They are celebrating over in Frackerville. They scored a peer-reviewed paper in a decent journal. According to industry astroturf Energy in Depth, this new paper will "discredit Duke methane papers." Those "flawed" studies found that the concentrations of methane, ethane, and other gases were substantially higher in wells close to active hydraulic fracturing operations.
Heads exploded in Frackerville when they read this research article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences:
Distance to gas wells was also the most significant factor for Pearson and Spearman correlation analyses (P < 0.01). For ethane concentrations, distance to gas wells was the only statistically significant factor (P < 0.005). Isotopic signatures (δ13C-CH4, δ13C-C2H6, and δ2H-CH4), hydrocarbon ratios (methane to ethane and propane), and the ratio of the noble gas 4He to CH4 in groundwater were characteristic of a thermally postmature Marcellus-like source in some cases. Overall, our data suggest that some homeowners living <1 km from gas wells have drinking water contaminated with stray gases.
That conclusion probably gave more than a few investors heartburn. It invites meddlesome regulations and requires larger campaign contributions to keep politicians turning a blind eye. Really dangerous in the hands of the good lawyer. Especially things like
this.
The studies suggested the Marcellus methane ended up in well water because of the wells' faulty metal casings that allowed the methane to seep out into aquifers as natural gas was pumped to the surface. The research said the leaks could also be linked to poor concrete construction inside gas wells.
Something had to be done.
Mission Accomplished!!!
In contrast to prior findings, we found no statistically significant relationship between dissolved methane concentrations in groundwater from domestic water wells and proximity to pre-existing oil or gas wells.
Suck it, Duke. I have it on good authority that the lords of Frackerville danced as they broke out the champagne, caviar, and top dollar escorts.
So here is the funny part. The Syracuse study by Donald Siegel was a tour d'force. It was a remarkable collaboration between university researchers and Chesapeake Energy, a very big fish in the Marcellus shale drilling pond. Strange bedfellows perhaps as Chesapeake Energy has developed quite a reputation as one of the most ethically bankrupt corporations in the nation.
At the end of 2011, Chesapeake Energy, one of the nation’s biggest oil and gas companies, was teetering on the brink of failure.
Its legendary chief executive officer, Aubrey McClendon, was being pilloried for questionable deals, its stock price was getting hammered and the company needed to raise billions of dollars quickly.
The money could be borrowed, but only on onerous terms. Chesapeake, which had burned money on a lavish steel-and-glass office complex in Oklahoma City even while the selling price for its gas plummeted, already had too much debt.
In the months that followed, Chesapeake executed an adroit escape, raising nearly $5 billion with a previously undisclosed twist: By gouging many rural landowners out of royalty payments they were supposed to receive in exchange for allowing the company to drill for natural gas on their property.
Ripping off landowners of their royalty payments does not endear your company to the "drill, baby, drill" crowd. Before long there are class-action lawsuits up the ying-yang and
fraud allegations by formerly subservient political leaders. The last thing Chesapeake Energy needs are any more studies showing high risk of well water contamination from hydraulic fracturing, particularly in the Marcellus shale fields. The natives can get downright nasty when you steal from them and poison their water supply.
Here is predatory capitalism at its finest. Chesapeake Energy spun off its pipeline collection unit as Access Midstream. Next thing you know production expenses charged to Chesapeake by Access Midstream are going through the roof and it was all then subtracted from royalty payments to leaseholders. Behold the great white shark of the Marcellus shale gas fields.
The company sees the potential for a double-whammy from overlapping class action lawsuits from royalty rip-offs and well water contamination cases. The constant drumbeat of studies with evidence of groundwater contamination linked to active drilling and production operations is not helpful in court.
Chesapeake Energy hired Don Siegel at Syracuse to analyze a bunch of water samples collected by the company from the taps of local residents and then write up the results for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The company collected, stored, and selected the samples to be analyzed for the study. Perhaps it is my suspicious streak, but that reeks of potential for selection bias. Without a trace of irony, Siegel lectured the Duke team on sampling.
Siegel said of Jackson's team. "You have to sample broadly and randomly to avoid bias."
How do you say something that intellectually dishonest with a straight face? Pay no attention to the bottles selected by Chesapeake Energy from their stash of tap water samples. Siegel sampled broadly and randomly from the water samples handed to him by the company.
The water sampling methodology used by the company is not exactly state-of-the-art.
The samples were drawn from the taps instead of the wells. Direct sampling from wells is the gold standard because water purification systems will dilute source contaminants and introduce measurement noise to bloat error variance. Methane and other gases were sampled using the "inverted bottle" collection method. More noise.
Further, the contractors used the so-called inverted bottle method to collect the samples, which entails placing an upside-down bottle in a bucket of water to collect the escaping gas. Jackson said he does not use the inverted bottle method because it doesn't produce reliable results. The United States Geological Survey and some other major water testing labs do not use the technique to measure methane.
Despite highly suspect sampling methods, a statistical null was interpreted as evidence that proximity to drilling operations has no relationship to well water quality. Inferences from statistical nulls are tricky, but not in the experienced hands of the Syracuse team.
The Syracuse team did somehow botch disclosure that one of the study authors was working for Chesapeake Energy. That is curious. Inside Climate News thought so too.
One of the paper's four co-authors, Bert Smith, worked for Chesapeake during some of the period when the study took place, which also wasn't disclosed. Smith works for the company today. The paper only acknowledges that Chesapeake provided the dataset.
Chesapeake Energy has quite a few fingers in this study that supposedly exonerates fracking from any stray gassing of well water near drilling operations. The primary author says we just have to take his word that the "
analysis was not influenced" by the company.
Siegel said that he considered the disclosure on the paper adequate, and that his analysis was not influenced by Chesapeake. "I've done work for any number of environmental groups, and I've worked for industry," he said. "I go where the science is. I have no hidden agenda here." He declined to specify the fee amount he received, other than to say "I didn't get rich."
I prophesize that the Siegel study will be featured prominently in promoting fracking as no threat to groundwater quality. Behold the
Merchants of Doubt in action. Strike up the band.