FracFocus Records are Inadequate so New PA-DEP Database Necessary

From an Article by Katelyn Ferral, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, June 28, 2015

Pennsylvania will require shale gas companies to disclose electronically the chemicals they use in hydraulic fracturing in a new state-run database by next summer. PA Department of Environmental Protection Secretary John Quigley said the department will end its partnership with FracFocus, an independent online catalog of fracking records, and develop what he considers a more comprehensive and user-friendly online database.

“Our goal is to have a reporting tool that will provide … much more downloadable and searchable information than FracFocus,” Quigley said. The state will require operators to submit fracturing records electronically by March 2016. The database will start around June 2016, he said. “We’re not quite there yet, but we’re well down the path,” Quigley said.

He plans to eventually integrate the records into a mapping system. Computer users would be able to click on a dot on a map and see all of the information for that well, including fracking chemicals used, inspection records and production reports submitted to DEP, Quigley said. “It’s going to be a comprehensive data set on oil and gas data in Pennsylvania,” he said.

Several Marcellus shale drillers, including Range Resources and Chesapeake Energy, began disclosing chemicals before the state required it in 2012. The North Fayette-based Marcellus Shale Coalition said the law is comprehensive enough. “Our organization, which was a very early advocate of FracFocus participation, is committed to common-sense disclosure practices,” said spokeswoman Erica Clayton Wright.

The industry has gotten better at demystifying the process of fracking and drilling for the public, but broader disclosure is welcome, said Davitt Woodwell, president of the Pennsylvania Environmental Council. There should be more disclosure about all materials and liquids used on a well pad, along with those pumped underground, he said. “There’s a chance to understand that whole process better,” Woodwell said. “… For us, it’s not just the fracking that’s an issue.”

Pennsylvania is one of 15 states, including Ohio and West Virginia, that use FracFocus to catalog fracking records. Ground Water Protection Council, a nonprofit association of state agencies based in Oklahoma City, started running the database in 2010. The DEP studied FracFocus’ effectiveness last year and decided it did not allow users to download data sets and search for specific information easily, Quigley said. “We think we can do even better,” he said.

FracFocus reports include a list of each chemical added; trade names, including descriptions of what they’re used for in fracking the well; the concentration; and pressure applied in the well. State officials have access to all the data and determine what is required. Companies can designate parts of the records they say are confidential trade secrets, and the state will shield them from public disclosure in Pennsylvania.

DEP’s database will be based on a disclosure form that separates the list of chemicals and trade names, which the department hopes will encourage drillers to disclose more. FracFocus is initiating a similar form when it updates its site this fall. “We’re just going to try to make the forms easier for companies who are trying to do it,” said Dan Yates, assistant executive director for the Ground Water Protection Council. “We’re not forcing anyone to do it, but we’re creating the option.”

What constitutes a trade secret remains a point of contention between drillers who seek to protect billions in technology investments and maintain a competitive edge, and environmental advocates who say the public’s health depends on knowing every chemical used.

Pennsylvania’s trade secret parameters will not change with the database unless legislators change the law, Quigley said. FracFocus does not enforce state deadlines nor check the records that companies submit, but DEP would, Quigley said. Once records are submitted electronically, he said, the department can determine which companies have not filed and pursue them. “We would take proper enforcement action, up to and including fines,” he said.

Environmental Integrity Project, 8-13-14

Fracking Beyond the Law: Despite Industry Denials, Investigation Reveals Continued Use of Diesel in Hydraulic Fracturing

Report From the Environmental Integrity Project, August 13, 2014

At least 33 companies drilled 351 wells in 12 states using prohibited diesel fuels without required permits in violation of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The illegal injection of diesel fuel during hydraulic fracturing has continued over the last four years, despite repeated denials by the drilling industry, according to a report by the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP). In its investigation, EIP also found troubling evidence that drilling companies have been changing and eliminating their disclosures of past diesel use from the industry self-disclosure database of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, called FracFocus.

Injecting diesel fuel into the ground to fracture shale and extract gas or oil is a potential threat to drinking water supplies and public health because diesel contains toxic chemicals, such as benzene, that cause cancer or other serious health problems, even at low doses.

EIP’s report, “Fracking Beyond the Law,” uses self-reported data from drilling companies and federal records to document at least 33 companies fracking at least 351 wells across 12 states with fluids containing diesel from 2010 through early August 2014. Diesel fuels were used to frack wells in Texas, Colorado, North Dakota, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Wyoming, New Mexico, Utah, Kansas, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Montana without required Safe Drinking Water Act permits.

“EPA and the states have an obligation to protect the public from the potential health hazards of fracking by enforcing the Safe Drinking Water Act,” said report author Mary Greene, Managing Attorney for EIP and a former EPA enforcement attorney. “We urge EPA and the states to exercise their legal authority by immediately investigating the compliance status of these 351 wells and taking all necessary steps to make sure they are properly permitted. Companies that inject diesel without permits should be fined for ignoring the law.”

EIP’s investigation also revealed that some oil and gas companies have been changing their disclosures submitted to FracFocus, the privately-run fracking chemical disclosure registry, in a manner that removes any and all indication of past injection of diesel. FracFocus, which was created by industry as an alternative to mandatory disclosure to federal or state governments, allows operators to change or replace previous disclosures, at any time, without leaving any record of or justification for the change.

The fact that drilling companies have free reign to remove from FracFocus past disclosures of their own diesel use points to the need for a more transparent and reliable national system for the reporting of toxic chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, EIP’s report concludes. Claims of trade secrets are also a barrier to an accurate accounting of what chemicals are being used. Because of the flawed reporting system, the 351 wells identified in the EIP report are likely a low estimate. “The public deserves more disclosure and transparency about the toxic chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing,” Greene said. “The current reporting system must be improved.”

In 2005, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act, which exempted hydraulic fracturing from key requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and federal Clean Water Act. The exemption was nicknamed the “Halliburton Loophole,” after then-Vice President Cheney’s former oil and gas company, which pioneered the controversial extraction method. As part of this loophole, Congress allowed EPA to retain its authority to prohibit the underground injection of diesel fuels unless authorized by a Safe Drinking Water Act permit. The purpose of these permits is to safeguard public health by ensuring that diesel-containing fluids do not escape the well and contaminate underground sources of drinking water.

The potential threat of drilling to drinking water is not an abstract one. A July 22 Pittsburgh Post-Gazette report used Pennsylvania Department of Environment Protection data to document 209 times that fracking has damaged public water supplies since 2007.

Over the last decade, drilling companies have repeatedly claimed they are no longer using diesel fuel in fracking, although a 2011 investigation by U.S. House Democrats concluded otherwise. In February 2014, EPA sought to clarify the law by releasing guidance identifying five commonly used drilling products containing diesel fuels that require a permit prior to well fracturing.

The Environmental Integrity Project examined disclosure data submitted to FracFocus and aggregated by a Houston-based consulting firm called PIVOT Upstream Group. Using these sources and federal records, EIP identified at least 351 wells in 12 states that have been fracked over the last four years with one or more of the five prohibited products identified as diesel in the February EPA guidance. EIP contacted these 12 states and EPA and confirmed that none of these drilling companies applied for — or received – the required permits to frack with diesel.

EIP researchers also discovered numerous fracking fluids with high diesel content for sale online, including over a dozen products sold by Halliburton and advertised as additives, friction reducers, emulsifiers, etc. The fact that these products are offered for sale suggest that drilling companies are buying these products without obtaining the required permits to use them.

The “Fracking Beyond the Law” report concludes that: 1) diesel use in fracking should be eliminated or at least properly permitted; 2) FracFocus needs to be improved to increase transparency and accountability; 3) companies that supply fracking products containing diesel should be required to label their products and notify operators of the need to obtain Safe Drinking Water Act permits; 4) drilling companies should fully disclose the contents of all fracking fluids, including the ingredients in trade secret products and the chemical composition of base fluid; and 5) states should list diesel-based fracking products that require a permit.

Read the Report View the Well Data Listen to Press Conference Recording

NOTE: This report was initially scheduled for public release on June 19, 2014, but EIP postponed the release until August 13 and revised the report when the organization learned that drilling companies had been changing their disclosures in the FracFocus database. The updated report addresses the systemic problem raised by the fact that drilling companies have free reign to remove indications of past diesel use without explaining or justifying such changes.

See also: www.FrackCheckWV.net

SkyTruth Monitoring, Shepherdstown, WV

Transparency about  fracking chemicals remains elusive

From an Article of  ”The Pulse” on WHYY, NewsWorks, Philadelphia, August 7, 2014

The website FracFocus.org was built to give the public answers to a burning question about the shale boom: what exactly were companies pumping down tens of thousands of wells to release oil and gas?

Today, FracFocus has records for more than 77,000 wells. Pennsylvania is one of 14 states requiring operators to use the website as part of their chemical disclosure laws, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.

However, transparency about those chemicals remains elusive. FracFocus is run by the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission and the Groundwater Protection Council, both based in Oklahoma City. The IOGCC is a multi-state government agency and the GWPC is a nonprofit group of state regulators who oversee water quality and oil and gas development. Pennsylvania is a member of both organizations.

“We were just trying to do some good,” says GWPC Associate Director Dan Yates, “Get some data out there on something we felt the public was hungry for.”

With funding from industry trade groups, FracFocus launched in April 2011 as an optional disclosure tool. More than 200 operators voluntarily uploaded their fracking fluid recipes for each well – with the exception of those ingredients companies deemed “trade secrets.” One year later, the voluntary disclosure site started to become a required regulatory tool in several states, including Pennsylvania.

Yates says the goal was to provide a well-by-well service. “We really wanted to focus in on individual people who lived and worked near a well, what they needed to know about that well,” he says.

That’s a problem, according to David Manthos with the group SkyTruth. He says information about tens of thousands of wells is technically available to the public on FracFocus, “but in such an obscure, obtuse way that it’s impossible to look at it in aggregate.”

SkyTruth is a nonprofit that uses publicly available data and satellite images to monitor the impacts of industry on the environment – all from a tiny office in Shepherdstown, West Virginia. When the SkyTruth team learned about FracFocus, Manthos says they were excited to find a new data set on shale development. The reports included information about the volume of water, sand and chemicals companies used to frack, as well as the location, height and depth of each well.

However, the data wasn’t so easy to get. Drillers post their lists of chemicals as individual PDF documents for each well they frack. PDFs are not “machine-readable.” In other words, computers can’t understand the documents, so it’s harder to tell machines to pull the data out and organize the information as a table or a spreadsheet. (An Excel spreadsheet is one example of a “machine-readable” document.)

Click here to see what a FracFocus report looks like.

At the time, FracFocus had records for more than 30,000 wells. To mine all that data, SkyTruth would have to open one PDF at a time and then copy and paste all the information about each ingredient into a spreadsheet.

Manthos says it was a daunting task. “We calculated about 6 years’ worth of labor and just at minimum wage, would have been something on the order of $90,000 just to manually do this whole thing,” he says.

Paul Woods, SkyTruth’s self-described “big data wrangler,” spent about three months coming up with a better solution. He designed a bot – a software program that could do all the work for them. Every night, the bot scraped the site for all the available PDF documents and compiled the information into a searchable database. SkyTruth published that database online for the public in 2012. “We were overwhelmed by the response of people contacting us, asking questions about the data set, downloading it and then the subsequent reports and publications that used that data set to say very interesting things,” Woods says.

For instance, researchers at the Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago used the data to look at how much water goes into producing natural gas and using it as a transportation fuel.

The Smithsonian used it to make an interactive map of shale gas wells across the country. Even a consulting firm that does data analysis for the industry tapped into SkyTruth’s database.

But one night last June, the bot hit a roadblock. The first thing Woods noticed was that there was no new data coming in from FracFocus. He ran some tests and was discouraged by what he found. “There was a little error message that was coming out saying, ‘Hey, you’re sending too many requests. You’re being blocked for 24 hours,’” he says. “Then, they block you for 48 hours and then they block you forever.”

The GWPC had set up a system to block automated programs like SkyTruth’s bot. Yates says it was “out of concern about overloading our system resources.”

The new blocking program was part of an overhaul of FracFocus launched on June 1, 2013. “FracFocus 2.0″ included new search tools and more flexibility on the back end of the site so companies could tailor their reports to meet different states’ disclosure requirements. “We didn’t want automated searches overloading the system and blocking or slowing down individual public access,” Yates says, noting that the site was meant for residents and landowners, not groups like SkyTruth looking for big data on drilling.

To get companies to voluntarily disclose what’s in their fracking fluid, the GWPC and IOGCC had to agree it would only serve up the information one well at a time. The industry didn’t want FracFocus to be a wholesale repository of data. “That agreement is still in place,” Yates says. “We think that’s more than likely going to change, but we’re not actively seeking that out.”

FracFocus has come under new scrutiny as the U.S. Bureau of Land Management considers whether to use it as a disclosure tool for fracking on federal and Indian lands. The BLM recently finished combing through more than one million public comments on the draft rule. Spokeswoman Bev Winston says the agency is in the process of writing the final regulation and it is not clear whether the website will play a role.

“Like it or not, FracFocus is now one of the most comprehensive, if not the most comprehensive source of information about the chemicals being used in unconventional oil and gas development,” says Kate Konschnik, director of the Environmental Policy Initiative at Harvard Law School.

In a 2013 report, Konschnik gave FracFocus a failing grade as a disclosure tool. She found that the data were often inaccurate or incomplete, and that companies were making “trade secret” claims for chemicals at one well site while fully disclosing the same chemicals at another. “Not maybe as robust a tool as one would hope if something is regulated or required by state law,” she says.

In March, a task force convened by the U.S. Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board recommended that the site’s administrators beef up quality control and allow the public better access to the data in aggregate or wholesale form. The task force also recommended federal funding for these improvements.

Morgan Wagner, a spokeswoman for Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection says the agency “is in support of the Advisory Board’s recommendations.”

Konschnik says the groups running the site are under more pressure to make changes, but are juggling multiple interests – the industry, the states and now, the federal government.

Yates admits FracFocus could be improved and says the administrators are already working to fix some of the site’s limitations, but it will be up to the industry and the states to decide whether to release the full data set to the public. “We certainly have capability to make that happen,” he says. “The technical know-how exists.”"If we didn’t build it, there wouldn’t be a FracFocus. Though it has some limitations, it’s better than not existing at all.” “They haven’t really accomplished public disclosure”

What became of SkyTruth’s efforts to get the data? It’s been just over a year since the bot was blocked from the site. Woods says the group is stalled. In the spring, SkyTruth teamed up with another environmental nonprofit called FracTracker, based in Pittsburgh, to try to work things out with the site’s administrators. So far, they have not reached an agreement.

Yates says the blocking system is no longer needed and will eventually be removed. However, he could not say when that will happen. FracFocus is still a unique source of information about a technology that is changing communities and the global energy economy.

But data miners are frustrated that the big information inside FracFocus has been purposefully made so small. Samantha Malone with FracTracker puts it this way: “Imagine trying to understand your financial spending throughout the year by taking photos of all of your receipts of anything you ever purchased the entire year,” she says. “You would need to look at each one, one at a time and even then you still couldn’t see the big picture.”

Without big data, Woods says, even individual homeowners can’t see the big picture of how the shale boom is impacting them or their communities. “The kind of people who can answer those questions for you are people like us,” he says. “And if we can’t get the data because they only want to give it to individual homeowners about their individual wells, then they haven’t really accomplished public disclosure.”

Frack Fluids in the Field

DOE advisers recommend full disclosure with ‘few, if any’ exemptions for fracking fluid

From an Article of Katherine Ling, E&E Reporter, March 25, 2014

There should be very few trade secret exemptions to full public disclosure for companies participating in a hydraulic fracturing chemicals registry, according to a report approved today by leading energy experts who advise the secretary of Energy.

The Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) voted to support the recommendations of a task force report on the next steps for FracFocus, a chemical registry website created based on a previous SEAB task force recommendation in 2011.

The task force’s recommendations included “full disclosure of all known constituents added to fracturing fluid with few, if any exceptions”; a defined process for determining and objecting to the trade secret exemption; an outside audit to verify the disclosure system; a stable funding source for the program; and improved data entry, storage and retention so that system is more user-friendly for industry, communities and regulators (E&ENews PM, March 5).

John Deutch, the task force chairman, said at the meeting at Energy Department headquarters in Washington, D.C., that all 10 members of the task force favored full disclosure for fracking, noting “this is not a minor remark to have members of this task force to go from deep light blue to heavily dark red in terms of review.”

The task force includes Ram Shenoy, chief technology officer of ConocoPhillips Co.; Frances Beinecke, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council; Stephen Holditch, professor of petroleum engineering at Texas A&M; Daniel Yergin, vice chairman of IHS and founder of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates; and Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund, who is a nonboard member of the team. The task force was created after a request from Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), the former chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

FracFocus has been upheld by the industry as the answer to calls for drilling transparency, and it has been the basis of much of the fracking fluid disclosure requirements currently adopted in more than 20 states with more than half requiring companies to report on FracFocus. It is also being proposed as the foundation for the Obama administration’s disclosure requirements for fracking on federal lands.

Environmentalists and other stakeholders have criticized the website for being too opaque, however, because of the number of trade secret exemptions allowed.

Deutch emphasized that companies’ intellectual property would not be compromised if there were a “systems approach” to reporting, where chemicals were listed but “additive names and product names” or how they are used were not disclosed. “My favorite example is Julia Child,” Deutch explained. “If you know what Julia Child bought at the supermarket, you don’t really know just what Julia Child is making” in the kitchen.

He also said since FracFocus 2.0 began last summer, about 84 percent of the almost 63,000 wells registered have invoked a trade secret for at least one chemical but a random sample of company internal records do not match these same incidences of use of this same “secret” chemical. These discrepancies should be examined and may shed light on overuse of the trade secret exemption, Deutch said.

“It is a balance,” Deutch said, adding he does not consider the trade secret issue a “trivial matter.” But the importance of public confidence and the benefits of answering the public’s concerns about the nature of the chemicals used in fracking outweigh the possible intellectual property costs to the companies, he said. Or, as the report said: “The public is clearly concerned about the nature of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. It is much to industry’s advantage to meet this concern.”

The report also recommends that a company disclose an analysis or the source for 90 percent of the fracking fluid that is “water,” which was previously fresh water but is increasingly recycled fracking fluid. The report will be sent to Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz as recommendations supported by SEAB, but SEAB’s duties are solely advisory in nature.