It’s pretty interesting to see such a strong bias in favor of an industry in a person who is employed to regulate that industry. In fact, it’s scary. ”Fox guarding the henhouse” pops into mind. But that appears to be the case with Scott Perry, director of the Bureau of Oil and Gas Management in Pennsylvania. Today at the shale drilling conference in Pittsburgh, Perry said ”We’ve collected enough data to completely refute the Duke study“, according to a report in E&E news on October 5.
Professor Robert Jackson, lead author of the Duke study, responded “When Scott Perry says they have enough data to refute our study, what does that mean? Does it mean that the high methane concentrations we found were imaginary?”
The Duke study, published in May, provided evidence to back up the claims of fracking opponents and drill-site neighbors who blame fracking for fouled drinking water. The study found average methane was 17 times higher within 3,000 feet of drilling and fracking than water farther away. The study was published in the highly respected, peer-reviewed Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The Department of Energy panel on fracking deemed the Duke study “credible” and recommended follow-up research. And did I mention that this study came out of Duke University?
Apparently Perry’s claims are based upon data provided by the gas industry on baseline levels of methane in drinking water before fracking. Jackson requested this information from the industry but was denied access to the records.
We’ll watch for more news on this story as more information comes forth.
(Post amended 9:41 am Oct. 6)
Point Your RSS Reader to FrackCheckWV.net/feed/
{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }
Perry’s statement before releasing the data he referrs to is inadvisable, IMO. It invites the response above: “Scarry … bias in favor of an industry …” (etc.) and unneccesarily feeds the frenzy over gas drilling.
Why don’t we all wait for the data? More opinions are redundant (we’ve heard it all before) and pointless.
“The Duke study, published in May, provided evidence to back up the claims of fracking opponents and drill-site neighbors who blame fracking for fouled drinking water.”
In fact, the Duke study found NO EVIDENCE that fracking caused increased gas (if any) in water wells. It inferred that higher levels of gas found in water wells closer to gas wells was the result of well drilling in general, but did not attrbute it to fracking.
In my opinion. it’s gotten to the point that some opponents of gas drilling are now deliberately confusing fracking with drilling in the public mind, because “fracking” sounds terrible and better serves their propagandistic purposes.
The evidence nationwide is that gas well bore seal shortcomings (an old, relatively mundane problem) is now, as it has always been, responsible for increased levels of natural gas in the envirionment near gas wells.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In this study, statistical analyses of post-drilling versus pre-drilling water chemistry did not suggest major influences from gas well drilling or hydrofracturing (fracking) on nearby water wells, when considering changes in potential pollutants that are most prominent in drilling waste fluids. When comparing dissolved methane concentrations in the 48 water wells that were sampled both before and after drilling (from Phase 1), the research found no statistically significant increases in methane levels after drilling and no significant correlation to distance from drilling. However, the researchers suggest that more intensive research on the occurrence and sources of methane in water wells is needed.
http://marcellusdrilling.com/2011/10/new-pa-study-no-link-between-fracking-water-contamination/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
FULL TEXT:
http://www.slideshare.net/MarcellusDN/the-impact-of-marcellus-gas-drilling-on-rural-drinking-water-supplies