s water line, and lit the gas from the hose’s nozzle.” The judge stated, “This demonstration was not done for scientific study but to provide local and national news media a deceptive video, calculated to alarm the public into believing the water was burning.”

We sincerely hope and expect that WFAA will make greater attempts to fairly and accurately report the facts of this important story.

April 3, 2013

Range Production Company’s Response to Statements and Questions in E-Mail Dated April 1, 2013 from Brett Shipp of WFAA-TV1
This is a response to the questions and comments raised in Brett Shipp’s April 1, 2013 email regarding the Butler Unit 1-H well. The e-mail contains numerous inaccuracies and false assumptions that require correction. Range Production Company (“Range”) trusts that, in view of this detailed response that is thoroughly supported by documents and sworn testimony, the false and misleading information in the April 1, 2013 e-mail will not be broadcast to WFAATV’s viewing audience. The Railroad Commission thoroughly investigated Mr. and Mrs. Lispky’s claim, conducted a two-day evidentiary hearing, and ultimately determined that Range’s activities had no impact on the water aquifer or the well in question. A number of highly qualified experts testified during the hearing and presented credible evidence that Range’s activities were not responsible for any gas in the water well and that the natural gas in the area groundwater is a well-known naturally occurring event in this area of Parker County. This determination by the state agency with the most experience and expertise in the oil and gas industry should have ended the accusations against Range. None of the testing to date – including testing done by the EPA – shows that any of Range’s operations have had any impact on the groundwater in the area at issue. Natural gas, predominantly methane, is naturally present in the Trinity Aquifer in the area, a fact which has been commonly known for decades. In fact, numerous state agencies, landowners and businesses have records of naturally occurring methane in the water aquifer for decades prior to Range’s activity. Please note the photograph taken by a Parker County water well driller in 2005. [Tab B]. This water well was drilled four years before Range drilled either the Butler or Teal wells, and natural gas was so prevalent that it pushed the water out of the well and flared as shown by the photograph. This well is about 800 feet west of the Lipsky water well, and is known as the Hurst well. Further, the Lake Country Acres public water supply (located about a mile east of the Lipsky property) has test results dating back to 1995 that show the presence of natural gas in the water. [Tabs C, D & E]. Please also note the photograph of a Lake Country Acres water well that shows a sign warning of flammable gas at the water well. [Tab F]. Keeping in mind this background of unequivocal and indisputable evidence of natural gas in the aquifer and in water wells in close proximity to the Lipskys’ water well long before Range drilled the Butler 1-H well in 2009, Range provides the following responses to the questions contained in the April 1, 2013 e-mail:


See Tab A.
Page 1 of 7

“We are reporting information indicating that Range resources, on August 20, 2010, was cited by the Texas Railroad Commission for being in violation of SWR 17/Bradenhead pressure. We are also reporting that on subsequent inspections, the RRC discovered additional volumes of pressure on the Bradenhead in apparent violation of RRC rules.”

These statements are misleading at best, and create a false presumption about Range’s compliance with Railroad Commission rules. The truth, as explained in detail below, is that the bradenhead pressure was fully investigated and determined not to be a substantive issue, and that subsequent Railroad Commission inspections showed compliance with Statewide Rule 17. The Railroad Commission has issued a set of guidelines for bradenhead pressure management that is helpful in understanding the meaning and effect of bradenhead pressure. [Tab G]. According to the Railroad Commission, “[t]he management of bradenhead (or annular) pressure can vary from District to District to allow flexibility due to the unique geological conditions which affect wells across the state.” [Tab G, p. 3]. Further, the presence of bradenhead pressure is not uncommon and does not, by itself, indicate that the mechanical integrity of a well is somehow compromised. As explained by the Railroad Commission: Since wellbores are essentially pressure vessels and are designed to contain a certain amount of pressure, the existence of pressure at the surface between casing strings presents a problem only in situations where that pressure exceeds the current ability of the wellbore to contain it, or where the pressure indicates a downhole communication issue that must be addressed. As such, the RRC’s rules properly seek to maintain that ability to monitor downhole conditions for the entire life of the well. In many cases a non-zero annular pressure exists and represents no issue with regard to well construction, mechanical integrity, or pressure containment. [Tab G, p. 4 (emphasis added)]. “The purpose of diagnosis of pressure on the bradenhead is to assess whether or not a loss of casing integrity has occurred.” [Tab G, p. 3]. Contrary to the “violations” alleged in the April 1, 2013 e-mail, the Railroad Commission investigated the minimal bradenhead pressure of the production casing of the Butler 1-H well and determined that the mechanical integrity of the casing is sound: [The Railroad Commission] requested Range to perform a pressure test on the well to confirm the integrity of the production casing. This test was performed on October 14, 2010 and was witnessed by RRC personnel. … The well held 845 psi on the annulus between the tubing and casing for 30 minutes, while the tubing pressure held at 540 psig. The bradenhead pressure was 28 psi during the entire test. These pressures demonstrate
Page 2 of 7

that the casing in the well has integrity, i.e. there are no pathways for gas to migrate from the production tubing to the annulus or from the tubing/casing annular space to the back side of the production casing. [Tab H, p. 5, n. 3]. Moreover, follow-up Inspection Reports from the Railroad Commission dated September 20, 2010 and October 14 and 26, 2010 show that the pressure on the bradenhead was in compliance with Statewide Rule 17. [Tab I]. At the Railroad Commission hearing, the witnesses were cross-examined by an attorney, Mr. Cooney, who represented the Commission’s Oil and Gas Division Staff, which had been tasked with the Commission’s investigation of the Lipskys’ complaint. Mr. Cooney asked questions about the significance of the bradenhead pressure on the Butler well, and whether Range had “considered the possibility of either of the Butler or Teal well being a factor in Strawn gas getting into the Lipsky well.” [Tab K, pp. 000016, 49, 79, 83, 85]. During the hearing, the witnesses provided evidence that refuted any notion that the minimal bradenhead pressure on the well was a factor in the presence of gas in the Lipsky well. Their testimony at the Railroad Commission hearing proved that 30 psi (which had fallen to 5 psi at the time of the hearing) of bradenhead pressure was insignificant and that gas migrating up the annulus of the well was not possibly contributing to the gas in the Lipskys’ well. [Tab K, pp. 000016-17, 49, 67-68, 85]. In addition, expert Mark McCaffrey, Ph.D., testified that: [i]nstead of invoking this Byzantine idea that coming up through the bradenhead through the annulus into the shallow horizons, it seems much more plausible that it represents yet another [naturally occurring] sample in the Strawn gas as was reflected in the Center Mills gas field, the local water facility, the Hurst well years before, the Perdue well that’s the closest well to the Range. So just the preponderance of evidence comes to me as being that that is what it is. [Tab K, p. 000050]. Another expert, Charles Kreitler, Ph.D., concluded: the presence of gas in the Lipsky well and the other wells in the area is due to a natural connection between the Cretaceous [the water aquifer] and the Strawn that is probably exacerbated with the water wells being drilled either too deep and penetrating into the Strawn formation or being drilled almost to the Strawn formation [such as the Lipsky well] and allowing Strawn water to be drawn into those water wells. [Tab K, p. 000079]. Dr. McCaffrey, an independent geochemical gas fingerprinting expert, demonstrated at the Railroad Commission hearing that the Butler bradenhead gas is a mixture of microbial gas and N2-enriched thermal gas from a Pennsylvanian reservoir (a fact indicated not only by the N2 concentrations, but also by the observation that the isotopic composition of N2 is different in the Butler bradenhead gas than in the Barnett Shale). [Tab L, pp. 9, 11-12]. Further, Dr. McCaffrey
Page 3 of 7

also concluded that the fact that the Butler bradenhead gas is derived from Pennsylvanian reservoirs (and not the Barnett Formation) is not consistent with migration of Barnett gas to shallower reservoirs along the well path: Q: … Does the presence of microbial gas in the bradenhead tell you anything about whether the Teal or Butler wells could be a source of the Strawn gas in the Lipsky? *** A: Why are we not seeing the microbial signature that was noted not only in the Butler bradenhead gas but was noted in even greater abundance in the Teal bradenhead gas? Why is that microbial signature not showing up in the Lipsky well if the bradenhead were a migration conduit? I'm embarrassed not having to come to that one on the fly also. You see the point, that we not only have in the annulus we not only have Pennsylvanian gas but we have a mixture of Pennsylvanian and bacterial, and yet in the Lipsky we only find the Pennsylvanian, not the bacterial component. So that would be in a sense a tracer for the bradenhead gas. [Tab L, pp. 9, 11-12; Tab K, p. 000050]. In the Proposal for Decision, the Railroad Commission examiners concluded, among other things, that “the gas found in most of the water well samples has differing degrees of biodegradation, indicating that gas had seeped into the aquifer over geologic time, and not in a single event [such as Range’s drilling of the gas wells].” [Tab M, p. 148]. The examiners found that the evidence clearly demonstrated that Range’s drilling and operations of the Teal and Butler gas wells have not contributed to contamination of any domestic water wells. [Tab M, p. 151]. They also held there “is no evidence to indicate that either the Teal well or the Butler well is the source of gas production in area water wells.” [Tab M, p. 153]. The e-mail received from Mr. Shipp on April 1, 2013 contains a list of items Mr. Shipp “intends” to report. Curiously absent from the list is the geochemical data presented at the Railroad Commission hearing that the small amount of bradenhead gas found at the Butler Unit 1-H well is not related to gas found in the Trinity aquifer at the Lipskys’ water well. This significant geochemical data from the bradenhead demonstrates that the Butler Unit 1-H well is not causing or contributing to any of the gas in the Lipskys’ water well. And, it is ironic that WFAA-TV “intends” to report that an event (minimal bradenhead pressure) somehow implicates Range when, in fact, it actually is exculpatory.

Page 4 of 7

“We are also reporting that Range’s initial response was to circulate cement to surface behind the production casing in order to “eliminate any chance that gas could be migrating from any zone” down the well bore. We are also reporting that Range later opted not to do that.”

Although Range initially offered to circulate cement behind the production casing, Range, in consultation with the Railroad Commission, agreed not to circulate cement so that the bradenhead gas could be tested to determine its source. The composition of the bradenhead gas was determined to be 50% microbial and 50% from Pennsylvanian formations, such as the Strawn. If cement were circulated behind the production casing, Range (or the Railroad Commission and EPA) could not have obtained samples of the bradenhead gas. Moreover, as explained above, the very small bradenhead pressure on the Butler 1-H well was shown to be inconsequential and the evidence showed that the Butler 1-H well had complete mechanical integrity.

“We are also reporting that all records we have obtained from the RRC indicate the source of the Bradenhead pressure was never discovered.”

This statement is incorrect. As shown above, the Butler bradenhead gas is a mixture of microbial gas and N2-enriched thermal gas sourced from Pennsylvanian reservoirs (and not the Barnett Shale). [Tab L, pp. 9, 11-12; Tab K, p. 000050]. Also, as shown above, the evidence conclusively proved that the gas in the Lipsky water well does not have microbial content, and thus, there is no connection between the Butler 1-H well and the Lipskys’ water well.

“We are also reporting that current RRC rules call for the sealing off of all gas production strata with cement. We would like Range’s response as to why all gas bearing strata in the Butler 1-H cased in cement.”

The characterization of the RRC rules regarding cementing procedures for gas bearing strata is misleading and inaccurate. Statewide Rule 13 addresses casing and cementing requirements. That rule requires the cementing of a “productive horizon,” which is defined as “[a]ny stratum known to contain oil, gas, or geothermal resources in commercial quantities in the area.” 16 Tex. Admin Code § 3.13(a)(2)(D) (emphasis added). It is the stated intent of the rule that “all potentially productive zones be isolated and sealed off to prevent vertical migration of fluids or gases behind the casing.” 16 Tex. Admin Code § 3.13(a)(1) (emphasis added). However, the rule does not require all gas bearing strata to be cased in cement (as the statement above falsely suggests), but only zones known to contain gas in commercially productive
Page 5 of 7

quantities. There were no known commercially productive horizons in the areas of the production casing that were not cemented. Further, other wells drilled by other reputable operators in the area were cemented in a similar fashion. [Tab N]. The Railroad Commission also determined that Range did not violate Statewide Rule 13 relating to casing and cementing requirements. [Tab M, p. 149 (“Surface casing on both wells exceeded the requirements of TCEQ.”)]. Mr. Lipsky’s “expert” in the Parker County Lawsuit that he filed against Range even testified that the Railroad Commission personnel and records show that Range’s gas wells did not violate Statewide Rule 13. [Tab O, pp. 58-62; Tabs I & J]. Range set the surface casing on the Butler and Teal wells in compliance with letters that Range received from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality instructing Range on the depth to use for the surface casing. [Tab O, pp. 48-51, 53-54].

“Was the entire length of the Teal Unit cased in cement?”

No, the Teal Unit 1-H was cemented in a similar fashion as the Butler Unit 1-H and in compliance with Statewide Rule 13. The production casing of the Teal Unit 1-H was cemented back to a depth of 4,810 feet. [Tab Q]. The Railroad Commission determined that the Teal Unit 1-H was in compliance with Rule 13. [Tab M, p. 149; Tab O, pp. 58-62; Tab J].

“Our calculations indicate that 144 barrels of cement were pumped down the Butler Unit well bore which should have been enough to cement the entire length of the hole. Was the balance of that cement lost down the hole ever accounted for? Are there any explanations as to what happened to roughly half the cement that was pumped down the hole?”

The statement that 144 barrels of cement “were pumped down the Butler Unit well bore” is demonstrably inaccurate and is not consistent with the well records. As reflected on the Form W-15 filed with the Railroad Commission of Texas, 234 sacks of cement (or 307 cubic feet) were used to cement in the surface casing. An additional 409 sacks of cement (or 606 cubic feet) were used to cement in the production casing. [Tab P]. All of the cement was accounted for and used to secure the surface and production casing. The implication that additional cement was pumped down the wellbore and “lost” is completely inaccurate.

Page 6 of 7

“Finally, can Range Resources say without equivocation that a failure to cement the entire length of the well bore was in no way responsible for any alleged contamination of any water wells in Parker County, Texas.”

Yes, but the question is misleading. As shown above, the well was designed, drilled, and cemented exactly as planned. There was no “failure” in the drilling of the well, and there has been no “failure” in the mechanical integrity of the well. The Railroad Commission, after hearing two days of testimony and reviewing hundreds of documents, concluded that Range’s activities had no impact on the water aquifer or the well in question. The Railroad Commission record included testimony and evidence regarding the casing and cementing of the Butler well. [Tab Q; Tab M, p. 149] The Railroad Commission’s determination (and all the evidence that supported that determination), along with the fact that gas is naturally present in the Trinity Aquifer in the area and has been for decades, unequivocally demonstrates that none of Range’s activities caused or contributed to natural gas in the Lipsky water wells or any other water wells in Parker County. Moreover, after thoroughly reviewing the evidence regarding the Lipsky water well, the EPA completely withdrew its December 7, 2010 Order relating to the Lipsky water well. [Tab R].

Page 7 of 7

Photos confirm flaming water existed before fracking in Texas | Washing...


Photos from 2005, recently uncovered from court documents, show that flaming water existed years before hydraulic fracking began in Parker County, Texas, the website EnergyInDepth reports. A fracking well in Parker County was the source of the infamous “flaming hose” scene in Josh Fox's “Gasland Part II,” which has already been debunked. The photos below are from a water well just a half-mile away from the well that produced the "Gasland" hoax.

1 of 3

2/7/2014 10:48 AM

Photos confirm flaming water existed before fracking in Texas | Washing...

Range Resources, the fracking company accused of well contamination (and then exonerated), did not start drilling in Parker County until 2009, nearly half a decade after the photos above were taken. Despite anti-fracking activists’ claims that the water only began flaming after Range began drilling, the evidence shows that naturally occurring methane in the region’s water supply was the real culprit. Another photo, of a well drilled in 2003, shows a water well in the same region with two “danger” signs warning of flammable gas.

2 of 3

2/7/2014 10:48 AM

Photos confirm flaming water existed before fracking in Texas | Washing...

Of course, a video of a man with a hose attached to a gas line is far more powerful than any scientific evidence — or the blessings of Obama administration officials. On Wednesday, former Interior Secretary Ken Salazar again confirmed that there has not been “a single case where hydraulic fracking has created an environmental problem for anyone.” Salazar, along with President Obama's former Energy Secretary Steven Chu, said in September that fracking was “safe.” Both former Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson and current Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz have said that there is no evidence of groundwater contamination due to fracking. Add to that support the recent discrediting of anti-fracking activists' favorite study, and the entire anti-fracking movement appears to be going out with the wastewater. Photos in this post were first published by and are used here by permission. Web URL:

3 of 3

2/7/2014 10:48 AM

Washington Free Beacon » Photos Debunk Key Anti-Fracking Claim » Print

Photos Debunk Key Anti-Fracking Claim
Water wells supposedly contaminated by fracking were flammable years before gas drilling
BY: Lachlan Markay Follow @lachlan February 6, 2014 1:15 pm Newly relea e! pho"o o# a #lam$n% wa"er well ha&e renewe! kep"$c$ m o# cla$m by en&$ronmen"al ac"$&$ " an! #e!eral re%ula"or "ha" hy!raul$c #rac"ur$n% ma!e !r$nk$n% wa"er uppl$e $n 'arker (oun"y, )e*a , #lammable+

Gasland Part II director Josh Fox / AP

)he 2005 pho"o how "ha" !r$nk$n% wa"er $n "he area con"a$ne! u##$c$en"ly h$%h me"hane concen"ra"$on "o be $%n$"e! year be#ore a company blame! by en&$ronmen"al$ " #or wa"er con"am$na"$on be%an !r$ll$n% $n "he area+ )he ,n&$ronmen"al 'ro"ec"$on -%ency $n .ecember 2010 $ ue! an en!an%ermen" or!er a%a$n " /an%e /e ource , ay$n% "he o$l an! %a company e$"her cau e! or con"r$bu"e! "o %roun!wa"er con"am$na"$on $n 'arker (oun"y+ 0n!epen!en" analy e o# "he ca e con"ra!$c"e! "he ,'-1 cla$m , wh$ch "he a%ency relea e! $n collabora"$on w$"h en&$ronmen"al ac"$&$ " $n "he "a"e+ ,'-1 $n pec"or %eneral $n .ecember e*onera"e! a%ency o##$c$al o# wron%!o$n% $n "ha" collabora"$on, "hou%h 2ue "$on abou" "he a%ency1 clo e rela"$on h$p w$"h en&$ronmen"al %roup
1 of 3 2/7/2014 10:49 AM

Washington Free Beacon » Photos Debunk Key Anti-Fracking Claim » Print

rema$n unan were!+ )he a%ency la"er e""le! w$"h /an%e an! w$"h!rew $" or!er+ 3owe&er, en&$ronmen"al$ " con"$nue! "o "ou" "he 'arker (oun"y ca e a an e*ample o# "he en&$ronmen"al !an%er o# hy!raul$c #rac"ur$n%, al o known a #rack$n%+ - #lam$n% %ar!en ho e $n 'arker (oun"y er&e! a a po"en" $ma%e $n en&$ronmen"al ac"$&$ " 4o h Fo*1 2012 #$lm Gasland Part II+ Fo* an! o"her ha&e blame! #rack$n%, an $nno&a"$&e o$l an! %a e*"rac"$on "echn$2ue, #or pollu"$n% nearby !r$nk$n% wa"er w$"h #lammable me"hane+ Frack$n% uppor"er con"en! "ha" uch me"hane concen"ra"$on o#"en appear na"urally $n wa"er uppl$e near na"ural %a well + 'ho"o relea e! "hrou%h "he le%al procee!$n% a%a$n " /an%e, #$r " ma!e publ$cly a&a$lable on 5e!ne !ay, coul! bol "er "he$r ca e+ )he pho"o how a #lam$n% wa"er well $n 'arker (oun"y, abou" a hal# m$le #rom "he %a well "ha" alle%e!ly con"am$na"e! "he wa"er well hown $n Gasland+ 3owe&er, "he pho"o were "aken year be#ore /an%e be%an !r$ll$n% $n "he area+ -no"her pho"o how a wa"er well w$"h a $%n "ha" warn , #lammable %a +7 )he pho"o are a cruc$al p$ece o# e&$!ence rebu""$n% cla$m ma!e by "he en&$ronmen"al$ " an! "he ,'-+ 5h$le "he a%ency !emon "ra"e! "he pre ence o# me"hane $n 'arker (oun"y1 wa"er8a cla$m no one !$ pu"e!8$" #a$le! "o pro&e "he me"hane wa pre en" a a re ul" o# #rack$n%+ 6)he approach u e! by "he ,'- "o correla"e "he L$p ky %a ample "o /an%e /e ource pro!uc"$on wa #un!amen"ally #lawe!,7 accor!$n% "o a "u!y by )e*a %eo c$en"$ " -lan 9ornack$ an! Mark Mc(a##rey+ )he ,'- !$! 6no" !$##eren"$a"e be"ween %a $n "he Barne"" : hale; #orma"$on #rom %a $n :o"her nearby; re er&o$r +7 )h$ $ no" "he #$r " "$me $con$c $ma%e o# #lam$n% wa"er $n a 4o h Fo* pro!uc"$on ha&e come un!er #$re+ FrackNation, a pro<#rack$n% !ocumen"ary pro!uce! by =ournal$ " 'hel$m Mc-leer an! -nn Mc0lhenny, po$n"e! ou" "ha" a cene $n "he #$r " Gasland how$n% a (olora!o re $!en" l$%h"$n% h$ "ap wa"er on #$re "ook place $n a "own "ha" ha! een #lam$n% #auce" #or !eca!e + Fo* !$!n1" $nclu!e "ha" $n#orma"$on $n h$ #$lm becau e he !$!n1" bel$e&e $" wa rele&an", he "ol! Mc-leer+ )he 6#lam$n% ho e7 cene $n "he Gasland e2uel al o came un!er #$re a#"er a )e*a =u!%e #oun! "ha" "he cene wa "an"amoun" "o a hoa*+

2 of 3

2/7/2014 10:49 AM

Washington Free Beacon » Photos Debunk Key Anti-Fracking Claim » Print

6)h$ !emon "ra"$on wa no" !one #or c$en"$#$c "u!y bu" "o pro&$!e local an! na"$onal new me!$a a !ecep"$&e &$!eo, calcula"e! "o alarm "he publ$c $n"o bel$e&$n% "he wa"er wa burn$n%,7 "he =u!%e #oun!+ Fo* an! h$ ub=ec" !en$e! "ha" "he $nc$!en" wa "a%e!+

)he re&ela"$on concern$n% 'arker (oun"y came "he ame "ha" "ha" 9en >ala?ar, 're $!en" Barack @bama1 #ormer 0n"er$or >ecre"ary, !eclare! #rack$n% en&$ronmen"ally oun!+ 65e know "ha", #rom e&ery"h$n% we1&e een, "here1 no" a $n%le ca e where hy!raul$c #rack$n% ha crea"e! an en&$ronmen"al problem #or anyone,7 >ala?ar a$! on 5e!ne !ay+ 65e nee! "o make ure "ha" "ory $ "ol!+7
©2014 All Rights Reserved

3 of 3

2/7/2014 10:49 AM

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful