U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

72–655PDF 2012

FRACTURED SCIENCE: 

EXAMINING EPA’S APPROACH 

TO GROUNDWATER RESEARCH: 

THE PAVILLION ANALYSIS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

ENVIRONMENT 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND 

TECHNOLOGY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2012 

Serial No. 112–58 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

HON. RALPH M. HALL, Texas, Chair 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BENJAMIN QUAYLE, Arizona 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia 

STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

ANDY HARRIS, Maryland 

RANDY HULTGREN, Illinois 

CHIP CRAVAACK, Minnesota 

LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

VACANCY 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois 

DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland 

MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

TERRI A. SEWELL, Alabama 

FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida 

HANSEN CLARKE, Michigan 

VACANCY 

VACANCY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

HON. ANDY HARRIS, Maryland, Chair 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland 

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois 

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri 

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CHARLES J. ‘‘CHUCK’’ FLEISCHMANN, 

Tennessee 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

BEN R. LUJA ́ N, New Mexico 

PAUL D. TONKO, New York 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

February 1, 2012 

Page 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2 

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3 

Opening Statements 

Statement by Representative Andy Harris, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. 

House of Representatives .................................................................................... 18 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 20 

Statement by Representative Brad Miller, Ranking Member, Subcommittee 

on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, 

U.S. House of Representatives ............................................................................ 21 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 22 

Witnesses: 

Mr. Jim Martin, Region 8 Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 23 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 25 

Mr. Tom Doll, State Oil & Gas Supervisor, Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation 

Commission 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 31 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 33 

Ms. Kathleen Sgamma, Vice President, Government & Public Affairs, Western Energy Alliance 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 45 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 47 

Dr. Bernard Goldstein, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Graduate School of 

Public Health, University of Pittsburgh 

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 53 

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 55 

Appendix I: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions 

Mr. Jim Martin, Region 8 Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency ... 82 

Mr. Tom Doll, State Oil & Gas Supervisor, Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation 

Commission ........................................................................................................... 98 

Ms. Kathleen Sgamma, Vice President, Government & Public Affairs, Western Energy Alliance ............................................................................................. 120 

Dr. Bernard Goldstein, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Graduate School of 

Public Health, University of Pittsburgh ............................................................. 123 

Appendix II: Additional Material for the Record 

Submitted Report for the Record by Representative Brad Miller, Ranking 

Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ..................... 127 

Submitted Letter for the Record by Pavillion Area Concerned Citizens, The 

Powder River Basin Resource Council, and The Western Organization of 

Resource Councils ................................................................................................ 135 
Page

IV 

Submitted Statement for the Record by Chairman Ralph Hall, Committee 

on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives ................ 145 

Submitted Statement for the Record by Representative Paul D. Tonko, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives .... 168 
(1) 

FRACTURED SCIENCE: 

EXAMINING EPA’S APPROACH TO 

GROUNDWATER RESEARCH: 

THE PAVILLION ANALYSIS 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in Room 

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Andy Harris 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 
2 

RALPH M. HALL, TEXAS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON. TI::XAS 

RANKING MEMBER 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

2321 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6301 

{202) 225-6371 

Subcommittee on Energy & Environment Hearing 

Fractured Science - Examining EPA's Approach to Ground Water Research: 

The Pavillion Analysis 

Wednesday, February 1,2012 

10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

Mr .. Jim Martin, Region 8 Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency 

Mr. Tom Doll, State Oil & Gas Supervisor, Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission 

Ms. Kathleen Sgamma, Vice President, Government & Public AfTairs, Western Energy Alliance 

Dr. Bernard Goldstein, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Graduate School of Public Health, 

University of Pittsburgh 
3 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

HEARING CHARTER 

Fractured Science - Examining EPA's Approach to Ground Water 

Research: The Pavillion Analysis 

PURPOSE 

Wednesday, February 1,2012 

10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. 

2318 Rayburn House Office Building 

On Wednesday, February 1, at 10:00 a.m. the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of 

the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Committee will hold a hearing to 

review the EPA's approach to ground water research in Pavillion, Wyoming. 

WITNESSES 

• Mr. Jim Martin, Region 8 Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency 

• Mr. Tom Doll, State Oil & Gas Supervisor, Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation 

Commission 

• Ms. Kathleen Sgamma, Vice President, Government & Public Affairs, Western 

Energy Alliance 

• Dr. Bernard Goldstein, Professor and Dean Emeritus, Graduate School of Public 

Health, University of Pittsburgh 

BACKGROUND 

On December 8, 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a draft report 

summarizing the Agency's findings of its groundwater investigation in Pavillion, Wyoming. 

EPA initiated this inquiry in September 2008 in response to complaints made by some private 

well-owners in the area regarding taste and odor problems in their well water. Utilizing its 

authority under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act, commonly known as Superfund, the purpose of EPA's investigation was to determine 

"the presence, not extent, of groundwater contamination in the area".' 

I EPA Draft Research Report, Investigation ()fGround Water Contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming, 

Office of Research and Development, December 2011. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfundlwy/pavillionlEPA_ReportOnPavillion_Dec-8-2011.pdf (p. xi). 
4 

Pavillion, Wyoming 

The town of Pavillion is a small agricultural community established in the early 1900s in 

Fremont County, Wyoming (Figure I). As of201O, the town had a reported population of 

231 residents. The town of Pavillion and the surrounding areas have a history of poor 

drinking water quality, which includes issues of objectionable taste and odor. In a report 

issued by the Wyoming Water Development Commission2

, it is noted that, for the period 

immediately following World War II, "most wells produced marginal quality water at best."} 

Additionally, the report characterizes the pursuit of a domestic well with quality water during 

this time period as "always an uncertain venture". The problem of variable water quality is 

due to the complexity of the geology of the Wind River Formation. 

It was determined, through this and other studies, that the water quality 

of this aquifer varies widely over very short distances between wells. 

Likewise, water quality varies widely among wells that are of the 

same depth. In summary, there is no identifiable trend in groundwater 

quality that shows an area or a drilling depth that offers assurance of 

installing a well with good quality water. 4 

To address this problem, the town installed a central water system in the I 940s, which tended 

to produce higher quality drinking water than the surrounding wells, a trend the Commission 

concludes is largely the same today. 5 

Pavillion has a history of oil and gas exploration and production dating back to the 1960s. 

The Pavillion natural gas field-{)ne of several fields within the Wind River Basin-is the 

focus of the study, as the private drinking water wells of interest in the investigation overlie 

this formation. According to the EPA report, there are 169 vertical production wells in the 

Pavillion field. 

Investigation 

The stated objective of the investigation was to determine if there was a contamination of 

groundwater above the Pavillion gas field. The specific area of investigation as defined by 

the EPA study is "a sparsely populated rural area in west-central Wyoming directly east of 

the town of Pavillion.,,6 According to the Wyoming Water Development Commission report, 

the areas north and east of the town historically have been characterized by uncertainty with 

regard to whether or not one might be able to produce good water quality from a domestic 

welL 

Although EPA has no jurisdiction to regulate the water quality of privately-owned wells, the 

Agency initiated an investigation under its authority over Superfund due to citizen complaints 

2 Pavillion Area Water Supply Level J Study, for the Wyoming Water Development Commission, October 

2011. 

3 ibid. p I-I 

4 ibid. p. 1-3 

5 ibid. 

6 EPA Draft Research Report, p. 1 

2 
5 

regarding the taste and odor of their water. This collaborative effort between EPA Region 8 

and the Office of Research and Development (ORD) included sampling of private residential 

wells, stock wells used for agriculture, municipal wells, a local creek, produced water, soil, 

and existing shallow monitoring wells already installed. The deepest stock water well is 

approximately 800 ft below the surface; however, a majority of the residential wells used for 

drinking water are drilled to 500 ft or shallower.7 

In addition, there are 3 shallow pits within the investigation area. These pits are considered 

legacy sites due to their development and use well before State regulations governing the 

disposal of wastewater from natural gas and oil production were updated. Although these 

pits are no longer in use and are undergoing voluntary remediation, they are considered a 

potential pathway for shallow water contamination as they are part of the same groundwater 

formation used by most domestic wells. Consistent with this, EPA's report notes that 

Agency sampling of the shallow monitoring wells near the pits detected high concentrations 

of "benzene, xylenes, gasoline range organics, diesel range organics, and total purgeable 

hydrocarbons."s EPA is a member of a stakeholder group working to determine the distance 

and depth of the shallow groundwater and the contamination caused by these pits. 

Based on its preliminary assessment of the study area, EPA decided that the detection of 

methane and other organic chemicals in domestic wells from its two sampling events in 

March 2009 and January 2010 warranted drilling two additional monitoring wells in June of 

2010. EPA drilled these monitoring wells to a depth of785 ft and 980 ft below the surface.9 

(For perspective, the majority of drinking water wells in the area are at a depth of 500 feet or 

less, and the shallowest natural gas well developed using hydraulic fracturing is 1220 feet.) 

EPA sampled the monitoring wells in September 2010 and April 2011. 

Draft Report 

The report, entitled "Draft Research Report: investigation of Ground Water Contamination 

near Pavillion, ~voming", was released on December 8, 2011 and published in the Federal 

Register on December 14,2011. Notice was given for a 45 day public comment period, until 

January 27,2012. EPA subsequently extended this comment period until March 12,2012. 

The draft report postulates numerous "lines of reasoning" associated with various chemical 

compounds detected through the course of the study, and presents as its key conclusion "that 

ground water in the aquifer contains compounds likely associated with gas production 

practices, including hydraulic fracturing".lo Additional detail regarding EPA methods and 

findings is summarized in the report's extended abstract (Appendix I), as well as in a recent 

7 Taucher and Bartos, et al. Available Groundwater Detemlination, Technical Memorandum. WWDC 

WinglBighorn River Basin Plan Update - Groundwater Study. Prepared for the Wyoming Water 

Development Commission 2010-2011. Chapter 8. Accessed at 

http://waterplan.state.wy.us/p lanlbighorni20 I O!tinalrcpti gw toc.html 

8 EPA Draft Report. p. 33. 

9 Figure 2 shows a bar graph representing the depths of different types of wells in the investigation area. 

Note the pink line between the two monitoring wells indicating there had been a gas release during the 

drilling of a drinking water well deeper than the permit allowed, suggesting another potential pathway for 

contamination of the groundwater. 

10 EPA 2011 News Releases, EPA Releases Draft Findings of Pavillion, Wyoming Ground Water 

Investigation for Public Comment and Independent Scientific Review, 12/08/2011. 

3 
6 

Congressional Research Service report. I I Additional background regarding hydraulic 

fracturing and the EPA's broader comprehensive study of the relationship between hydraulic 

fracturing and drinking water can be found in the charter of the Committee's May 2011 

hearing on "Review of Hydraulic Fracturing Technology and Practices".12 

In light of immediate and ongoing criticism of the scientific methods used in the study, 

concerns have been raised with regard to sampling size and integrity, quality assurance and 

quality control, the construction and drilling of monitoring wells, and the Agency's refusal to 

publicly release all its data, leaving many unanswered questions. 

Issues for Consideration 

Data Availability/Transparency 

Prior to release of the report, EPA met with representatives of the State of Wyoming and 

Encana Oil and Gas to discuss its findings. At that time, many items of concern were raised, 

most of which were outlined in four pages of questions presented at a November 22, 2011 

meeting of the Pavillion Technical Working Group, a group consisting of state regulators, 

industry experts and EPA personnel. 13 

• In a letter dated December 20,2011 14, Governor Matt Mead wrote to Administrator 

Lisa Jackson requesting EPA release all the data and records it collected as part of its 

investigation and to conduct additional testing and analysis. 

• On December 21, 2011 15, Encana Oil & Gas (which purchased the Pavillion natural 

gas field in 2004 and operates production wells located in the study area) sent a 

similar letter to Jim Martin, EPA Region 8 Administrator, requesting information 

including records related to analytical methods used to conduct sample testing, 

methods and materials used in drilling the EPA deep wells, and the raw data results 

of water samples analyzed by EPA labs and contractor labs. 

• Encana Oil & Gas sent a second letterl6 on January 6, 2012 to Assistant 

Administrator Paul Anastas, reiterating its request for infolmation. 

• Governor Mead sent a second letterl7 to Administrator Jackson on January 16,2012 

stating he had not received a response on his request for additional infonnation, more 

testing, and an extension of the comment period. 

On January 19, Administrator Lisa Jackson respondedl8 to Governor Mead assuring the 

Pavillion study was undertaken using the highest level of scientific integrity. Despite this 

II The EPA Draft Report of Groundwater Contamination Near Pavillion, Wyoming: Main Findings and 

Stakeholder Responses 

12 http://science.house.gov/hearing/full-committee-hearing-hydraulic-fracturing-technology-O 

13 Fugleberg, Jeremy. "Wyoming Officials: No EPA Answer to Our Pavillion Data Questions." Casper Star 

Tribune [Casper, Wyoming]. 9 December 2011. Online. 

14 Mead, Matt. Letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. 20 December 2011. 

15 Schopp, John. Letter to EPA Region 8 Administrator James B. Martin. 21 December 2011. 

16 Schopp, John. Letter to Assistant Administrator Paul Anastas. 6 January 2012. 

17 Mead, Matt. Letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. 16 January 2012. 

I' Jackson, Lisa P. Letter to Wyoming Governor Matt Mead. 19 January 2012. 

4 
7 

assertion, EPA has not yet released key infonnation requested by the State and Encana, 

raising questions as to why such infonnation is being withheld. 

Monitoring Wells and Sampling Plan 

EPA has a number of guidelines I 9 outlining planning requirements for developing a 

monitoring and sampling plan for Superfund investigation and sites. These guidelines 

provide steps EPA should take to ensure a scientifically robust study plan. The infonnation 

available on EPA's website20 dedicated to this study indicates that guidelines related to 

developing monitoring and sampling plans were not followed. Additionally, a number of 

Federal and State agencies have been involved in testing and analyzing groundwater quality 

and availability in the Wind River Fonnation dating back to the 1950s. In 2005, the United 

States Geological Survey (USGS) issued a report that specifically lays out a sampling plan 

for groundwater quality in the Wind River Indian Reservation, Wyoming. 21 EPA has stated 

that it did not consult with USGS during the development and execution of this study. 

Stakeholders have pressed EPA for an explanation regarding the factors that led to selection 

and location of sampled wells for the initial phases of the study, noting that EPA did not fully 

eliminate the legacy pits as a source of contamination, and ignored the potential for septic 

tanks in the area to be a potential pathway of contamination. Concerns have also been raised 

that the number of sampling events (EPA conducted two sample events on the deep 

monitoring wells) is insufficient to make statistical inferences and conclusions. 

Questions have been raised about EPA's choice for the location of the deep monitoring wells. 

The utility of installing monitoring wells at a Superfund site is to detennine the background 

water quality and how the area under investigation may have changed it. Typically, this 

results in a monitoring well upgradient of the suspected contamination, and several wells 

downgradient of the suspected contamination. The Draft report does not explain why the 

monitoring wells were drilled where they were. Additionally, the report does not identify 

which well is intended to be the background quality monitor, nor does it identify in which 

direction the groundwater flows. 

Despite repeated requests from stakeholders, EPA continues to withhold detailed records 

regarding the drilling, installation and monitoring of the two wells. These wells were drilled 

and installed without the State of Wyoming's knowledge or assistance. Without these 

records, it is difficult to eliminate the possibility that EPA's actions in drilling and installing 

the monitoring wells may have contributed to the contamination detected in the samples. 

Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

One of the basic ways to test for quality and accuracy of samples taken in the field is the 

testing of blank samples. These samples are typically distilled water and included among the 

19 EPA Guidance for Monitoring at Hazardous Waste Site: Framework for Monitoring Plan Development 

and Implementation OSWER Directive No. 9355.4-28; EPA Guidance on Choosing a Sampling Design for 

Environmental Data Collection for Use in Developing a Quality Assurance Project Plan EPA QAlG-5S; 

EPA Guidance on Data Quality Indicators EPA QAlG-5i 

20 httQ:llwww.eQa.gov/rcgion8!suQerfundlwylpnvillioni 

21 USGS 2005. "Monitoring-Well Network and Sampling Design for Groundwater Quality, Wind River 

Indian Reservation, Wyoming." Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5027. 

5 
8 

vials of real samples collected in the field for labs to test. Detecting chemical compounds in 

a blank sample is not unusual, but it does point to a greater potential for cross-contamination 

of samples at the lab or in the field when the samples are actually bottled. The samples EPA 

tested were analyzed for contaminants in parts per billion. The level of sensitivity of the 

equipment needed to accurately detect these low concentrations means an even greater 

attention to detail is required. It could be as simple as a lab technician not changing their 

gloves when analyzing successive samples that leads to contamination. A significant number 

of EPA's blanks were contaminated with the very same compounds it found in the samples 

from the monitoring wells (albeit at significantly lower concentrations). This raises a number 

of questions regarding the quality control of the sampling methods used. 

6 
9 

Figure 1. Location of physiographic features in and near the Wind River Indian 

Reservation.22 

:ll: l;:' 

." 

~ 

I 

s: 

$ 

.§ 

.i 

:s 

~ ~ 

;I 

.;; 

"" j;) 

." 

" ~ 

~ .s 

J§ 

: 

s 

~ 

-a 

;: 

8' 

~ 

~ 

13 

~ 

] 

..: 

" l!I 

~ 

22 United States Geological Survey. "Monitoring-Well Network and Sampling Design for Ground-Water 

Quality, Wind River Indian Reservation, Wyoming". Scientific Investigations Report 2005-5027. 2005 

7 
10 

Figure 2. Cross-section of well depths near site. Orange lines are EPA monitoring wells 

drilled. Light blue lines arc drinking water wells. Red lines indicate hydraulic fracture in 

production wells.23 

EPA Draft Report. p. J I. 

8 
11 

Appendix I. Extended Abstract from Draft Research Report: Investigation of Ground 

Water Contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming. 

In response to complaints by domestic well owners regarding objectionable taste and 

odor problems in well water, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency initiated a 

ground water investigation near the town of Pavillion, Wyoming under authority of the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. The Wind 

River Formation is the principal source of domestic, municipal, and stock (ranch, 

agricultural) water in the area of Pavillion and meets the Agency's definition of an 

Underground Source of Drinking Water. Domestic wells in the area of investigation 

overlie the Pavillion gas field which consists of 169 production wells which extract gas 

from the lower Wind River Formation and underlying Fort Union Formation. Hydraulic 

fracturing in gas production wells occurred as shallow as 372 meters below ground 

surface with associated surface casing as shallow as 110 meters below ground surface. 

Domestic and stock wells in the area are screened as deep as 244 meters below ground 

surface. With the exception of two production wells, surface casing of gas production 

wells do not extend below the maximum depth of domestic wells in the area of 

investigation. At least 33 surface pits previously used for the storage/disposal of drilling 

wastes and produced and flowback waters are present in the area. The objective of the 

Agency's investigation was to determine the presence, not extent, of ground water 

contamination in the formation and if possible to differentiate shallow source terms (pits, 

septic systems, agricultural and domestic practices) from deeper source terms (gas 

production wells). 

The Agency conducted four sampling events (Phase I - IV) beginning in March 2009 and 

ending in April, 2011. Ground water samples were collected from domestic wells and 

two municipal wells in the town of Pavillion in Phase 1. Detection of methane and 

dissolved hydrocarbons in several domestic wells prompted collection ofa second round 

of samples in January, 2010 (Phase II). During this phase, EPA collected additional 

ground water samples from domestic and stock wells and ground water samples from 3 

shallow monitoring wells and soil samples near the perimeter of three known pit 

locations. Detection of elevated levels of methane and diesel range organics (ORO) in 

deep' domestic wells prompted the Agency to install 2 deep monitoring wells screened at 

233 - 239 meters (MWOI) and 293 - 299 meters (MW02) below ground surface, 

respectively, in June 201 0 to better evaluate to deeper sources of contamination. The 

expense of drilling deep wells while utilizing blowout prevention was the primary 

limiting factor in the number of monitoring wells installed. In September 2010 

(Phase III), EPA collected gas samples from well casing from MWOI and MW02. In 

October 201 0, EPA collected ground water samples from MWO 1 and MW02 in addition 

to a number of domestic wells. In April 2011 (Phase IV), EPA resampled the 2 deep 

monitoring wells to compare previous findings and to expand the analyte list to include 

glycols, alcohols, and low molecular weight acids. 

Detection of high concentrations of benzene, xylenes, gasoline range organics, diesel 

range organics, and total purgeable hydrocarbons in ground water samples from shallow 

monitoring wells near pits indicates that pits are a source of shallow ground water 

9 
12 

contamination in the area of investigation. When considered separately, pits represent 

potential source tenns for localized ground water plumes of unknown extent. When 

considered as whole they represent potential broader contamination of shallow ground 

water. A number of stock and domestic wells in the area of investigation are fairly 

shallow (e.g., < 30 meters below ground surface) representing potential receptor 

pathways. 

Detennination of the sources of inorganic and organic geochemical anomalies in deeper 

ground water was considerably more complex than detennination of sources in shallow 

media necessitating the use of multiple lines of reasoning approach common to complex 

scientific investigations. pH values in MWOl and MWOl are highly alkaline (11.2-12.0) 

with up to 94% of the total alkalinity contributed by hydroxide suggesting addition of a 

strong base as the causative factor. Reaction path modeling indicates that sodium-sulfate 

composition of ground water typical of deeper portions of the Wind River Fonnation 

provides little resistance to elevation of pH with small addition of potassium hydroxide. 

Potassium hydroxide was used in a crosslinker and in a solvent at this site. 

The inorganic geochemistry of !,'found water from the deep monitoring wells is 

distinctive from that in the domestic wells and expected composition in the Wind River 

fonnation. Potassium concentration in MW02 (43.6 milligrams per liter) and MWOl 

(54.9 milligrams per liter) is between 14.5 and 18.3 times values in domestic wells and 

expected values in the fonnation. Chloride concentration in monitoring well MW02 (466 

milligrams per liter) is 18 times the mean chloride concentration (25.6 milligrams per 

liter) observed in ground water from domestic wells and expected in the fonnation. 

Chloride enrichment in this well is significant because regional anion trends show 

decreasing chloride concentration with depth. In addition, the monitoring wells show low 

calcium, sodium, and sulfate concentrations compared to the general trend observed in 

domestic well waters. The fonnulation of fracture fluid provided for carbon dioxide 

foam hydraulic fracturing jobs typically consisted of 6% potassium chloride. Potassium 

metaborate was used in crosslinkers. Potassium hydroxide was used in a crosslinker and 

in a solvent. Ammonium chloride was used in cross linker. 

A number of synthetic organic compounds were detected in MWOI and MW02. 

Isopropanol was detected in MWOl and MW02 at 212 and 581 micrograms per liter, 

respectively. Diethylene glycol was detected in MWOl and MW02 at 226 and 1570 

micrograms per liter, respectively. Triethylene glycol was detected in MWOl and MW02 

at 46 and 310 micrograms per liter, respectively. Another synthetic compound, tert-butyl 

alcohol, was detected in MW02 at a concentration of 4470 micrograms per liter. 

Isopropanol was used in a biocide, in a surfactant, in breakers, and in foaming agents. 

Diethylene glycol was used in a foaming agent and in a solvent. Triethylene glycol was 

used in a solvent. Tert-butyl alcohol is a known breakdown product of methyl tert-butyl 

ether (a fuel additive) and tert-butyl hydro peroxide (a gel breaker used in hydraulic 

fracturing). Material Safety Data Sheets do riot indicate that fuel or tert-butyl 

hydroperoxide were used in the Pavillion gas field. However, Material Safety Data Sheets 

do not contain proprietary infonnation and the chemical ingredients of many additives. 

10 
13 

The source oftert-butyl alcohol remains unresolved. However, tert-butyl alcohol is not 

expected to occur naturally in ground water. 

Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BT~X) were detected in MW02 at 

concentrations of246, 617, 67, and 750 micrograms per liter, respectively. 

Trimethylbenzenes were detected in MW02 at 105 micrograms per liter. Gasoline range 

organics were detected in MWOl and MW02 at 592 and 3710 micrograms per liter. 

Diesel range organics were detected in MWOl and MW02 at 924 and 4050 micrograms 

per liter, respectively. Aromatic solvent (typically BTEX mixture) was used in a breaker. 

Diesel oil (mixture of saturated and aromatic hydrocarbons including naphthalenes and 

alkylbenzenes) was used in a guar polymer slurry/liquid gel concentrate and in a solvent. 

Petroleum raffinates (mixture of paraffinic, cycloparaffinic, olefinic, and aromatic 

hydrocarbons) were used in a breaker. Heavy aromatic petroleum naphtha (mixture of 

paraffinic, cycloparaffinic and aromatic hydrocarbons) was used in surfactants and in a 

solvent. Toluene and xylene were used in flow enhancers and a breaker. 

Detections of organic chemicals were more numerous and exhibited higher 

concentrations in the deeper of the two monitoring wells. Natural breakdown products of 

organic contaminants like BTEX and glycols include acetate and benzoic acid. These 

breakdown products are more enriched in the shallower of the two monitoring wells, 

suggesting upward/lateral migration with natural degradation and accumulation of 

daughter products. Hydraulic gradients are currently undefined in the area of 

investigation. However, there are flowing conditions in a number of deep stock wells 

suggesting that upward gradients exist in the area of investigation. 

Alternative explanations were carefully considered to explain individual sets of data. 

However, when considered together with other lines of evidence, the data indicates likely 

impact to ground water that can be explained by hydraulic fracturing. A review of well 

completion reports and cement bond/variable density logs in the area around MWOl and 

MW02 indicates instances of sporadic bonding outside production casing directly above 

intervals of hydraulic fracturing. Also, there is little lateral and vertical continuity of 

hydraulically fractured tight sandstones and no lithologic barrier (laterally continuous 

shale units) to stop upward vertical migration of aqueous constituents of hydraulic 

fracturing in the event of excursion from fractures. In the event of excursion from 

sandstone units, vertical mib'fation of fluids could also occur via nearby well bores. For 

instance, at one production well, the cement bond/variable density log indicates no 

cement until 671 m below ground surface. Hydraulic fracturing occurred above this depth 

at nearby production wells. 

A similar lines of reasoning approach was utilized to evaluate the presence of gas in 

monitoring and domestic wells. A comparison of gas composition and stable carbon 

isotope values indicate that gas in production and monitoring wells is of similar 

thermogenic origin and has undergone little or no degradation. A similar evaluation in 

domestic wells suggests the presence of gas of thermogenic origin undergoing 

biodegradation. This observation is consistent with a pattern of dispersion and 

degradation with upward migration observed for organic compounds. 

11 
14 

Elevated levels of dissolved methane in domestic wells generally increase in those wells 

in proximity to gas production wells. Near surface concentrations of methane appear 

highest in the area encompassing MWOl. Ground water is saturated with methane at 

MWOI which is screened at a depth (239 meters below ground surface) typical of deeper 

domestic wells in the area. A blowout occurred during drilling of a domestic well at a 

depth of only 159 meters below ground surface close to MWO I. A mud-gas log 

conducted in 1980 (prior to intensive gas production well installation) located only 300 m 

from the location of the blowout does not indicate a gas show (distinctive peaks on a gas 

chromatograph) within 300 meters of the surface. Again, with the exception of two 

production wells, surface casing of gas production wells do not extend below the 

maximum depth of domestic wells in the area of investigation. A number of production 

wells in the vicinity ofMWOl have sporadic bonding or no cement over large vertical 

instances. Again, alternate explanations of data have been considered. Although some 

natural migration of gas would be expected above a gas field such as Pavillion, data 

suggest that enhanced migration of gas has occurred within ground water at depths used 

for domestic water supply and to domestic wells. Further investigation would be needed 

to determine the extent of gas migration 

and the fate and transport processes influencing migration to domestic wells. 

12 
15 

Chairman HARRIS. The hearing is called. 

I am going to read, before we start the hearing, I just want to 

remind all the Members of the audience what the Committee rules 

are, and as a functioning body, a legislative body, we of course have 

rules. That is the way society works. You have to live by the rules 

and agree to the rules, and the Ranking Member had indicated before the hearing was gaveled in that we should discuss it, but I will 

bring the Ranking Member’s attention to the rule, rule number 9, 

the following shall apply to coverage of Committee meetings or 

hearings by audio or visual means, subsection J is very clear: personnel providing coverage by the television or radio media shall be 

currently accredited to the radio and television correspondents galleries and that personnel providing coverage by still photography 

shall be currently accredited to the press photographers galleries. 

Obviously, someone who records this hearing is to be 

credentialed. I will remind the Members of the audience and the 

Ranking Member that on the House Floor, you can’t even bring a 

cell phone into the gallery. We allow cell phones but we do draw 

the line at what recording devices, when you use a recording device, that you have to be credentialed. 

I would also note that this hearing is being webcast at 

science.house.gov in its entirety, every word, every phrase, no editing, and it will be available in its entirety on the same site following the hearing. Therefore, every piece of information from this 

hearing is fully available to every member of the public. That is 

why we have rules that control who is recording because every bit 

of information is available to the public, just so we clear the air on 

that. 

With that, I would like to begin my opening statement. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I move—in addition to the fellow 

who was just escorted out, who I understand was not credentialed, 

although he is, I understand, filming an HBO documentary, an 

ABC crew showed up earlier and they were turned away on the 

stated reason that they had not requested the film in advance. I 

think all those rules are to control access where there is limited access. It is very clear that we have space in this room for either of 

them to testify—to film this hearing. 

If you claim that that rule does not provide—does not allow them 

to film or more accurately allows you the discretion, the majority 

the power to turn them away, I move that the rules be suspended 

to the end, that the HBO—the fellow who wanted to film for HBO 

be allowed to film this hearing and that ABC News be allowed to 

film this hearing, and all God’s children be allowed to film this 

hearing until the room is too full to conduct our business. 

Chairman HARRIS. Does the Ranking Member intend to persist 

with that motion? 

Mr. MILLER. I do. 

Chairman HARRIS. Well, then, we are calling a recess because we 

don’t have a quorum on the Committee. 

[Recess.] 

Chairman HARRIS. All opposed? In the opinion of the Chair, the 

ayes have it. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote. 
16 

Chairman HARRIS. A recorded vote is ordered. The clerk will call 

the roll. 

The CLERK. Chairman Harris? 

Chairman HARRIS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Chairman Harris votes aye. 

Mr. Rohrabacher? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas? 

Mr. LUCAS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes aye. 

Mrs. Biggert? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Akin? 

Mr. AKIN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Akin votes aye. 

Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye. 

Mr. Broun? 

Dr. BROUN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun votes aye. 

Mr. Fleischmann? 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Fleischmann votes aye. 

Mr. Hall? 

Chairman HALL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes aye. 

Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes no. 

Ms. Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes no. 

Mr. Lujan? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko votes no. 

Ms. Lofgren? 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren votes no. 

Mr. McNerney? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. McNerney votes no. 

Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes no. 

Chairman HARRIS. Have all Members voted? Anyone wish to 

change their vote? 

Will the clerk report the vote? 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, seven Members vote aye and six 

Members vote no. 
17 

Chairman HARRIS. The motion to table having been passed, the 

motion is laid on the table. I will—— 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee be in recess for a period of not less than one week to allow the gentleman 

from HBO to apply for press credentials and to allow ABC News 

and any other credentialed press organization to provide the overnight notice that they intend to film this hearing. 

Dr. BROUN. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman HARRIS. The gentleman from Georgia. 

Dr. BROUN. I move to table the motion. 

Chairman HARRIS. There is a motion to table the motion. All in 

favor, say aye. All opposed? In the opinion of the chair, the ayes 

have it. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote. 

Chairman HARRIS. A recorded vote is requested. The clerk will 

call the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Harris? 

Chairman HARRIS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Harris votes aye. 

Mr. Rohrabacher? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Bartlett? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas? 

Mr. LUCAS. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Lucas votes aye. 

Mrs. Biggert? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Akin? 

Mr. AKIN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Akin votes aye. 

Mr. Neugebauer? 

Mr. NEUGEBAUER. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Neugebauer votes aye. 

Mr. Broun? 

Dr. BROUN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Broun votes aye. 

Mr. Fleischmann? 

Mr. FLEISCHMANN. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Fleischmann votes aye. 

Mr. Hall? 

Chairman HALL. Aye. 

The CLERK. Mr. Hall votes aye. 

Mr. Miller? 

Mr. MILLER. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Miller votes no. 

Ms. Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Woolsey votes no. 

Mr. Lujan? 

[No response.] 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko? 

Mr. TONKO. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. Tonko votes no. 
18 

Ms. Lofgren? 

Ms. LOFGREN. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Lofgren votes no. 

Mr. McNerney? 

Mr. MCNERNEY. No. 

The CLERK. Mr. McNerney votes no. 

Ms. Johnson? 

Ms. JOHNSON. No. 

The CLERK. Ms. Johnson votes no. 

Chairman HARRIS. Any Members wish to change their vote? If 

no, the clerk will report the roll. 

The CLERK. Mr. Chairman, seven Members vote aye and six 

Members vote no. 

Chairman HARRIS. The majority voting to table the motion, the 

motion is tabled. 

Thank you very much, and sorry for the delay, but as the chairman of the full Committee has said, you know, if the minority 

wants a vote on something, they will get a vote on it each and 

every time. 

I want to welcome everyone to this morning’s hearing to examine 

EPA’s approach to groundwater research near Pavillion, Wyoming. 

The increased production and use of clean natural gas is the 

source of one of the few bright spots in our current economic climate. In 2010, the shale gas industry supported 600,000 jobs, and 

a Federal Reserve economist estimates that lower natural gas 

prices enabled by increased production saved American consumers 

more than $16 billion in home energy costs last year, and of course, 

the price of natural gas has come down since last year. So it would 

be more than $16 billion in home energy costs saved each year 

from natural gas. 

Wyoming is a perfect case study. Tens of thousands of people are 

employed in oil and gas production, and royalties and taxes on that 

production delivered almost $2 billion going to state and local taxpayer coffers, more than $3,400 for every citizen in the state. 

However, in a remarkable display of arrogance and disregard for 

the plain facts, the President last week proclaimed his support for 

expanded shale gas production, while at the same time allowing 

every part of his Administration, from the EPA to the Department 

of the Interior to the CDC, to attack these practices through scientific innuendo and regulatory strait-jacketing. 

In the past year, the Subcommittee has held numerous hearings 

on EPA’s use and abuse of science. Time and again we have demonstrated that this agency is substituting outcome-driven science 

for rigorous objective science. EPA’s investigation of groundwater 

contamination in Pavillion appears to be yet another example of 

politics trumping policy and advocacy trumping science. 

The scientific method is a process characterized by the development of a hypothesis, creation of a rigorous experiment to test it, 

documentation of observations and objective analysis of results. Scientists in fact frequently believe that sharing the data is an important part of the scientific process. As far as I can see, EPA never 

managed to get even farther than the first step of most normal scientific investigation. 
19 

EPA will no doubt emphasize today that this is a draft report 

that will soon undergo peer review. This fails to acknowledge, however, the impact this report has already had. The day after the 

draft report was released, the Governor of Delaware announced 

that it was the validation for his decision to vote against development of natural gas in the Delaware River Basin. This illustrates 

the power of EPA’s press release science to drive public opinion and 

even critical decisions by policymakers. 

The key question before us today is, was the investigation conducted in a scientifically robust manner that justifies all this potential economic upheaval? 

I look forward to hearing from witnesses, but I am concerned 

about indications that EPA’s approach in Wyoming has been poorly 

conducted, unnecessarily alarming, and fits within a pattern of an 

outcome-driven, regulate-for-any-excuse philosophy at the agency. 

Transparency is central to getting to the bottom of these scientific questions. Regardless that the President boasts that he 

leads the ‘‘most transparent Administration in history’’ and despite 

receiving multiple requests from state, media, and interested stakeholders, interestingly enough, it was not until late last night, the 

eve of this hearing, that EPA finally disclosed data essential to 

meaningfully evaluate their findings. Now, note that the original 

deadline for comment passed two weeks ago. Well, I am not sure 

how the EPA thought that people were going to make decisions on 

the adequacy of this study without the information that now the 

EPA I guess feels essential to make those kind of determinations. 

Now, while I am pleased that EPA posted 622 documents to its 

website last night, and I would offer that maybe they should follow 

the same rules the House has that you need 3 days of putting 

something out before you should actually consider it, clearly, that 

is not enough time for this Committee to take that into consideration in the hearing today. It is unfortunate that this transparency 

appears to only have been compelled by the calling of a Congressional oversight hearing, but then again, maybe that is the purpose 

of the 112th Congress. 

Compounding this problem is the complete failure to collaborate 

with experts and institutions with knowledge in the unique 

hydrogeology of this region. For example, the State of Wyoming, despite possessing decades of experience in groundwater assessments, 

was not consulted with about the most important aspects of this investigation, and we will hear from one of our witnesses today about 

that. The agency did not even consult with the U.S. Geological Survey before releasing the report, a sister government agency that 

has extensive understanding of aquifer complexity and geological 

characteristics in the region. Also concerning is EPA’s apparent 

failures to follow its own laboratory protocols, Superfund site requirements, peer review handbook, information quality guidelines, 

as well as USGS recommendations for drilling and sampling monitoring wells. 

Hypocritically, these are behaviors and practices that the agency 

would not accept from any state or private sector entity conducting 

a comprehensive groundwater investigation. 

Finally, I’m afraid EPA’s actions in Pavillion demonstrate a disturbing loss of perspective. The principal concern of this investiga-
20 

tion should always have been the health and welfare of the people 

living near Pavillion, Wyoming. Unfortunately, in its single-minded 

pursuit of the hydraulic fracturing smoking gun, EPA appears to 

have lost focus on identifying the real causes of, and real solutions 

to, drinking water quality problems locally in Pavillion, Wyoming. 

I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee and I look forward to a constructive discussion. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Harris follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ANDY HARRIS

I want to welcome everyone to this morning’s hearing to examine EPA’s approach 

to ground water research near Pavillion, Wyoming. 

The increased production and use of clean natural gas is the source of one of the 

few bright spots in our current economic climate. In 2010, the shale gas industry 

supported 600,000 jobs, and a Federal Reserve economist estimates that lower natural gas prices enabled by increased production saved American consumers more 

than $16 billion in home energy costs in 2010. Wyoming is a perfect case study— 

tens of thousands of people are employed in oil and gas production, and royalties 

and taxes on that production delivered almost $2 billion go to State and local taxpayer coffers—more than $3,400 for every citizen in the State. 

However, in a remarkable display of arrogance and disregard for the plain facts, 

the President last week proclaimed his support for expanded shale gas production, 

while at the same time allowing every part of his Administration—from the EPA 

to Interior to the CDC—to attack these practices through scientific innuendo and 

regulatory straight-jacketing. 

In the past year, this Subcommittee has held numerous hearings on EPA’s use 

and abuse of science. Time and again we have demonstrated that this Agency is 

substituting outcome-driven science for rigorous objective science. EPA’s investigation of groundwater contamination in Pavillion appears to be yet another example 

of politics trumping policy and advocacy trumping science. 

The scientific method is a process characterized by the development of a hypothesis, creation of a rigorous experiment to test it, documentation of observations and 

objective analysis of results. As far as I can see, EPA never managed to get farther 

than the first step. 

EPA will no doubt emphasize today that this is a draft report that will soon undergo peer review. This fails to acknowledge, however, the impact this report has 

already had. The day after the draft report was released, the Governor of Delaware 

announced that it was the validation for his decision to vote against development 

of natural gas in Delaware River Basin. This illustrates the power of EPA’s ‘‘press 

release science’’ to drive public opinion and even critical decisions by policymakers. 

The key question before us today is, was the investigation conducted in a scientifically robust manner that justifies all this upheaval? I look forward to hearing from 

witnesses, but am concerned about indications that EPA’s approach in Wyoming has 

been poorly conducted, unnecessarily alarming, and fits within a pattern of an outcome-driven, ‘‘regulate-for-any-excuse’’ philosophy at the Agency. 

Transparency is central to getting to the bottom of these scientific questions. Regardless that the President boasts that he leads the ‘‘most transparent Administration in history’’ and despite receiving multiple requests from state, media, and interested stakeholders, it was not until late last night, that EPA finally disclosed data 

essential to meaningfully evaluate their findings. While I am pleased that EPA posted 622 documents to its website last night, it is unfortunate that this transparency 

appears to only have been compelled by the calling of a Congressional oversight 

hearing. 

Compounding this problem is the complete failure to collaborate with experts and 

institutions with knowledge in the unique hydrogeology of this region. For example, 

the state of Wyoming, despite possessing decades of experience in ground water assessments, was not consulted with about the most important aspects of this investigation. The Agency did not even consult with the U.S. Geological Survey before 

releasing the report, a sister agency that has extensive understanding of aquifer 

complexity and geological characteristics 

Also concerning is EPA’s apparent failures to follow its own laboratory protocols, 

Superfund site requirements, peer review handbook, information quality guidelines, 

as well as USGS recommendations for drilling and sampling monitoring wells. Hypocritically, these are behaviors and practices that the Agency would not accept from 
21 

any state or private sector entity conducting a comprehensive ground water investigation. 

Finally, I’m afraid EPA’s actions in Pavillion demonstrate a disturbing loss of perspective. The principle concern of this investigation should be the health and welfare of the people living near Pavillion, WY. Unfortunately, in its single-minded pursuit of the hydraulic fracturing smoking gun, EPA appears to have lost focus on 

identifying the real causes of, and real solutions to, drinking water quality problems 

in Pavillion. 

I want to thank the witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee and I look 

forward to a constructive discussion. 

Chairman HARRIS. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Miller for five 

minutes of an opening statement. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Chairman Harris. 

The stated purpose of this hearing is to examine the methodology, the quality assurance, the peer review process and the like 

of an EPA study that links hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, and 

groundwater contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming. 

The principal criticism of the EPA is that the EPA’s procedures 

have lacked transparency. EPA conducted the study in response to 

requests by citizens in the area. After fracking operations began 

there, they began to suffer headaches, sore throat, nausea, sinus 

problems and other symptoms that are known to be associated with 

the contaminants found in Pavillion’s drinking water supply by the 

EPA study. EPA—it is a draft report that is the product of three 

years of research. The report is subject to a public comment period, 

followed by peer review. EPA has extended the public comment period for 45 days beyond—from 45 days to 90 days at the request 

of industry. Public comments are due by March 12, 2012. EPA is 

now soliciting also nominations for disinterested experts to serve as 

peer reviewers, real scientists, not members of the Science Committee, real scientists. Once selected, the peer review panel will 

have 30 days to complete their work. In other words, the Pavillion 

study is a work in progress and all the criticisms we will hear 

today are a part of the public comment and part of the peer review 

process. 

The Pavillion study does not call for any regulation of fracking. 

Their study is part of risk assessment, not risk management. Risk 

assessment informs risk management. Once we know the risks, 

EPA will then weigh of the economic benefits and the potential 

public health consequences of fracking to determine what safeguards, if any, are appropriate to develop needed natural gas resources while protecting the environment and public health. 

Although the industry and their political allies dismiss the concerns about fracking as uninformed hysteria, their refusal to provide basic information about the operations, their operations and 

their efforts to hinder independent scientific research like the 

Pavillion study cannot be reassuring to citizens living near fracking 

operations. The industry has refused to disclose the chemicals they 

inject into the earth, claiming that the information is proprietary, 

their ‘‘secret sauce.’’ But the draft Pavillion study is not the only 

study to find groundwater contamination, and at least one instance 

of surface water contamination, near fracking operations by chemicals not ordinarily found in nature and known to be part of the secret sauce. Some of the chemicals are known carcinogens. 

In short, the public concern about fracking seems very reasonable. The question is not whether we are pro-drilling or anti-drill-
22 

ing. The question is whether we will drill with our eyes open. The 

public wants to know if fracking is safe, and they are entitled to 

know. But the industry and their political allies just say, in effect, 

move along, there is nothing to see here. 

The integrity of scientific research at EPA is properly the subject 

of this Subcommittee’s interest, although none of the Republican 

witnesses today appear to satisfy the requirements of disinterested 

expertise to serve as peer reviewers. With no disinterested scientists as witnesses, a reasonable question is whether this hearing 

is really about the science, the integrity of the science, or if it is 

just a big wink and nod to the industry that the majority is on 

their side no matter what. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Miller follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER BRAD MILLER

Thank you Chairman Harris 

The stated purpose of this hearing is to examine the methodology, quality assurance, the peer review process and the like of an EPA study that links hydraulic fracturing, or ‘‘fracking,’’ and groundwater contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming. EPA 

conducted the study in response to requests by citizens in the area. The draft report 

is the product of three years of research. The report is subject to a public comment 

period, followed by a peer review. EPA has extended the public comment period 

from 45 days to 90 days at the request of industry. Public comments are due by 

March 12, 2012. EPA is also now soliciting nominations for disinterested experts to 

serve as peer reviewers. Once selected, the peer review panel will have thirty days 

to complete their work. 

In other words, the Pavillion study is a work in progress. 

The Pavillion study does not call for any regulation of fracking. The study is part 

of ‘‘risk assessment,’’ not ‘‘risk management.’’ Risk assessment informs risk management. Once we know the risks, EPA will then weigh of the economic benefits and 

the potential public health consequences of fracking to determine what safeguards, 

if any, are appropriate to develop needed natural gas resources while protecting the 

environment and public health. 

Although the industry and their political allies dismiss concerns about fracking 

as uninformed hysteria, their refusal to provide basic information about their operations and their efforts to hinder independent scientific research like the Pavillion 

study cannot be reassuring to citizens living near fracking operation. The industry 

has refused to disclose the chemicals they inject into the earth, claiming that the 

information is proprietary, their ‘‘secret sauce.’’ But the draft Pavillion study is not 

the only study to find ground water contamination, and at least one instance of surface water contamination, near fracking operations by chemicals not ordinarily 

found in nature and known to be part of the secret sauce. Some of the chemicals 

are known carcinogens. 

In short, the public concern about fracking seems very reasonable. 

The question is not whether we are ‘‘pro-drilling’’ or ‘‘anti-drilling.’’ The question 

is whether we will drill with our eyes open. The public wants to know if fracking 

is safe, and they’re entitled to know. But the industry and their political allies just 

say, in effect, ‘‘move along, there’s nothing to see here.’’ 

The integrity of scientific research at EPA is properly the subject of this Subcommittee’s interest, although none of the Republican witnesses today appear to satisfy the requirements of disinterested expertise to serve as peer reviewers. With no 

disinterested scientists as witnesses, a reasonable question is whether this hearing 

is really just a big wink and nod to the industry that the majority is on their side 

no matter what. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller. 

If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening 

statements, your statements will be added to the record at this 

point. 
23 

I would like to introduce our witness panel at this time, and 

again, I am going to apologize to the witnesses for the delay we 

had at the beginning of the hearing, but again, you know, one of 

our principles is, we make certain that, you know, minority or majority, if someone makes a motion, they are going to get a vote. 

Our first witness today is Mr. James B. Martin. Mr. Martin is 

the Regional Administrator for Region 8 at the Environmental Protection Agency. He has worked in the environmental field for nearly 30 years. Prior to his career in public service, Mr. Martin managed Western Resource Advocates, a nonprofit focused on energy, 

public lands and water issues. 

Our next witness will be Mr. Tom Doll. Mr. Doll is the State Oil 

and Gas Supervisor at the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation 

Commission. Prior to becoming supervisor, he had 38 years’ experience in petroleum engineering and management, primarily in Wyoming and the northern Rockies. He is Wyoming’s official representative to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission. 

Our third witness is Ms. Kathleen Sgamma. Ms. Sgamma is the 

Vice President of Government and Public Affairs at the Western 

Energy Alliance. She handles federal legislative, public lands, environmental and regulatory issues for companies involved in all aspects of exploration and production of oil and natural gas in the 

West. 

Our final witness is Dr. Bernard Goldstein. Dr. Goldstein is a 

Professor and Dean Emeritus at the Graduate School of Public 

Health at the University of Pittsburgh. He is a physician, board 

certified in internal medicine, hematology and toxicology. He also 

served as Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Research and 

Development from 1983 to 1985. 

I want to thank you all for appearing before the Subcommittee 

today, and again, thank you very much for your patience in waiting 

to testify. 

As our witnesses should know, spoken testimony is limited to 

five minutes each after which the Members of the Committee will 

have five minutes each to ask question. 

I now recognize our first witness, Mr. James Martin from the Environmental Protection Agency. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JIM MARTIN, REGION 8 ADMINISTRATOR, 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. MARTIN. Good morning, Chairman Harris Ranking Member 

Miller and other Members of the Committee. My name is Jim Martin, and I am the Regional Administrator for the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s Region 8. That is the region that encompasses 

the Dakotas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming and Colorado. I am here 

today to talk with you about the agency’s groundwater investigation at Pavillion, Wyoming. 

In the spring of 2008, EPA staff at our regional office were contacted by a group of people from the rural community of Pavillion 

in central Wyoming. They had noticed a change in their drinking 

water, in its odor, its taste and its color, and wanted to know not 

only what had happened but whether their water was safe to 

drink. 
24 

While the state had directed the operating company to test the 

water, the results were inconclusive and left the residents without 

those critical answers. After conferring with our state colleagues 

and with the Northern Arapahoe and Eastern Shoshone Tribes of 

the Wind River Indian Reservation, EPA agreed in 2008 to conduct 

additional sampling. 

To ensure as thorough an approach as possible, we developed a 

plan that included a broad list of compounds at the lowest levels 

of detection. We conducted our initial round of sampling in March 

2009. We looked at both domestic drinking water wells and at two 

of the wells that serve the town Pavillion just west of the Pavillion 

oil and gas field. We found that roughly a third of the domestic 

wells had detections of organic compounds including methane, total 

petroleum hydrocarbons and some other organics the lab was able 

to tentatively identify but not quantify. 

Our phase 2 sampling was again planned in collaboration with 

the tribes, the state and the operating company, in this case, 

Encana. Our goal was to better quantify the chemicals present in 

order to assess potential health risks and to identify potential 

sources. Again, we considered a wide range of potential sources in 

developing the sampling plan. The sampling plan—the sampling, 

rather, occurred in January of 2010 but in a more refined area 

based on the results from our phase 1 sampling. Again, we confirmed that organic chemicals of concern were present in 16 of the 

17 domestic well samples including methane and petroleum hydrocarbons. We also sampled shallow pit monitoring wells and found 

very high concentrations of several contaminants. 

We shared our data with the Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registry. Based both on those data and on a set of uncertainties, that agency recommended that residents use an alternative source of water for drinking and cooking and that they ventilate their bathrooms while running their showers. However, we 

concluded that without future data, further data, rather, we still 

could not identify potential sources of the contamination. 

Another round of consultation with stakeholders occurred and we 

then decided to construct two deep monitoring wells. Those wells 

were constructed in the summer of 2007—2010, rather—and we 

collected samples from both wells on two separate occasions. 

Throughout, we applied the most stringent quality assurance protocols used by the agency. Those results showed very high alkalinity 

at deeper levels of the aquifer, petroleum-related organic compounds including benzene at 50 times the maximum contamination 

level set by the Safe Drinking Water Act, and a number of synthetic organic compounds that do not occur naturally in groundwater. EPA’s technical team evaluated these data with great care 

and weighed a range of possible explanations that might fit the entire data set as well as the regional geology and the fuel production 

practices. Based upon multiple lines of reasoning, we have tentatively concluded that the drinking water aquifer contains compounds likely associated with gas production activities including 

hydraulic fracturing. 

We make clear in the draft report that our analysis is limited to 

the particular geologic conditions in the Pavillion gas field and 

should not be assumed to apply to fracturing in other geologic set-
25 

tings. It should be noted that fracturing in Pavillion is taking place 

in and below the drinking water aquifer and in close proximity to 

drinking water wells. 

As we were moving toward completion of the report, we asked 

three external scientists to review the sampling and analysis as a 

sort of final check-in. We also broadly shared the data and then 

conducted a series of meetings with the state, the tribes, BLM and 

BIA and the company to gather their concerns and assessments. In 

late 2011, we released the draft report. We provided notice of our 

intention to subject this report to a formal external peer review by 

scientists and engineers unaffiliated with EPA. Contemporaneously, we sought public comment on the draft report and have 

since extended the deadline for comment to March 12. 

To support this review, we have released an unprecedented 

amount of raw data, qualify assurance documentation and other 

supporting information. In addition, we are working with the state, 

the tribes and others to develop a plan for additional investigation 

at the site. 

In conclusion, I believe EPA acted carefully, thoughtfully and 

transparently in responding to the concerns raised by local residents in 2008. We have applied the highest standards of scientific 

rigor and have operated in the spirit of transparency and collaboration. There is more work to be done, and collaboration and transparency will continue to be the hallmarks of our investigation. 

With that, I yield the floor, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Martin follows:] 
26 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. JIM MARTIN, REGION 8 ADMINISTRATOR, 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
27 

production well installation activity intensifying in the late 1990s through 2006. The field currently consists 

of approximately 169 vertical production wells. Ninety-seven production wells are designated as "Tribal 

Pavillion" and are regulated by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The remaining wells are designated 

as "Pavillion Fee" and are regulated by Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 

In response to concerns raised by residents regarding objectionable taste and odor problems in well water, 

EPA initiated a ground water investigation near the town of Pavillion three years ago under the authority of 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), better known as 

Superfund. Our actions reflect our longstanding responsibility under federal laws to address threats to 

public health. Since the signing of CERCLA in 1980, EPA has conducted hundreds of site investigations to 

assess pctential risks to drinking water. Since that time, in conjunction with the State of Wyoming, the 

Eastem Shoshone and Northern Arapaho Tribes, the local community, and Encana, EPA has been working 

to assess ground water quality and identify potential sources of contamination. The overall goal of this 

investigation was and remains to provide information to help inform decisions to ensure the safety of the 

drinking water in the Pavillion area. 

Our investigation of drinking water at Pavilion has been supported by an extensive commitment of scientific 

resources. We conducted four phases of sampling between March of 2009 and April of 2011, including 

drinking water and livestock watering wells, public water supply wells, shallow monitoring wells and deep 

monitoring wells. Successive phases involved retesting of some wells sampled in earlier phases. The State 

of Wyoming and Tribes were consulted prior to implementation of every phase. 

At the request of citizens, EPA began its investigation by sampling domestic wells in the area to assess 

ground water conditions and evaluate potential threats to human health and the environment. Based on 

these results, EPA refined the area of potential concem and determined a second round of investigation 

was needed. During the second phase of the investigation, EPA collected nearly 50 samples from 

drinking water wells, shallow groundwater, and other locations, each of which were analyzed for over 300 

different constituents, including petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, industrial compounds, bacteria, 

inorganic metals, and general water quality parameters. This resulted in thousands of individual pieces of 

data, each of which has been carefully reviewed to ensure its validity. The results of this sampling 

determined that ground water in Pavillion contained a number of organic and inorganic constituents, 

including several organic hydrocarbons that were found widely in domestic wells, as well as in shallow 

2 
28 

monitoring wells. Detections in shallow monitoring wells located in the drinking water aquifer included high 

levels of petroleum compounds such as benzene, xylene, methylcyclohexane, naphthalene, and phenols. 

In the spring of 2010 when EPA was validating and evaluating the Phase 2 sampling results, EPA did not 

reach any conclusions about source(s) of constituents of concern in domestic wells, but determined that 

additional investigation was necessary to evaluate whether deeper sources might be contributing to the 

contamination observed in some deeper domestic wells. Detections of organics in domestic wells were 

generally within available health and safety thresholds. However, concern about naturally occurring 

inorganic substances, the absence of established health values for some organic compounds detected, and 

the presence of much higher levels of contamination in the aquifer in close proximity all contributed to the 

recommendation by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry that residents use alternate 

water and ventilate while showering. 

In the summer of 2010, EPA constructed two deep monitoring wells to sample water in the aquifer at and 

below the depths of drinking water wells. Phases three and four of the investigation involved taking 

samples from these monitoring wells, as well as from selected domestic and livestock wells. The results, 

discussed in the draft report issued on December 8, 2011, indicate that ground water in the aquifer contains 

compounds likely associated with gas production practices, including hydraulic fracturing as conducted in 

this area. Analysis of samples taken from the deep monitoring wells in the aquifer indicates detection of 

benzene, methane, and synthetic chemicals, like glycols and alcohols consistent with gas production and 

hydraulic fracturing fluids. 

EPA has worked diligently and methodically in pursuing our stated research objectives from start to finish. 

We have made every effort to work cooperatively and openly with the State of Wyoming, Tribes, and other 

parties. A rigorous, transparent and objective approach to our involvement at Pavillion has been employed 

from the outset. We have gone to great lengths to consult and share information with the State of Wyoming, 

the Tribes, Encana, and the public. To ensure a transparent and rigorous analysis, EPA released these 

findings for public comment and will submit them to an independent scientific review panel. We have 

extended the public comment period for an additional 45 days to allow the public and other interested 

parties sufficient time to review the extensive amount of study information being added to the public record. 

We have employed rigorous scientific methods. Upon the completion of sampling from the deep monitoring 

wells, EPA career scientists engaged in a careful evaluation of the data to both assure their quality and 

3 
29 

determine what conclusions could be drawn. These experts determined that the contaminants found in the 

deep monitoring wells were most likely the result of hydraulic fracturing in the Pavillion gas field and are not 

related to agriculture, septic systems or the installation of the monitoring wells themselves. Their findings 

were subjected to intensive review by career management and staff of our research organization. In 

addition, a technical review of the results was conducted by independent experts before the full draft report 

was made available to the public. 

Representatives from the State of Wyoming and Encana have criticized EPA's draft report, stating, for 

example, that we did not follow standard Agency sampling and analysis protocols, and that the quality of 

our data was compromised due to extended sample holding times. EPA did, in fact, follow accepted 

protocols. The investigation was subjected to the Agency's highest level QA procedures. Audits of data 

quality and technical systems in the laboratory and field were conducted by an independent contractor and 

EPA QA manager. Where sample holding times were exceeded, EPA protocols were followed and 

professional judgment was used to detenmine the appropriate use of the data. 

The evidence supporting the likely role of hydraulic fracturing activities in the observed contamination is 

presented in detail in the draft report, as is the reasoning process by which our experts evaluated that 

evidence. I draw your attention to the careful language with which our conclusions are couched. We make 

clear that the causal link to hydraulic fracturing has not been demonstrated conclusively, and that our 

analysis is limited to the particular geologic conditions in the Pavillion gas field and should not be assumed 

to apply to fracturing in other geologic settings. It should be noted that fracturing in Pavillion is taking place 

in and below the drinking water aquifer and in close proximity to drinking water wells - production 

conditions different from those in many other areas of the country. 

EPA delayed the release of the draft report by several weeks to assure that a full technical review of the 

data and supporting information could be conducted by the State, Tribes, Encana, federal agencies and 

other parties. EPA staff shared extensive data and met on several occasions to discuss the data with these 

stakeholders. In addition, Administrator Jackson met personally with Encana leadership, and EPA staff met 

at length with Encana technical representatives. 

As mentioned above, EPA will conduct a rigorous and transparent external peer review of the draft report. 

The review will entail the convening of a panel of five to seven individuals with expertise in the relevant 

scientific and engineering disciplines. On January 17, a Federal Register Notice was posted requesting 

4 
30 

public nominations for the peer review panel. 1 These individuals will be unaffiliated with EPA and will be 

screened carefully for conflicts of interest. The public is being provided the opportunity to nominate peer 

reviewers and to comment on the draft charge to the peer review panel. 

The peer review panel will review public comments submitted to the docket and will meet publicly to 

consider and weigh their expert opinions on the charge questions, The public will have the opportunity to 

provide oral and written comments at that meeting, The panel will then submit their separate reports to the 

Agency, and of course those reports will be publicly available, In addition, at the request of Governor Mead, 

we plan to schedule the public peer review meeting in Wyoming, 

We have also indicated to the Governor that we welcome the State's willingness to support additional 

scientific investigation at Pavillion, which we believe is important considering the results of our initial 

investigation, This should include additional sampling of the drinking water and monitoring wells, and 

studying the fate and transport of contaminants in the subsurface. In addition to working with the State and 

Tribes, we are in discussions with the U,S. Geological Survey about partnering on the sampling of the 

monitoring wells. 

In conclusion, EPA has acted carefully, thoughtfully, deliberately, and transparently in our ground water 

investigation and in sharing the data and findings contained in our draft report. We have applied the highest 

standards of scientific rigor. We hope and expect to continue in a spirit of collaboration and cooperation 

with Wyoming, the Tribes, and others as we conduct a peer review and consider additional study that may 

be warranted at this site. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am prepared to answer questions from the Committee. 

1 htlp:/lwww,gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-01-17/pdf/2012-716,pdf 

5 
31 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

I now recognize our second witness, Mr. Tom Doll from the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 

STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS DOLL, 

STATE OIL AND GAS SUPERVISOR, 

WYOMING OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION 

Mr. DOLL. Thank you. I am here this morning as a representative of the Honorable Governor of the State of Wyoming, Matthew 

H. Mead, and provide the following testimony regarding the EPA’s 

groundwater science at Pavillion, Wyoming. 

The Pavillion Wind River formation natural gas field was discovered in 1960. By 2006, full field development was completed. This 

greater Pavillion gas field has 168 wells. Currently, there are 78 

wells on tribal and 58 wells on private minerals. The last wells in 

this greater Pavillion gas field area that were hydraulically fractured occurred in 2007. 

In 2008, EPA reacted to complaints from a few domestic well 

owners claiming taste and odor problems following hydraulic fracturing at nearby gas production wells. EPA conducted sampling 

and testing of 42 shallow domestic and stock water wells, and in 

August 2010, results of that testing was made public. 

EPA drilled two monitoring wells in the Pavillion natural gas 

field in the summer of 2010. Both monitoring wells were completed 

at depths considerably below that of the shallow water supply 

wells. EPA via email notified the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality of the plan to drill the monitoring wells literally as 

the rig was moving in, so I would question whether that is consultation with the state or not. 

Sampling of the two monitoring wells occurred in October 2010 

and again in April of 2011. Data was made public in November followed by the Pavillion draft report on groundwater in December 

2011. 

The complex geology of the Wind River formation in central Wyoming makes identification of potential contamination pathways difficult. The sands are discontinuous and are individual lenses within a shale matrix. Visual individual potato chips layered in a bowl. 

Some are in contact and most are not. The Wind River formation 

is a shallow aquifer and is also a deep natural gas reservoir. 

EPA’s draft report is based on two monitoring well sampling 

events. EPA found a single detect of 2-butoxyethanol out of nine 

lab samples analyzed using an analytical method still under development. Actual sample values for organics are so low, they are 

measured in parts per billion. This chemical compound at the 12.7 

parts per billion detected is acceptable for drinking water supplied 

from a public water system. 

The EPA review of material safety data sheets found 2- 

butoxyethanol as a compound in foam additives used in hydraulic 

fracturing but ignored its use in other applications such as metal 

coatings and solvents. The EPA concluded that hydraulic fracturing 

caused groundwater contamination. 

Now I would like to focus on the natural gas wells in the immediate area of these two EPA monitoring wells. None of these natural gas wells have been hydraulically fractured since 2005. EPA’s 
32 

data is only applicable to the natural gas fields in central Wyoming. This fact is lost in the public reaction to the EPA announcement and a worldwide damnation of hydraulic fracturing has occurred. The report provides no data to show how these two EPA 

monitoring wells represent water supply wells used by anyone in 

the Pavillion natural gas field. Wyoming state agencies’ technical 

questions have yet to be addressed, and I have been informed now 

that the new data has been released and posted on the EPA web 

page. 

The EPA report also ignores the ongoing public outreach investigation of natural gas well integrity and landowner-identified 

sites. EPA has not addressed other possible surface pathways of 

groundwater contamination. Wyoming state agency scientists contend that the chemical compounds detected were introduced during 

the drilling, completion, testing and sampling of the EPA monitoring wells. Further well testing is required. 

Wyoming has historically regulated hydraulic fracturing. Since 

2010, Wyoming is the only state to require chemical disclosure 

prior to the initiation of the treatment. Disclosure of the actual 

chemical compounds used is also required post treatment. This well 

information is public and is posted on the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission web page. 

In conclusion, the EPA Pavillion draft report contains poor-quality data and science. The State of Wyoming experts do not support 

the EPA’s data or analysis, and recommends further testing before 

any conclusion of groundwater contamination by any source be 

made. The goal is for residents of Pavillion to have clean water and 

conclusive answers about the source of the area’s groundwater 

problems. Additional short-term sampling and long-term sciencebased efforts are being planned by the State of Wyoming and the 

USGS for the Pavillion area. 

Thank you for providing this opportunity to address the Subcommittee regarding Pavillion, Wyoming. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Doll follows:] 
33 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. TOM DOLL, STATE OIL & GAS SUPERVISOR, WYOMING

OIL & GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION
34 

Wyoming, since June, 2010 requires disclosure of all chemical compounds used in the well stimulation 

process. Disclosure of all chemical compounds planned to be injected is required prior to the 

performance of the job. Wyoming is the only state to require all chemical compound disclosure as part 

of the stimulation approval. Disclosure of all chemical compounds actually injected is required post 

treatment. This chemical compound information is posted on the Oil and Gas Conservation 

Commission (OGCe) web page, http://wogcc.state.wy.us and is available for public review by clicking on 

"Completions" . 

Wyoming surface casing set depths and cementing requirements were clarified in June, 2010. See 

Attachment 2. 

GROUNDWATER ISSUES: Wyoming has approved water well permits from 1932 forward. They show 

well depths from a few feet below surface to 750'. No data reviewed for the Pavillion Draft Report 

shows the producing depth, well construction or producing aquifer isolation. The ground water quality 

varies but generally decreases with depth and distance from recharge sources. Natural gas volume 

usually increases with depth. Water volume usually decreases with depth. 

In 1959 the United States Geological Survey (USGS) documented Pavillion water as unsatisfactory for 

domestic use due to high concentrations of naturally occurring sulfate, total dissolved solids and pH 

levels. Sites of known groundwater contamination in or adjacent to the Pavillion natural gas field were 

reported in 1998 according to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ). This was 

before the infield development drilling of the Pavillion natural gas field. In 2005 the first landowner 

complaints to state agencies of contaminated ground water from natural gas well development were 

made. From 2005 through 2007 well testing for WDEQ by independent laboratories showed no impacts 

from oil and gas development. In 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) received 

complaints from a few domestic well owners regarding sustained objectionable taste and odor problems 

following hydraulic fracturing at nearby gas production wells. The EPA reacted in spite of the fact that 

no natural gas wells in the Pavillion Gas Field have been hydraulically fracture stimulated since 2007. 

The EPA conducted shallow domestic and stock water well sampling and testing during two phases 

during 2009 and 2010, and in August, 2010 at a public meeting in Pavillion reported the results. EPA 

drilled two monitoring wells in the Pavillion natural gas field in the summer of 2010. Sampling and 

testing occurred in October, 2010 and April, 2011. The result of this testing effort is the "Draft 

Investigation of Ground Water Contamination near Pavillion. Wyoming" (referred hereafter as "Pavillion 

Draft Report"). No wells near the EPA monitoring wells have been hydraulically fracture stimulated 

since 2005. 

PUBLIC OUTREACH - NATURAL GAS WEll INTEGRITY AND LANDOWNER IDENTIFIED SITES: Public 

outreach efforts were established by the EPA, WDEQ and OGCC, in late 2010 with Pavillion Working 

Group meetings held four times during 2011. Two Pavillion Working Groups were formed, one to 

address natural gas well integrity and one to address landowner identified sites. The purpose of both 

Working Groups was to identify potential sources of paths of groundwater contamination from either 

the natural gas wells or the surface. The groups are comprised of representatives from EPA, Bureau of 

land Management (BlM), the tribes, area landowners, and the natural gas well operator, Encana, and 

2 
35 

Wyoming agencies: Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, Department of Environmental Quality, 

Water Development Office, Office of the State Engineer, and Rural Water. The meetings were open to 

the public and facilitated by the Director of DEQ and the OGCC Supervisor. 

After thorough review of well records for the 168 wells drilled in the Pavillion field, 36 natural gas wells 

were identified with surface casing set depth or cementing issues. Thirty-four of these wells were tested 

by the operator Encana, reported to OGCC, and 4 natural gas wells were identified for further study. 

Approximately 62 potential pit locations were reviewed by the Working Group. More than thirty 

historic drilling reserve and production pit sites in the general Pavillion area had been previously 

investigated by the Department of Environmental Quality for hydrocarbon content, five of which were 

placed in the Department's Voluntary Remediation Program. The Working Group addressed 33 of the 

62 sites as landowner identified potential groundwater contamination sites. Eleven sites were selected 

and sampled for hydrocarbon contamination with one site of the eleven placed into the Department of 

Environmental Quality's Voluntary Remediation Program. 

MONITORING WELL DATA/DRAFT REPORT: Several times during 2011, the Working Groups asked the 

EPA for the release of the monitoring well data. The EPA said the data was going through Quality 

Assurance-Quality Control review and was not available. The data was first provided to the public and 

to the state agencies in November, 2011. The EPA made public the Pavillion Draft Report on Ground 

Water in December, 2011. The EPA concludes based on limited data set that contamination of 

groundwater was caused by a chemical used hydraulic fracturing. No data was provided by the EPA for 

the Pavillion Draft Report showing the producing depth, well construction or producing aquifer isolation. 

The EPA report does not address the need to solve the landowner's water supply issues; rather the 

report only addresses hydraulic fracturing. 

The Pavillion Draft Report was issued with incomplete data and technically inadequate conclusions. 

There was no opportunity to review and verify the data by Wyoming state agencies. The data was not 

verified by further testing or vetted through a peer review process. Based on a limited sampling and an 

inconclusive data set from Pavillion Wyoming ground water, EPA's conclusion is now national and 

international fodder for the hydraulic fracturing debate. Now the quality of the hydraulic fracturing 

debate suffers and the EPA's science itself is questioned. 

The EPA conceptual scientific model and line of reasoning used in Pavillion is based on two groundwater 

monitoring wells and two sampling events. Three different laboratories used a battery of analyses to 

detect contaminates. The testing of 9 samples by these 3 labs resulted in a single detect of a 

contaminant of concern, a synthetic organic compound, 2-butoxyethanol. The laboratory reported 12.7 

parts per billion detect ofthis compound utilized a methodology the EPA admits was still under 

development (R3, page 5) and is an untested unverified protocol. This level of 2-butoxyethanol is 

acceptable for drinking water from a public water system. The EPA reviewed Material Safety Data 

Sheets which lead to identification of 2-butoxyethanol as a chemical used in hydrauliC fracturing. The 

EPA concluded that ground water contamination was caused by hydraulic fracturing. The chemical 

compound 2-butoxyethanol is commonly used in metal coatings, paints and solvents. 

3 
36 

Typically a single detect would prompt to scientists involved to ask for retesting or additional testing for 

confirmation. Actual organic compound sample values detected are so low that they are measured in 

parts per billion. Unfortunately EPA did not conclude that additional testing was needed before 

suggesting that hydraulic fracturing had caused contamination at Pavillion. The scientific method 

requires collection of data in a reproducible manner, providing thorough and open analysis, and prior to 

making any conclusions on that data. The conclusions drawn from limited data from the two monitoring 

wells at Pavillion are not based on any weight of evidence or on the best available science. Therefore 

the EPA science is questionable and erroneously draws the conclusion that hydraulic fracturing is the 

cause of groundwater contamination. 

State agencies are concerned that the organic and synthetic organic chemicals were likely introduced 

during the drilling, completion, testing and sampling of the monitoring wells. The EPA did not follow 

United State Geological Survey recommendations for monitoring well drilling and sampling. None of the 

fluids, materials, or equipment that was actually used by EPA to drill, complete, or develop the two 

monitoring wells was ever sampled or tested to ensure they were not a source of contamination. 

Drilling rig antifreeze, motor oil, and diesel spills on the monitor well locations were noted in the driller's 

daily log posted on the EPA Region 8 web page and are a likely source of the low levels of organic 

compounds detected in the monitoring wells. This information was not addressed in the Pavilion Draft 

Report or considered as a path of contamination. 

Neither of the two EPA monitoring wells are testing the water quality in the aquifers used by residents. 

The EPA data proVided in the report shows that both monitoring wells were completed in natural gas 

reservoirs. The natural gas found in the monitoring wells matches that natural gas found in production 

wells and does not match the natural gas found in the landowner water supply wells. Water quality as 

tested from the monitoring wells does not match water quality from either natural gas production or 

water supply wells indicating contamination by drilling and development fluids. EPA sampling of water 

supply wells and monitoring wells failed to find any chemicals tied to natural gas development that ever 

exceeded USDW standards. 

The EPA conclusion that hydraulic fracturing caused ground water contamination is limited to the data 

found in a single sample detect from single monitoring well located a natural gas field in central 

Wyoming. Yet this fact is lost in the public reaction to EPA's announcement and results in a worldwide 

damnation of hydraulic fracturing. 

ORIGINAL GOAL OVERLOOKED: EPA's release of the Pavillion Draft Report on Ground Water before a 

complete scientific analysis has been accomplished is a disservice to the public, speCifically the 

individuals living within the Pavillion natural gas field area who are looking to federal and state agencies 

for answers to their groundwater concerns. The Pavillion Draft Report ignores that shallow domestic 

and stock water wells in the Pavillion area have naturally occurring high sodium, high sulfate and high 

carbonate ionic content, and some wells produce methane gas. Landowners and groundwater users 

have known of these groundwater issues long before any natural gas wells were drilled in the area. 

4 
37 

Some landowners moved into the Pavillion natural gas field during and after the natural gas wells were 

drilled. The driving force for this past six year testing and sampling effort is lost in the Pavillion Draft 

Ground Water Report; which is, solving the drinking water supply issues for these landowners. The draft 

report provides no data to show how these two EPA monitoring wells represent any water supply wells 

used by anyone in the Pavillion natural gas field. 

The Pavillion Draft Report also ignores the September, 2010 Wyoming Water Development Commission 

report outlining five possible solutions to evaluate potential long term solutions for domestic water 

supply to landowners in the area. 

COMPLEX GEOLOGY: The Pavillion Draft Report is limited in scope and inadequately addresses the 

complex geology and hydrogeology of the Wind River Formation in central Wyoming. Without 

knowledge of the shallow subsurface it is difficult to identify the origin of potential contamination. The 

EPA in the draft report declared that the Wind River Formation is a single Underground Source of 

Drinking Water, USDW. The geology is more complex than the EPA draft report indicates or states. Links 

between wells has not been adequately studied or identified. The sands are isolated lenticular within a 

shale matrix and are not able to be mapped over large areas. Therefore the Wind River Formation is 

many individual shallow aquifers and many individual deeper natural gas reservoirs. This is best 

thought of as series of stacked isolated sand lenses, visualized much like potato chips in a bowl. The 

Wind River Formation is the shallow groundwater aquifer as well as the deep natural gas reservoir. 

Natural gas from source rocks at depths below the Wind River Formation has been migrating to the 

surface for tens of thousands of years. The Wind River Formation does not contain any geologic horizon 

to prevent the gas migration. The shallow groundwater aquifer is recharged by rain, snow melt and 

irrigation run-off. See Attachment 3. 

OTHER SOURCES OF POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION: Other possible sources of groundwater contamination 

in the Pavillion natural gas field remain unstudied. The potential for shallow groundwater aquifer 

contamination may exist from the drilling, completion, and maintenance of the domestic and stock 

water supply wells; from the location and use of septic systems, stock pens and feedlots; from the use of 

pesticides, fertilizers, and herbicides; from the recharge water quality from irrigation run-off; or from 

fuel stations and vehicle repair shops near landowner water supply wells. 

ADDITIONAL TESTING PLANNED: The Pavillion Draft Report ignores the September, 2010 Wyoming 

Water Development Commission report outlining five possible solutions to evaluate potential long term 

solutions for domestic water supply to landowners in the area. In December, 2010, at the request of the 

State Geologist, the United States Geological Survey and the Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality Signed a contract for the further testing of the EPA monitoring wells at Pavillion. Governor Mead 

budgeted money for these additional investigative efforts and has asked for EPA's cooperation in 

conducting additional testing. The Wyoming Congressional Delegation urges EPA to follow through with 

its commitment by working with the State to conduct additional testing g and analysis prior to any peer 

review. 

5 
38 

IMPORTANCE OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING TO WYOMING: Almost 100% of oil and natural gas wells 

drilled in Wyoming are hydraulic fracture treated to be commercial; the exception is shallow coalbed 

natural gas wells in northeast Wyoming. Almost 100% of Wyoming's oil production, 153,300 barrels per 

day, and 36.2% of Wyoming's natural gas production, 2.4 billion cubic feet per day, comes from wells 

that are hydraulic fracture treated (OGCC September, 2010). In fiscal year 2010, approximately two 

billion dollars was received by the State of Wyoming from oil and natural gas taxes and royalties. See 

Attachment 2. 

CONCLUSION: In conclusion, EPA dismissed requests to review data before it was publicized and has not 

addressed concerns with the data and the Pavillion Draft Report as raised by the Wyoming Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, and the Wyoming 

Water Development Office. These concerns are related to the drilling, completion, development, testing 

and sampling of the two monitoring wells. The public outreach and technical accomplishments of the 

Working Groups were not acknowledged in the report. The EPA Pavillion Draft Report contains 

questionable, unverified poor quality data; state agency experts cannot support the EPA's analysis and 

conclusions. Additional short term sampling and a long term science based effort are being planned by 

the State of Wyoming and the USGS for the Pavillion area. This science based effort will utilize proven 

and repeatable science, along with critical analysis and full disclosure, and will lead to thoughtful 

conclusions about groundwater in the Pavillion area. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present my prepared remarks. 

Thomas E. Doll, PE 

State Oil and Gas Supervisor 

2211 King Boulevard 

Casper, WY 82604 

307-234-7147 

Email: tom.doll@wyo.gov 

6 
39 

Attachment 1 

Area of Interest 

7 
40 

Attachment 2 

Facts about Hydraulic Fracturing in Wyoming 

Wyoming, since 2010, requires disclosure of all chemical compounds used in the well stimulation 

process. Disclosure of chemical compounds planned to be injected is required prior to the performance 

of the job. Disclosure of all chemical compounds actually injected is required post treatment. 

Table 1 Hydraulic Fracturing Treatment in Wyoming 

The trend in Table 1 reflects an increase in horizontal well drilling and multiple well stimulations in the 

horizontal wellbore. 

Almost 100% of Wyoming's oil production, 153,300 barrels per day, and 36.2% of Wyoming's natural gas 

production, 2.4 billion cubic feet per day, comes from wells that are hydrauliC fracture treated 

(September, 2010 data). 

Almost 100% of oil and natural gas wells drilled in Wyoming are Hydraulic Fracture treated to be 

commercial; the exception is shallow Coalbed Natural Gas Wells in northeast Wyoming. 

Wyoming has no documented cases of groundwater contamination caused by Hydraulic Fracturing. The 

Oil and Gas Conservation Commission scientists have not been able to utilize the EPA monitoring well 

data or the draft report to reach any conclusion regarding ground water contamination within the 

8 
41 

Pavillion natural gas field. The draft report and conclusion made by EPA is based on a single and nonrepeated detect of a chemical of known to be used in over 600 products. 

Wyoming has regulated well stimulation since the 

1950's. EPA seems headed toward national"one size 

fits all" regulation of hydraulic fracturing. Rules were 

amended to add clarity to existing rutes and add well 

stimulation and disclosure language. Wyoming 

adopted Well Stimulation Rules in June, 2010 and rules 

have been in effect since September IS, 2010. 

Four major issues were addressed: 

1. The protection of groundwater and the 

identification of permitted water supply weffs 

within y,; mile of the drilling and spacing unit or 

Commission approved drilling unit; 

2. Clarification of requirements for well integrity, 

casing setting depths, casing design and 

cementing properties; 

3. Requirements for disclosure of well stimulation 

fluid chemical additiyest compounds and 

concentrations or rates; 

4. Requirements for the handling of the well 

stimulation load fluid recovered. 

Section 8. Application for Permit to Drill or Deepen a Well 

Protection of Ground Water 

(iii) Identification of all water supply wells permitted by the Wyoming Office 

of the State Engineer located within one-quarter mile of the drilling and spacing unit or the Commission 

approved drilling unit, whichever is less, and the depth from which water is being appropriated; 

(iv) Formation depth, geological and hydrological detail from public records, 

published or otherwise known information of useable groundwater underlying the drilling and spacing 

unit or the Commission approved drilling unit. Consistent with Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality Chapter 8, as revised April 26, 2005, "Quality Standards for Wyoming Groundwaters," and for 

purposes of these rules, groundwater will be protected, except for Class VI Groundwater of the State 

that is unusable or unsuitable for use: 

(A) Due to excessive concentrations of total dissolved solids or 

specific constituents; or, 

9 
42 

(6) Is so contaminated that it would be economically or 

technologically impractical to make water useable; or, 

(C) Is located in such a way, including depth below the surface, so 

as to make use economically and technologically impractical. 

Section 8. Application for Permit to Drill or Deepen a Well 

Well Integrity 

(VI) Proposed casing program, including size, anticipated setting depths, API grade, 

weight per foot, burst pressure, tensile strength for both body and joint, yield pressure, if new or used 

casing is planned for the well, and other information required by the Supervisor. Note that prior 

approval of the Supervisor is required for use of non-API tubular. 

(vii) Description, type and setting depths of isolation techniques if used in openhole 

and uncemented liner stimulations in high angle and horizontal wells, 

(viii) Description of the cementing program, including API class of cement, additives 

to be used, slurry density to be mixed, estimated volumes to be used, including percent of excess 

volume. For openhole completions, similar information is required for the cement program above the 

completed interval. The Supervisor must be notified of the intent and give prior approval for the use of 

non-API class cement and additives. 

10 
43 

In 2010 Wyoming's Petroleum Industry directly employed approximately 21,000 people with 

an annual payroll of over $1.1 billion. 

11 
44 

Attachment 3 

Wind River Formation Cross-section Cartoon 

Not to scale 

Not alll'!I'>ticular sands aro. t!tallIed with natural R3S. some are wet. some are connected. som" are not 

12 
45 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

I now recognize our third witness, Ms. Kathleen Sgamma from 

the Western Energy Alliance. 

STATEMENT OF MS. KATHLEEN SGAMMA, 

VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, 

WESTERN ENERGY ALLIANCE 

Ms. SGAMMA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Miller 

and Members of the Committee. Thanks for the opportunity today. 

Western Energy Alliance represents about 400 companies engaged in all aspects of environmentally responsible oil and gas development in Wyoming and across the West. There is no failsafe 

process, and accidents may happen with any human endeavor. 

One of the main roles of environmental regulation is to ensure 

that the risk is managed properly, that appropriate procedures are 

in place to prevent public exposure, and in the event of an accident, 

that problems are corrected. 

Oil and natural gas producers are held to high scientific standards to ensure operations are properly designed, executed and controlled. Because civil or criminal penalties can be levied on producers who fail to fulfill regulatory requirements, it is imperative 

that regulators are also held to high standards. 

Regulators must be required to show that sound science and correct procedures were followed when establishing regulations and 

when determining if a company failed to meet a regulatory standard. If sound science and accepted regulatory practices are not followed, findings cannot stand up in court and arbitrary regulatory 

practices sow uncertainty. 

As a democratic society, the legal culpability inherent in our regulatory system is not the only consideration. The court of public 

opinion is also important. Without public support, activities such as 

oil and natural gas development would not be possible. 

My industry struggles against outrageous information in the 

public arena that overstates our environmental impact and propagates blatantly false information about hydraulic fracturing. Every 

day we hear members of the media and unaccountable environmental groups make statements about supposedly thousands of 

cases of contamination. Never mind that EPA Administrator Lisa 

Jackson and most regulators from large oil and natural gas-producing states have felt compelled to issue statements about the 

lack of cases of contamination from fracking. Once misinformation 

gets out in the public, it takes on a life of its own and is almost 

impossible to correct. This misinformation has caused local communities and citizens to fear a process that is safe. The fear leads to 

development roadblocks, depriving state economies of tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of economic activity. 

Furthermore, unfounded fears about fracking divert limited federal and state resources away from activities that truly pose a 

threat to underground sources of drinking water. The Groundwater 

Protection Council considers fracking low risk, especially compared 

to other threats such as agricultural runoff, septic systems, sewer 

lines and wastewater treatment sources. 

The public trusts EPA to follow the line and use sound science 

as the foundation of its regulatory work. When EPA releases a re-
46 

port stating that fracking may be the cause of contamination, the 

public expects that to be backed by science. However, in the case 

of the draft Pavillion report, EPA’s own data contained within 

doesn’t support the conclusions presented upfront. A conclusion 

with such broad implications should have first been tested through 

a scientific peer review of the work. 

We are left wondering why EPA would jump to conclusions. Why 

would EPA release the report without state input and scientific 

peer review? These are disturbing questions to ask about an agency 

that should have the public trust and points to the fact that EPA 

is also a political body, not a disinterested scientific institution. 

As this Committee knows, fundamental standards of science include objectivity, repeatability, transparency and peer review. It is 

hard to call something scientific if it doesn’t include these basic elements, yet we have seen examples from EPA that do not. Industry 

is particularly concerned since Congress has charged EPA with 

conducting a scientific study of fracking. EPA’s recent actions raise 

questions in our minds about the quality of the science for the 

broader fracking study as well. 

The Pavillion report and what we have observed so far in the 

fracking study cause great concern to industry as we see a lack of 

transparency, unscientific methods and failure to perform peer review. I ask this Committee to help ensure that the issues of scientific credibility are resolved. I believe in general that better oversight is needed of EPA science. There is an inherent given EPA’s 

regulatory and compliance roles and its ability to conduct objective 

science. Given that conflict, it is especially important that EPA 

science be properly peer reviewed. Western Energy Alliance recommends that standards of EPA-conducted science be tightened. 

Fracking is vital to the supply of American energy. If we lose the 

public’s confidence and cannot continue to develop oil and natural 

gas in the United States because of unfounded rumors and invalid 

science, America will deprive itself of significant job and economic 

growth and will continue to import energy from unfriendly countries. 

Thank you for your time. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Sgamma follows:] 
47 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. KATHLEEN SGAMMA, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT

& PUBLIC AFFAIRS, WESTERN ENERGY ALLIANCE
48 

Summary: 

• Oil and natural gas producers are held to very strict regulatory and scientific standards that 

carry real legal and financial responsibilities to ensure operations protect air and water 

quality, and that risk of accident is minimized and properly controlled. 

• Because civil or criminal penalties can be levied on producers who fail to fulfill regulatory 

requirements, it is imperative that EPA and other regulators are also held to high scientific 

standards. 

• As a democratic SOciety, the legal culpability inherent in our regulatory system is not the 

only consideration - the court of public opinion is also important. Without public support, oil 

and natural gas development would not be possible, and energy security and the economy 

would suffer. 

• Outrageous information in the public arena overstates industry's environmental impact and 

propagates blatantly false information about hydraulic fracturing (HF). 

• This misinformation has caused local communities and citizens to fear a process that is safe. 

This fear leads to development roadblocks, if not outright bans, depriving state economies 

of tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity, and threatening 

American energy security. 

• Unfounded fears about HF divert limited federal and state regulatory resources away from 

activities that truly pose a threat to underground sources of drinking water. 

• The public trusts EPA to protect the environment, follow the law, and use sound science as 

the foundation of its regulatory work. When EPA releases a report concluding that hydraulic 

fracturing may be the source of contamination, the public expects accurate information. 

• However, in the case of the Pavillion report, EPA's own data and methods have raised 

serious questions about the validity of the report. EPA's broader HF study has also led to 

concerns about unscientific methods, and lack of transparency and peer review. 

• Better oversight is needed of EPA science. There is an inherent conflict between EPA's 

regulatory and compliance roles and its ability to conduct objective science. Given that 

conflict, it is especially important that EPA science be properly peer reviewed. Western 

Energy Alliance recommends that standards for EPA-conducted science be tightened so that 

all studies are peer reviewed by credible third parties before that science can be used for 

regulatory or compliance purposes. 

HF is vital to the supply of American energy. If we lose the public's confidence and cannot 

continue to develop oil and natural gas in the United States because of unfounded rumors 

and invalid science, America will deprive itself of significant job and economic growth, and 

will continue to import energy from unfriendly nations. 
49 

Full Testimony: 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee-thank you for the opportunity to appear before 

you today. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the need for rigorous scientific standards 

in the regulatory arena. 

There is no failsafe process. Human error and unforeseen circumstances can cause accidents 

with potential safety and environmental implications. The role of environmental regulation is to 

ensure that the risk of exposure is managed properly, that appropriate procedures are in place 

to prevent exposure, and in the event of an accident, correct the problems and bring operations 

back into compliance. 

Oil and natural gas producers are held to high scientific standards to ensure operations are 

properly designed, executed and controlled. These high standards are intended to ensure that 

operations protect air and water quality, and that risk of accident is properly managed and 

controlled. Operators are held to very strict regulatory standards that carry real legal and 

financial responsibilities, and can even be held criminally liable in certain circumstances. 

These strict standards require industry to use accepted practices and scientific methods to 

ensure compliance. Ensuring compliance with thousands of detailed regulatory requirements 

every day requires rigorous quality control and adherence to strict protocols and procedures. 

Because civil or criminal penalties can be levied on producers who fail to fulfill regulatory 

requirements, it is imperative that regulators are also held to high standards. Regulators are 

required to show that sound science and correct procedures were followed when establishing 

regulations and when determining if a company failed to meet a regulatory standard. If sound 

science and accepted regulatory practices are not followed, findings cannot stand up in court, 

and arbitrary regulatory practices sow uncertainty in the industry. 

Stable government and regulatory certainty in the marketplace enable industries to engage in 

productive economic activity on a large scale that creates jobs and national wealth. Since 

wealthy societies are those best able to protect the environment, we all have a stake in making 

sure our regulatory environment is predictable, based on sound science, and encourages 

responsible economic development. 

As a democratic society, the legal culpability inherent in our regulatory system is not the only 

consideration - the court of public opinion is also important. Without public support, activities 

like oil and natural gas development would not be possible. My industry struggles against 

outrageous information in the public arena that overstates our environmental impact and 

propagates blatantly false information about hydraulic fracturing (HF) and other technical 

aspects of our industry. Every day we hear the media and unaccountable environmental groups 

make statements about supposedly thousands of cases of contamination from HF. Never mind 

that U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lisa Jackson and most regulators 

from large oil and natural gas producing states have felt compelled to issue statements about 

the lack of any cases of contamination from HF. Once misinformation gets out into the public, it 

takes on a life of its own and is impossible to completely correct. 
50 

Testimony - Fractured Science 

Kathleen Sgamma, Western Energy Alliance 

February 1, 2011 

Page 4 of6 

This misinformation has caused local communities and citizens to fear a process that is safe 

given the safeguards, procedures, and monitoring that are required and implemented by 

industry. This fear leads to development roadblocks, if not outright bans as in New York State, 

depriving state economies of tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic 

activity. Since wealth is the key to public and personal health, safety and the environment, these 

roadblocks are counterproductive to the very local communities that seek to protect their water 

resources. 

Furthermore, unfounded fears about HF divert limited federal and state regulatory resources 

away from activities that truly pose a threat to underground sources of drinking water. HF 

presents a very low risk to drinking water, and has been safely conducted over 1.2 million times 

since 1949 with no documented cases of contamination. The Ground Water Protection Council 

considers HF low risk, especially compared to other threats to groundwater such as abandoned 

mines, agricultural runoff, septic systems, sewer lines, wastewater treatment sources and 

landfills.' 

The public trusts EPA to protect the environment, follow the law, and use sound science as the 

foundation of its regulatory work. When EPA releases a report concluding that hydraulic 

fracturing may be the source of contamination, the public expects accurate information. 

However, in the case of the draft Pavillion Report, EPA's own data contained within the report 

don't support the conclusions presented up front.2 The report clearly has deficiencies that 

should have been addressed first with the state regulators who have intimate knowledge and 

technical experience with the aquifer in question. In addition, a conclusion with such broad 

implications should have first been tested through a scientific peer review ofthe work. 

We have seen EPA jump to conclusions before - in the case of Range Resources in Parker 

County, Texas. EPA ignored historic data about the methane content of the drinking water 

aquifer, and rushed to blame Range Resources and HF. Later geochemical testing clearly showed 

the methane in domestic water wells was naturally occurring from the shallow formation near 

the aquifer, and not methane from the Barnett formation that Range was producing from. 

We are left wondering why EPA would jump to conclusions? I believe that most EPA employees 

are dedicated to doing the right thing to protect the environment. In a situation like Pavillion 

where the conclusions were rushed out without proper review and verification, it raises the 

question of undue political influence. Why would EPA release the report without state input and 

scientific peer review? What's the rush to conclude something before independent verification 

is complete? Why does EPA refuse to release to the state of WYoming information to back up 

the results ofthe Pavillion study? 

These are disturbing questions to ask about an agency that should have the public trust, and 

points to the fact that, like it or not, EPA is a political body, not a disinterested scientific 

, Ground Water Report to the Nation: A Call to Action, Ground Water Protection Council, 2007. 

2 Draft: Investigation of Ground Water Contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming, U.S. EPA, December 2011. 
51 

Testimony - Fractured Science 

Kathleen Sgamma, Western Energy Alliance 

February 1, 2011 

Page 5 of 6 

institution. As this committee knows, fundamental standards of science include objectivity, 

repeatability, transparency, and peer review. It's hard to call something scientific if it doesn't 

include these basic elements, yet we've seen examples from EPA that do not. 

Industry is particularly concerned since Congress has charged EPA to conduct a scientific study 

of hydraulic fracturing. EPA's recent actions raise questions in our minds about the quality of the 

science for the broader HF study. 

In fact, some companies participating in EPA's HF study have already noticed questionable 

procedures. For example, there is a lack of transparency on the detailed study design and plan. 

Without a rigorous, systematic plan, there are no clearly defined objectives, analytical methods, 

quality assurance and interpretation. 

This lack of a rigorous plan is also leading to subjective selection of samples and study sites. A 

systematic plan should identify clearly how samples will be selected, and in the case of the HF 

study that means which sites will be selected for water sampling. In selecting sites and samples 

to test, objective criteria must be used. A study is scientifically invalid if samples are chosen not 

according to objective criteria but rather to fit the intended results or serve political ends. For 

the HF study, it appears that EPA is subjectively selecting sites outside of the study area rather 

than objectively according to a plan. 

The Pavillion report and what we've observed so far in the HF study cause great concern to 

industry, as we see a lack of transparency, unscientific methods, and failure to perform peer 

review. Why is EPA so reluctant to provide to the public and state regulators detailed 

information on how it's conducting its study? How can the public be assured that EPA is 

conducting a correct, repeatable scientific study if it won't tell the public how it's going to 

ensure quality results? 

I'd like to extend the issue a bit, as we've seen several regulatory efforts lately that are being 

rushed through without proper scientific basis. The recent com bined NSPS/N ESHAP rule for the 

oil and gas sector is a good example. In the proposed rules, EPA admits that certain scientific 

steps have been omitted, such as gathering air quality monitoring data, yet it proceeds with 

rules uninformed by that basic scientific data. Likewise, EPA grossly overestimates methane 

emissions from natural gas development by over 200% to justify the rUle. 3 Independent analysis 

demonstrates basic scientific errors and bad assumptions in EPA's technical support document 

that forms the basis of the overestimation.4 Clearly better independent peer review of EPA 

science is needed. 

I ask this Committee to help ensure that the issues of scientific credibility are resolved, 

particularly as they relate to the HF study. I believe in general that better oversight is needed of 

3 US Environmental Protection Agency, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting from the Petroleum and 

Natural Gas Industry: Background Technical Support Document, 2010. 

4 IHS CERA, Mismeasuring Methane: Estimating Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Upstream Natural Gas 

Development. August 2011. 
52 

Testimony - Fractured Science 

Kathleen Sgamma, Western Energy Alliance 

February 1, 2011 

Page 6 of 6 

EPA science. There is an inherent conflict between EPA's regulatory and compliance roles and its 

ability to conduct objective science. Given that conflict, it is especially important that EPA 

science be properly peer reviewed. Western Energy Alliance recommends that standards for 

EPA-conducted science be tightened so that all studies are peer reviewed by credible third 

parties before that science can be used for regulatory or compliance purposes. 

HF is vital to the supply of American energy. If we lose the public's confidence and cannot 

continue to develop oil and natural gas in the United States because of unfounded rumors and 

invalid science, America will deprive itself of significant job and economic growth, and will 

continue to import energy from unfriendly nations. 

Thank you for your time. 

Kathleen Sgamma 

Western Energy Alliance 
53 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, and I recognize our 

fourth and final witness, Dr. Bernard Goldstein of the University 

of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health. Doctor. 

STATEMENT OF DR. BERNARD GOLDSTEIN, 

PROFESSOR AND DEAN EMERITUS, 

GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, UNIVERSITY OF 

PITTSBURGH 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to 

testify. I apologize but I will be showing slides. It is part of being 

a professor. I would lose my professorial appointment. 

My three major points are that there is—that the public is genuinely concerned about the potential health impacts and there is 

genuine reason for the concern and that there is almost no support 

for the research needed to respond to the public, and that lack of 

support is both shortsighted and counterproductive. 

There is a fair amount of public confusion, which I think is really 

important to put in context of this particular hearing. The public 

is hearing that hydro fracking is a new technology that now permits extraction. In our area of the country, it is the Marcellus 

shale. And oh, by the way, it has been around for decades so don’t 

worry. It can’t be both. Decades ago, hydro fracking was done with 

50,000 gallons of water, straight shot down, vertical, no horizontal 

drilling. Now it is 5 to 8 million gallons. There is all these additional bells and whistles that have been added to it, and we are 

told, although there is a lot of secrecy, that the fracking chemicals 

have been changed. 

We are also confused about the fact that just as we are hearing 

here, there is no proof that hydro fracking has ever caused groundwater contamination. Well, that is a technical definition of hydro 

fracking which has to do with the release 5,000 foot underground 

or 1,000 foot underground of these chemicals. It is not really what 

the public understands as hydro fracking, which is anything that 

happens with these chemicals from the time that the drill pad is 

leveled to 20 years from now when we hope everybody goes away 

and everything is restored to where it was. 

So this confusion is very much behind causing even anger by 

folks. This is an analysis of the reasons given by those not in favor 

of Marcellus drilling, and you will see that health concerns are a 

large part of this. Part of the reason for concern is unnecessary secrecy. My example of how ludicrous this is comes from the Gulf oil 

spill. Secrecy about this particular component, this organic sulfonic 

acid salt at the bottom, this propriety drug, contributed greatly to 

the stress experienced by Gulf residents. It turns out that this secret ingredient is a commonly used over-the-counter stool softener 

we have often prescribed, and I can tell that at least one of us in 

this room has used. It is of no toxicological significance to humans. 

I don’t know about the fish. But why do we keep this secret? 

One of my major concerns as a toxicologist as a physician is the 

mixture issue. We have lots of chemicals that are being used. They 

are continually changing. We don’t know what is in there. I can’t 

be responsive to someone who calls and says my kid has such and 

such problems, I am worried about this disease, because I don’t 

really know what is being done there. And not only do we have this 
54 

concern about the individual chemicals, there is this mixture issue 

but there is even a greater mixture issue having to do with the 

fracking fluids that return, the produce water, the flow-back water, 

which contain not only the residual fracking chemicals but also everything that has been brought up from underground. And we don’t 

really know what is going to happen with these flow-back fluids. 

I can’t in this brief presentation do more than list some of the 

potential health issues that should be addressed, and I must respectfully disagree with the distinguished Chair about the importance of index cases. In my experience, index cases are simply not 

very germane to environmental medicine. 

Let me cite our analysis of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s data on violations by companies involved 

in Marcellus shale drilling. Some of these companies are to be commended. They have had no violations. Some should not be in business. And as long as that persists, we are going to have major problems. 

And finally, it is disappointing that despite the fact that the various advisory committees have been put together, this is the President, the Governor of Maryland, the Governor of Pennsylvania, 

that really look at health and welfare and are concerned about protection of public health, we have examined these three advisory 

committees, there are 52 members and there is nobody with any 

health background in any of these advisory committees. No physicians, nurses, toxicologists, risk assessors, etc. 

So let me conclude with what I think are three certainties of 

what are going to happen. First, there is going to be surprises. 

There already have been—bromides in water, earthquakes. There 

will be improved technology. Industry has to pay for their fracking 

chemicals. It is in their interest to recycle them. Industry should 

not be releasing the chemicals that come out in fact because they 

should be selling them. They want to sell them. But we found over 

these past 40 years that it requires a lot of oversight, a lot of rigorous oversight to make this happen. It won’t happen by itself. 

And finally, there certainly will be adverse health impacts that 

are going to be reported in these various areas. They will be statistically significant. That doesn’t mean they are causal. There is 

enough different diseases in different areas. People are going to 

wake up and said we have never had this much pancreatic cancer 

or autism or leukemia before those drilling, those wells were 

drilled, and at that point, to try to figure out in retrospect what 

is really going on is a little too late. It is cost-ineffective to do it 

then. We need to start doing it now if we are going to be able to 

get the greatest benefit we can, or in fact, the decisions will be 

made based upon litigation, not based upon science. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldstein follows:] 
55 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. BERNARD GOLDSTEIN, PROFESSOR AND DEAN

EMERITUS, GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH
56 

My name is Bernard Goldstein. I am a physician, board certified in Internal Medicine and in the 

subspecialty of Hematology. I am also board certified in Toxicology. My background includes 

appointment by President Ronald Reagan as Assistant Administrator for Research and Development of 

the US Environmental Protection Agency. I am an elected member of the American Society for Clinical 

Investigation and of the National Academies of Sciences Institute of Medicine for whom I have been a 

member or chair of over twenty committees involved with environmental health. Since serving in the US 

Public Health Service Division of Air Pollution over 40 years ago, I have written more than 200 papers or 

chapters on environmental health issues, including in the past year an invited review in the New England 

Journal of Medicine of the health implications of the Gulf Oil Spill. My current position is professor 

emeritus of environmental and occupational health and dean emeritus of the University of Pittsburgh 

Graduate School of Public Health. Our school was founded in 1948 with a commitment to be responsive 

to environmental pollution issues for which Pittsburgh was then infamous, and we maintain this 

commitment in addressing the threats posed by the very rapid development of unconventional gas 

drilling in our state. My testimony, of course, represents my own views and are not necessarily those of 

the University of Pittsburgh. I will speak to the issue of the public health impact of unconventional 

natural gas drilling. 

My testimony today is largely based upon my experience as a physician, as a toxicologist, and as a 

government official who has worked in the field of environmental health for over 40 years. But, I must 

stress that it is also based upon personal discussion with community groups and individuals who are 

very concerned that their or their family's health has been or will be affected; and with physicians who 

are puzzled about the appropriate answer to the questions their patients are asking. 

My overall theme is that it is in the nation's and in industry's best interests to maximize the yield of 

natural gas while minimizing the short-term and long-term environmental and public health costs, and 

that to do so we must seriously address the possibility of adverse public health impacts. I believe that 

that we are ignoring many of the lessons about how to approach potential environmental health issues 

that we have so painfully learned over the past forty years. 

My three major points are that: 

2 

1) the public is concerned about the potential health impacts of unconventional shale gas 

development; 

2) there is genuine cause for this concern, and 
57 

3) the current lack of almost any support for research directly related to the health effects 

of unconventional gas drilling is shortsighted and counterproductive. 

Before presenting these three points in more detail, I believe it important that the context of this 

concern be addressed. 

The public is confused, and in some cases rightfully angry, concerning the conflicting information they 

are receiving about two important aspects of unconventional shale gas drilling. The nation is hearing 

from industry, and from the government, that exciting new technology permits obtaining gas from deep 

underground shale formations; but we are also told that this has been done for decades so there is 

nothing to worry about. It can't be both. It is true that hydrofracking is a decades-old technology, but 

where previously perhaps 50,000 gallons of water was used in a relatively shallow vertical well, current 

technology uses 5 million or more gallons of water, goes much deeper and turns horizontally 

underground. Implying that they are the same is like saying that a two-ton bomb represents no greater 

risk than a hand grenade because they both are explosives. Further, although there is far too much 

secrecy about the issue, it appears that there have been substantial changes over the years in the 

components of the fracking mixtures which makes it very difficult to predict present outcomes from past 

experience 

A second contradictory issue concerns the subject of what is meant by hydrofracking. This committee is 

considering the controversial evidence from Pavilion, Wyoming concerning whether fracking chemicals 

released deep underground ever make their way to groundwater wells. To the public, however, 

hydrofracking is a general term that encompasses what the public is truly interested in - which is any 

problems beginning with the time the land is leveled for a drill pad, until decades from now when the 

land, hopefully, is restored. Public concern includes what happens to the flowback water, the impact of 

the trucks and the often noisy compressors, public safety and all of the other potential problems caused 

by unconventional gas drilling activity. To the public, reading about residents losing use of their wells, or 

drilling companies being fined for groundwater contamination, a focus that is solely on the issue 

presented by the Pavilion study seems like a subterfuge designed to avoid answering their questions 

about the overall impact of unconventional shale gas drilling on their environment and on their health. 

Evidence that the public is concerned about the human health impacts of unconventional gas drilling is 

easy to obtain. Our own study of those who testified against drilling to the Natural Gas Subcommittee 

of the Secretary of Energy's Scientific Advisory Board shows that about two-thirds cited health concerns. 

Contributing to this concern is the level of secrecy about the specific chemicals being used. In the Gulf 

of Mexico, the secret ingredient in the dispersant, whose secrecy contributed to the stress experienced 

by Gulf residents, turns out to have been a commonly used over-the-counter stool softener of no 

toxicological significance - at least to humans. 

Are public health concerns legitimate? Certainly. Let me begin with toxicology. There are many agents 

of toxicological concern in the fracking mixture, and many other agents about which we know too little. 

It is very hard to find a health complaint that has not been associated in the literature with at least one 

of these compounds. Let me at this point respectfully comment on the issue of waiting for an index case 

3 
58 

to appear. The index case is a very valuable concept in medicine, particularly in infectious diseases - but 

in my experience is of very little value in environmental medicine. In a cholera outbreak, the original 

person with diarrheal disease from whose body fluids we identify Cholera vibrio, the bacterial cause of 

cholera, is truly an index case; and in retrospect we can identify the flight attendant who was the index 

case for HIV/AIDS in the United States. But the chemicals on the fracking list are those that can be 

expected to add to the burden of existing diseases or symptoms. They might cause leukemia or asthma, 

headaches or rashes, all of which have a background incidence. Let's imagine a community whose 

childhood asthma rate increases by 20% due to an environmental cause. None of us would want that to 

happen in our community, but, statistically,S out of 6 of the children would have had an asthma attack 

without the new environmental cause. There would be no index case as such, and we might not even 

notice unless a thorough study was done of the asthma incidence in relation to the environmental 

exposure. As far as I can tell, there is no study underway which thoroughly explores exposures and 

outcomes related to unconventional shale gas drilling activities no study which takes advantage of the 

valuable advances in environmental health sciences which this committee has overseen. 

The index case approach can be useful in environmental medicine when there are truly unusual 

outcomes, such as mesothelioma due to asbestos, or blue babies due to high levels of nitrite in 

groundwater. It is possible that unconventional gas drilling will cause index cases of unusual diseases 

over time given how little we know about the health implications of the fracking mixtures. 

Two types of mixtures associated with unconventional gas development are of concern. The first is the 

mixture of fracking compounds themselves. Twelve different goals for these agents are shown. The 

website of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission states that there are dozens to hundreds of 

compounds that can be used in fracking. An even more worrisome mixture of agents is present in the 

flow back fluids which contain not only fracking compounds, but hydrocarbons associated with the 

natural gas plus dissolved minerals, brine constituents, and naturally occurring radioactive materials. 

(And the eventual disposal of these ever larger volumes of flowback water is still unclear). As a 

physician and a toxicologist, I am least worried about mixtures whose composition is reasonably 

predictable and whose effects have been well studied - just think of gasoline, or of coffee. Major 

advances in the toxicological understanding of mixtures in the past resulted from studies by NIEHS, 

ATSDR and EPA, that were funded due to public concern about mixtures of hazardous wastes at 

Superfund sites - and the number of hydraulic fracturing sites is now beginning to rival the number of 

Superfund sites. I urge congress to update these mixture studies by providing funding to apply modern 

toxicological advances to the chemical mixtures that are being used in, or result from, hydraulic 

fracturing. 

There are many other health issues - too many to discuss in a brief time. There are legitimate concerns 

about air pollution levels, particularly during the intense fracking period when neighbors often perceive 

noxious odors. Ozone formation occurring many miles downwind is a possibility. The aggregate 

releases of ozone precursors from multiple wells may tip areas into non-attainment with the ozone 

standard - which is particularly ironic as the federally-required response to non-attainment may include 

limiting the industrial development that is perceived to be the benefit of shale gas drilling. 

4 
59 

An additional reason for public concern is the mixed performance of industries engaged in 

unconventional natural gas drilling. The next slide in my handout is taken from the fractracker web site 

(www.fractracker.org). It shows the distribution of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection violations for companies that have at least ten well starts. The names of the companies are 

on the web site. I have left them out ofthis presentation so as not to lose sight ofthe important issuewhich is the wide range of performance of the different companies. To protect the public we need to 

better understand what factors are driving this wide disparity in performance and to ensure that best 

practices are enforced across the entire industry. Parenthetically, if the drilling industry wants to be 

judged as caring about the environmental and public health consequences of its activities, a good test 

will be whether it supports, or stonewalls, EPA's forthcoming delineation of best practices. 

My third point concerns the current shortsighted and counterproductive lack of almost any support for 

research directly related to the health effects of unconventional gas drilling. It begins with the apparent 

failure of government to even want to hear from the expert environmental public health community. 

That is a strong statement, but it is backed up by our attached peer-reviewed analysis, accepted for 

publication in Environmental Health Perspectives, of the membership of three advisory committees 

established in the past year: by President Obama in his Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future; and by the 

Governors of Pennsylvania and Maryland. Of the 52 members of these three commissions we could 

identify none with any background in any health field. There are no physicians, nurses, pharmacists, 

public health practitioners, toxicologists or professional risk assessors. Similarly, neither state included 

its Department of Health among the total of eight state agencies from whom members were drawn in 

the two state advisory processes; and the Department of Health and Human Services was not among 

the three federal agencies specified to be involved in the ongoing federal effort. While health concerns 

were certainly prominent in the executive orders establishing these three advisory committees, and the 

two that have reported so far do have health recommendations, it is not surprising that research on 

public health issues is far behind where it needs to be. EPA, the subject of your hearings, has focused 

primarily on hydrogeological issues but commendably has begun to look at identifying the health and 

environmental hazards of the fracking compounds. Understanding exposure pathways for humans is 

important, but is not accomplished by looking at just one potential pathway of exposure, such as is 

being evaluated in the Pavilion study. Understanding exposure pathways so as to predict 

environmental and public health effects requires a broad evaluation of all activities, not only at the site, 

but including such issues as the impact of trucking and the disposition of the contaminated flowback 

fluid. Worker health and safety is also important. The whole panoply of exposure assessment 

technologies needs to be employed, including the study of air, water and soil, and of biological markers 

of exposure and effect in ecosystems and in humans. Further, studies of exposure and of effect require 

listening to the community. An initial attempt at a broad health impact assessment in Colorado was 

aborted by lack of ongoing support. Governor Corbett of Pennsylvania has indicated his support of 

funding the state Department of Health to begin health-related studies, and I hope this will occur. 

Ignoring the public health implications of unconventional natural gas extraction is not going to work. 

This is not a one-time event in a single location whose health effects could be hidden by Simply not 

looking for them. Let us not, five or ten years from now, find conclusive evidence that we are hurting 

5 
60 

people or the environment. Such an impact, and the cost of the necessary but belated response, would 

severely detract from the promise to our nation of unconventional shale gas drilling. 

I believe that in the coming decades we will extract the natural gas in the Marcellus shale and in other 

accessible shale beds in the United States. It is in the best interests of the nation to invest in 

understanding the potential adverse human health consequences of this activity. The most costeffective time, and in fact the only cost-effective time, to make this investment is now rather than to 

wait until the inevitable clamor for such research when diseases begin to appear that are associated 

with natural gas drilling activities. Determining if such an association is truly causal or occurs solely by 

chance is always far more difficult to do in retrospect, particularly in the setting of media publicity, fear 

for the health of one's family, the inevitable litigation, and lost property values. We need a longer term 

view of how to most optimally and sustainably develop these resources. 

, can summarize my testimony as stating that there are three virtual certainties. 

1) The complex and evolving process of unconventional gas drilling will lead to unwanted 

surprises; 

2) industry, given time and rigorous oversight, will do a better job of recycling the fracking 

chemicals, which they buy, and decreasing the release of hydrocarbons, which they sell; and, 

3) Adverse health effects will be statistically associated with unconventional gas development 

activities 

Finally, what is the rush. The National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore 

Drilling called for careful renewal of deepwater drilling in part because it is in our national interest to 

get this oil before the Cubans or the Venezuelans or the Chinese do so. But unless the Canadians can 

horizontally drill under Lake Erie to get to the Marcellus shale, that gas is not going to anyone but us. 

Thank you for your attention. 'welcome your questions. 

6 
61 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, Doctor, and I sympathize with you because, you know, as an academician, whenever 

I would give a talk, I always gave it from slides. So then I get into 

the legislature and find you don’t do that anymore. Thank you very 

much for your presentation. 

Now we will begin, reminding Members that Committee rules 

limit questioning to five minutes. The Chair at this point will open 

the round of questions and I recognize myself for the first five minutes. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Martin, for being here. I understand 

Dr. Anastas couldn’t, so I appreciate you being here. I want to ask 

you, though, and just confirm for me a couple of just facts. First 

of all, is the only chemical that was found in those wells that was 

above drinking water standards for a public well was benzene. Is 

that correct? In the two monitoring wells, the two deep monitoring 

wells. 

Mr. MARTIN. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but could you repeat 

your question? 

Chairman HARRIS. Sure. What substances were found at concentrations above the drinking water levels that are accepted for 

public water supplies? 

Mr. MARTIN. Benzene was the most notable example of what 

we—— 

Chairman HARRIS. Which other ones? Could you list them? 

Mr. MARTIN. That is the only one, I believe. 

Chairman HARRIS. The only one. Okay. So it was the only one. 

And it is true, it was only found in one of the two monitoring wells. 

Isn’t that right? 

Mr. MARTIN. No, I don’t believe that is correct. 

Chairman HARRIS. I suggest you look at your draft report, which 

suggests that monitoring well #1 did not have measurable amounts 

and monitoring well #2 had them. 

Mr. MARTIN. I don’t have the report in front of me, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HARRIS. Well, I do. I suggest you also check, you had 

two measurements separated by six months. Is that correct? 

Mr. MARTIN. Yes. 

Chairman HARRIS. And isn’t it true that the benzene level was 

one-half the original reported amount when you went in the second 

sampling in well #2? 

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, you have the data before you; I 

don’t. 

Chairman HARRIS. Well, this is your report. You signed on to 

this—you approved this press release, didn’t you? 

Mr. MARTIN. I don’t know to what—— 

Chairman HARRIS. This is the press release from October 8th— 

I am sorry—from December 8th releasing the draft study, the company that released the draft study. You have read the report. I 

think you have read the report. 

Mr. MARTIN. Multiple times, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HARRIS. Very good. Well, I suggest you look at that 

table—so what we have done here is, we have said that we only 

have one contaminant. It was only found in one well, and oh, by 

the way, there is a twofold difference in the concentration in that 
62 

well and it fell from the time of the first measurement to the time 

of the second measurement. Is it true, because there has been testimony in front of this Committee, there have been 1.2 million applications of hydro fracturing in the United States and there still has 

not been a documented contamination of drinking water above the 

levels acceptable for a public system. Is that correct? There still is 

no documented case? 

Mr. MARTIN. That is information to which I can’t testify, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Chairman HARRIS. Okay. So you certainly can’t refute the testimony in front of this Committee previously on that? 

Mr. MARTIN. I can’t. 

Chairman HARRIS. I know why you can’t because there still isn’t, 

and although the EPA might want to suggest that in this press release, I think that it may not be true. 

Now, you state in your testimony that ‘‘Our analysis is limited 

to the particular geologic conditions in the Pavillion gas field and 

should not be assumed to apply to fracturing in other geological 

settings.’’ Now, that is an extension of what you actually had in the 

press release because the press release didn’t actually say and oh, 

by the way, don’t extrapolate this, don’t apply this to fracturing in 

other settings, and you also went on to say in testimony that these 

wells had ‘‘production conditions different from those in many other 

parts of the country.’’ And having read the report, and having the 

testimony of a geologist, of someone with expert in the local geology, I can understand that. But I want to be clear. Regardless of 

what the peer review process determines about this report’s findings and validities and all the rest, does the EPA think that the 

results of this investigation can be reasonably extrapolated to modern hydraulic fracturing being used, for example, in the Marcellus 

shale, which of course runs through my state? 

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, the circumstances, the conditions, 

the geologic conditions that exist with the Marcellus shale are significantly different. In the Pavillion case, we were looking at production that occurred in an underground source of drinking water, 

an aquifer, at depths as shallow as 1,200 feet where the most—the 

deepest domestic drinking water well was 800 feet. I believe in the 

Marcellus shale, you are looking at production occurring from 5,000 

feet below ground, so they are very different. 

Chairman HARRIS. So you believe that these results really can’t 

be reasonably extrapolated to the Marcellus shale? 

Mr. MARTIN. We have not proposed to do anything of that sort, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HARRIS. Good. In light of that clarification, I want to 

give you an opportunity to comment on recent statements regarding the conclusion of EPA’s draft report. After the issuance of 

EPA’s Pavillion draft report, the Governor of Delaware said that 

this report validates his plans to veto gas drilling in the four-state 

Delaware basin. Was the Governor wrong to extrapolate your results to the Delaware River basin? 

Mr. MARTIN. I have never met the Governor. I don’t know him 

and I don’t know the circumstances or the context and I am not 

about to tell him he was right or wrong, Mr. Chairman. 
63 

Chairman HARRIS. Well, I am just going to ask you based on 

your knowledge of the potential uniqueness of the geology in 

Pavillion, Wyoming, is it your impression that maybe the Governor 

should have thought a little longer about that or maybe looked into 

a little different or actually taken into account the geology of the 

Delaware River basin before coming to that conclusion? Because it 

sounds like that’s what the EPA suggests, that you have to take 

local geology into account. 

Mr. MARTIN. I am not in a position, Mr. Chairman, to criticize 

any governor. 

Chairman HARRIS. Well, your former colleagues at the Environmental Defense Fund called the draft Pavillion report a ‘‘wakeup 

call on the need for stronger regulation nationally on hydraulic 

fracturing.’’ Now, are your former associates wrong to interpret the 

results in this way, broadly extrapolated to hydraulic fracturing 

anywhere in any geologic formation? 

Mr. MARTIN. I haven’t talked with them, Mr. Chairman. I 

haven’t seen their comments in context. I am not in a position to 

criticize anyone here other than to give you a better understanding 

of what we did at the Pavillion site. 

Chairman HARRIS. Has your office had any communication with 

them at all? 

Mr. MARTIN. Sir, there are 800 people in my office. I can’t speak 

to whether anyone had had any—— 

Chairman HARRIS. Would the FOIA request that has been made 

regarding this information, would that be part of that FOIA request? Because the FOIA request is solicited email responses. 

Would we find that information out there if you are unable to say 

whether you have had any communication with them? 

Mr. MARTIN. I can tell you definitively, I have not. 

Chairman HARRIS. By any means? 

Mr. MARTIN. Not about this particular—— 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Martin, you said, or Dr. Harris asked if it was true that benzene was the only chemical that was above acceptable levels. Is 

benzene a known carcinogen? It is, is it not? 

Mr. MARTIN. It is, Congressman. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. And I think in your testimony earlier you 

said that it was at 50 times the acceptable level? 

Mr. MILLER. I did. 

Mr. MILLER. So if it fell to half what it was earlier, it was still 

25 times acceptable level. Is that correct? 

Mr. MARTIN. I believe your math would be correct, sir. 

Mr. MILLER. All right. Ms. Sgamma, from your biography, the biographical information provided to the Committee, your title is 

Vice President of Government and Public Affairs. That sounds like 

the title given to a lobbyist. Is that correct? 

Ms. SGAMMA. That is my title, yes. 

Mr. MILLER. All right. In looking at your educational background 

and your experience, it appears to be in information technology, 

computer stuff. The federal regs have a list of the scientific fields 

that are considered experts for purposes of hydraulic fracturing. IT 
64 

is not one of them, and it appears that you have no background in 

geology or toxicology or hydrology or public health or anything else 

that is one of the fields of expertise that are touched by hydraulic 

fracturing. Is that correct? 

Ms. SGAMMA. I am not applying to be on the peer review of any 

of this report but I do—I am informed by my members, who do indeed possess those degrees and that expertise. 

Mr. MILLER. All right. Of course, they are not here to answer 

questions. 

Mr. Martin, we have heard that the contamination could have 

been caused by something else, by pesticides, by septic systems, by 

fuel stations, leahing underground storage tanks and that those 

were not considered. Did the EPA in fact consider and test for 

those other explanations? 

Mr. MARTIN. Congressman, we did. In fact, we designed the first 

two rounds of testing to look very broadly at a wide range of contaminants that might be present. We have been able to rule out 

pesticides and other potential sources including nitrates from agriculture or from dysfunctional septic systems. We have looked hard 

for a set of sources. We eliminated none going in. We have eliminated several in the process. 

Mr. MILLER. All right. There has been some subject—some—well, 

Dr. Goldstein in his testimony said part of the public’s concern is 

the lack of disclosure of what the chemicals going into the ground 

are. I understand from Mr. Doll—Dole? 

Mr. DOLL. Doll. 

Mr. MILLER. Doll, that they are now disclosing going forward but 

how would it be helpful to you—and I am not sure how further that 

disclosure is—but how would it be helpful to the EPA or anyone 

else studying groundwater contamination to know what chemicals 

were being used in fracking? Would it be helpful? Mr. Martin? 

Mr. MARTIN. Congressman, I believe it would be very helpful. We 

have actually been able to get from the company that operates this 

field MSDS sheets for some of the materials used in fracking, and 

that has been tremendously helpful. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. Well, how—you have been—ironically, you 

have been criticized by the Members of this Committee for a lack 

of transparency, but how would the transparency of EPA’s work be 

compared to the transparency of the company doing the drilling, 

Encana, as well as the State of Wyoming? 

Mr. MARTIN. Congressman, we have worked closely and well with 

Encana on a number of issues but we are still awaiting responses 

to a number of questions we propounded to them including the results of the split sampling that they took during several phases of 

this investigation. 

Mr. MILLER. Dr. Goldstein, I understand that a conference recently of medical experts recently urged that the rapid expansion 

of fracking for natural gas be, the term was paused, so that there 

could be research to determine the potential harmful effects on 

human health. Dr. Goldstein, it appears that you do have both the 

disinterest and the expertise to qualify as an expert in this area. 

What do you think of the idea of pausing, at least slowing the expansion, which may happen anyway for economic reasons or appears to be happening, anyway, for economic reasons, but pausing 
65 

the expansion of fracking so that the scientific community can assess the risk of the technology? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I strongly support that, sir. The issue to me is 

if we have in Pennsylvania 20 years of Marcellus shale gas, we are 

going to get all of that gas. I see no alternative to the fact that we 

will drill all that gas. That is the only reasonable scenario. So what 

is the rush? It is not going anywhere. In the Gulf, our Deepwater 

Horizon commission said that we ought to be drilling in part because otherwise the Cubans or the Venezuelans or the Chinese 

might get that oil, but unless the Canadians can figure out how to 

frack underneath Lake Erie, that is staying with us and we are 

going to get it. We might as well optimize how we get it in such 

a way that we don’t interfere with public health or the environment. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, my time is expired, and I know how 

persnickety this Subcommittee is about the rules. 

Chairman HARRIS. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Miller. We 

like to play by the rules. That is what we do. 

The chair now recognizes the chairman of the Committee, Mr. 

Hall, for five minutes. 

Chairman HALL. I have a question for Mr. Doll. On January 19, 

2012, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson sent a letter to Governor 

Mead responding to his concern about the amount of sampling conducted during the course of his investigation. Are you aware of 

that? 

Mr. DOLL. Yes, sir, I am. 

Chairman HALL. And in it, Administrator Jackson states ‘‘We 

have conducted four phases of sampling, each of which was designed in consultation with the state.’’ Is that correct? 

Mr. DOLL. Sir, that is what she states in her letter, yes. 

Chairman HALL. Did this consultation take place? You have not 

been transparent so far as I have listened to you here today. Can 

you give me an answer to that? 

Mr. DOLL. Are you asking me the question, sir? 

Chairman HALL. No, I am talking now to Mr. Martin. 

Mr. MARTIN. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. We consulted with a 

number of parties and certainly including the state at each phase 

of this process including the development of sampling plans for the 

first two phases, the design of the well, the monitoring wells that 

were constructed in the summer of 2010. 

Chairman HALL. I will get back to Mr. Doll. Did this consultation 

take place? 

Mr. DOLL. The way I understand it, sir, from the Department of 

Environmental Quality, they were involved in the initial sampling 

that occurred in the 2008 time frame. 

Chairman HALL. What do you mean, involved in? 

Mr. DOLL. They were notified and were aware that the sampling 

events were going to occur in 2009 and 2010. They were also informed at the time because it wasn’t with my agency the speculation that I can address only as speculation is that they were informed that the monitoring wells were going to be drilled about the 

time that the drilling rig was moving to the site. 

Chairman HALL. How involved was the state in the development 

of sampling and monitoring those plans? 
66 

Mr. DOLL. I am not aware that we were involved at all, sir. 

Chairman HALL. What would you have recommended to EPA if 

you had been consulted? You were not consulted, were you? 

Mr. DOLL. No, sir, we were not. The Oil and Gas Conservation 

Commission was not. 

Chairman HALL. Even though they contend that they were and 

they have so testified under oath that they were? 

Mr. DOLL. They may have contacted by email the head of the Department of Environmental Quality but not the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. 

Chairman HALL. Well, they might have sent them an email. That 

is not consulting, that is their own arrogant approach to it. I think 

they just sent them an email. They didn’t consult with them. You 

are not testifying that they consulted with them, are you? 

Mr. DOLL. No, sir, I am not. 

Chairman HALL. Then since the states are responsible for regulating drilling protocols, did EPA apply for a permit or submit a 

drilling plan to the State of Wyoming so far as you know? 

Mr. DOLL. Not as far as I know, sir. 

Chairman HALL. Okay. Do you have any idea, Mr. Martin, why 

would the EPA Administrator claim that her agency consulted with 

the state on designing a sampling plan if it had not occurred? 

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Doll and I—— 

Chairman HALL. You haven’t known when they asked you other 

questions about that. 

Mr. MARTIN. I am sorry, sir? 

Chairman HALL. You have not been able to testify. You wouldn’t 

cross the Governor or anybody if you had information in front of 

you. 

Mr. MARTIN. I think—— 

Chairman HALL. You are under oath now. You know that, don’t 

you? 

Mr. MARTIN. I am, Mr. Chairman. I guess I am. I believe we conducted significantly greater consultation than Mr. Doll might be 

aware of. Early in the process, the Department of Environmental 

Quality for the State of Wyoming was designated as the lead agency for the State of Wyoming as part of this process. We consulted 

with them. We actually consulted with Encana in designing the 

monitoring wells that were constructed in 2010. We have significantly greater consultation with the state than perhaps Mr. Doll is 

aware of. 

Chairman HALL. I understood that EPA will be selecting a panel 

of outside peer reviewers to take a look at its work. Mr. Martin, 

can you assure me that at least one person recommended by the 

State of Wyoming will be named to this peer review panel? 

Mr. MARTIN. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the Administrator has 

told the Governor that she expects that there will be at least one 

expert who meets all of the other qualifications for membership in 

an external peer review process, that there will be at least one person from Wyoming on the peer review panel. 

Chairman HALL. The Pavillion case that we are examining today 

reflects a troubling effect by EPA to build a case for regulating and 

even shutting down unconventional oil and gas production around 

the country and they are doing that all over the country, even out 
67 

in Wyoming, and the EPA has it handed to them time after time 

by this Committee. I am sorry to say the liberal press hasn’t printed it properly but they always say they need more investigation. 

But we have had people who have had years and years of experience and been here under oath that have testified there is not any 

way in the world that fracking could have affected the drinking 

water in the examples that were given to them. Do you understand 

that? 

Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir. Is it a question or—— 

Chairman HALL. It is important to recognize what EPA is doing 

in Wyoming is not isolated. They are going after fracking everywhere they can. I guess that is what I am trying to tell you, that 

they have been through most of the jurisdictions here and have absolutely had no proof, nothing testified under oath that would 

imply that fracking had damaged drinking water, not that I know 

of. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. 

Chairman HALL. I would like to—let me enter in two documents 

into the record that raise questions about EPA’s commitment to 

getting the science right on hydraulic fracturing. 

Chairman HARRIS. Without objection. 

[The information appears in Appendix II:] 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I recognize the gentleman from New York, Mr. Tonko. 

Mr. TONKO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Doll, in reviewing your testimony, there at least appear to 

me to be some inconsistencies so that I would ask that perhaps you 

would clarify some points for me if you could, please. I will run 

through a few of these and then would like your comment. You indicate that the residents of Pavillion brought their concerns about 

water quality to the state in 2005, on page two of your testimony, 

and the state’s investigation showed no impact from oil and gas development. But the drilling company entered into a voluntary remediation program in 2008 with the state, and I quote ‘‘because hydrocarbon impacts were discovered in groundwater.’’ That is from 

section 2.2 of public participation plan of Pavillion, Wyoming, dated 

April 2008. This conclusion apparently was based on a study done 

by Wyoming’s Department of Environmental Quality. So could you 

reconcile that for me? 

Mr. DOLL. Yes, sir, I will. The work that was done in Pavillion 

by the Department of Environmental Quality goes back even before 

2005. These are old—this is an old oil and gas field area. There 

were some pits that were identified and cleaned up and further 

testing was done in that 2005 to 2008 time frame, and I believe 

that was why those pits were identified and put into the voluntary 

remediation program. There were over 60 pits reviewed, and then 

several, I think three or four, I am not sure, because that is the 

Department of Environmental Quality, but I think three or four 

were put into this voluntary remediation program. We have a 

group of individuals that are involved in a working group looking 

at these pits and sites that were identified by landowners as concern, and reviewed that data again and found one other area that 

upon testing found that needed to be added to the voluntary remediation program. So that is hydrocarbons that were probably 
68 

hauled in. This gas that is being produced in the Wind River formation is a dry gas with very little liquids associated with it in 

terms of water or any kind of petroleum hydrocarbon. 

Mr. TONKO. And on page 5 of your testimony, you state that 

other possible sources of groundwater contamination remain unstudied. But notes from the April 2011 meeting indicate that they 

were researched by the pits working group which stated other potential sources including Greg Oberley of EPA said a records 

search into septic systems, dumps, oil and chemical storage sites is 

a work in process. And that Kathy Brown of DEQ reported that a 

DEQ database search did not identify any potential sources but she 

will need to do a paper records search to confirm. John Fenton said 

he needed more time to research county records and work with 

county planning to identify potential sources, there again from the 

meeting notes of April 11 from the pits working group under item 

#3. 

Mr. DOLL. Congressman, you are absolutely correct. Those are 

continuing to be a work in progress. These are part of the working 

groups that have been meeting. We met four times in 2011. None 

of this has been addressed in the draft report on Pavillion. It is a 

work in process, groups independent of the EPA’s efforts on these 

two monitoring wells and what is put into that draft report. 

Mr. TONKO. So are they unstudied or—— 

Mr. DOLL. They are—well, there are no conclusions drawn. The 

study data has not been accumulated that I am aware of, so it is 

a work in process. So if I misspoke, it was only because the working group, it is a work in progress. 

Mr. TONKO. I appreciate that. I also observed that several of the 

statements in your testimony suggest that you do not believe the 

residents’ wells are contaminated, that all substances are from natural sources. If so, why has the state offered five alternative methods for supplying water that you refer to in your testimony? 

Mr. DOLL. The—sir, the five methods that were studied, that 

study was done by the Wyoming Department of Water Development, and the Wyoming Water Development Commission—excuse 

me—put out a report in September of 2011 stating that there were 

five potential solutions for those landowners for water. It did not 

address cause or that there was a requirement for that. They were 

tasked by the previous Governor, Governor Freudenthal, to do that 

study and that is what that is referring to in my written testimony. 

Mr. TONKO. So then are you suggesting there is no well water 

contamination? 

Mr. DOLL. What I am suggesting, sir, is that that report is out 

there and that there is an effort by the current Governor, Governor 

Mead, and state agencies to make sure that these people have 

clean drinking water. That may be a source. They will probably 

have to form a rural water district to be able to do that but that 

is something that the landowners themselves must initiate, not the 

State. 

Mr. TONKO. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that we put the documents that I referenced into the record, please. 

Chairman HARRIS. Without objection. 

[The information appears in Appendix II:] 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much. 
69 

I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. McNerney, for 

five minutes. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding 

this hearing. I want to thank the witnesses for coming forward 

today. This is a contentious issue. 

In my mind, there is two potential problems with hydraulic fracturing. One is the actual contamination, and the other is the public 

perception of health risks from possible contamination. They are 

not unrelated, but they are separate in a sense, and in my mind, 

the Environmental Protection Agency’s involvement and test program will help address both of those problems. It will help make 

sure that—it will help identify contaminations and sources of contaminations, and it will help us put procedures in place to make 

sure that there are standards on the cement and casings to prevent 

contamination, which is a serious issue, but also help satisfy the 

public in terms of openness and transparency, that they are satisfied that the tests are being done and that everybody has access 

to the data. So what the EPA is doing in terms of doing the tests, 

releasing the data and now they are going to go through the peer 

review process, this is all part of what has to happen in order to 

satisfy the public, in my opinion. 

So Mr. Martin, we have heard a lot about hydraulic fracturing 

in the last several months including potential contamination from 

waste disposal and storage and inadequate cement outside the production casing. Can you briefly discuss the EPA’s draft findings 

pertaining to the cement outside of the casings of some of the 

wells? In other words, what have you found about well integrity 

with regard to cement in casing? 

Mr. MARTIN. Well, Congressman, what we found was that most 

of the production wells did not have surface casing that went below 

the depth of the deepest domestic drinking water well in the underground source of drinking water, the aquifer. We found weak or absent cement in many of the wells at depth, and that was one of the 

reasons we hypothesized that a potential pathway for vertical migration of the materials that we found at the deeper levels of the 

aquifer. It is a potential pathway. We posited several potential 

pathways. We were unable to identify any one as the most likely 

or the pathway. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Okay. Good. If you look at the theory, it is good. 

They have these casings in cement and it is all sealed, but if there 

is integrity problems with the cement, then the whole thing goes 

out the window, and we need to make sure that there are procedure and standards in place to prevent that. We need the gas and 

everybody wants to get to it. We just need to make sure that it is 

done properly. In my opinion, your involvement with the EPA is 

going to help us get there. 

Mr. Goldstein, I understand you have concerns such as problems 

with inadequate cement. Can you discuss this as well, please? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Yes. It goes back to what the public is hearing. 

The public is hearing that there is no problem with hydraulic fracturing, none gets to the surface, and at the same token, they are 

reading in the newspaper how a company has been fined a million 

dollars and communities on drinking water because a cement casing blew. Well, it is all assumed to be hydro fracking. The fact that 
70 

it is a cement casing or the fact that there were drums on the surface about to be put underground and a truck backed into it and 

released the contents of the drums, these were all fracking fluid. 

They were all groundwater contamination from hydro fracking in 

the broader sense of the term. It is occurring. We are reading about 

it. So we can’t ignore that this is going to happen. And as I showed 

you, some of the companies are, at least in terms of Pennsylvania’s 

Department of Environmental Protection not following the rules 

very closely. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Well, what should we do in your opinion to 

make this as safe a procedure as possible? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I basically believe that we will know better 

whether industry, which is trying, I think, in many cases, as we 

have heard, very hard to do the best they can. We will know how 

serious they are in a few months when EPA comes out with its 

draft best control technology, and will industry support that, work 

to get the best control technology or will they stonewall these rules 

because they don’t like the rules? That to me will be the test of how 

industry really responds. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Is the Pavillion activity by the EPA, is that 

going to be beneficial in terms of us getting there, in terms of understanding what the potential problems are? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Well, I hope so. I go back to the time I was Assistant Administrator at EPA, a contentious time under President 

Reagan. There are two types of studies we do. Some fit very well 

into what Chairman Harris described as a superb scientific study 

initiated by EPA. Some are more responsive. They are more public 

health-oriented studies in that you are responding to the public. 

You haven’t designed how they put those wells down and what has 

been released. It is not a matter of putting a well down and every 

500 foot releasing a tracer and see if it came up in a randomized 

approach. This is a matter of being responsive, and as I read this 

report, I think it has got all the hedges and all the appropriate responses, and I would like to see what happens with the peer review. I hope it is a good peer review that they use. 

Mr. MCNERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, and we will have one 

other round of questions. I am going to again apologize to the witnesses for keeping you past noon, but this is such an important 

hearing. 

Mr. Doll, in your testimony you note that ‘‘the draft report provides no data to show how these two EPA monitoring wells represent any water supply wells used by anyone in the Pavillion natural gas field.’’ In your view, do the findings of the deep monitoring 

wells relate to drinking water issues cited by the complainants? 

Mr. DOLL. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the report defines 

that or defends that properly. The actual information that we have 

seen from the data tells us that this gas and water that is found 

in these two monitoring wells is different than the gas and water 

that is found in the shallow drinking water aquifer. It is all the 

same formation. There is no barrier between the source rock at 

great depth and the formation that produces natural gas and 

serves as the aquifer. 
71 

Chairman HARRIS. So you don’t believe that those 622 pages released last night are going to change your opinion? I guess we have 

to wait to see what was released. 

Mr. DOLL. I would hate to speculate on what would be their—— 

Chairman HARRIS. Sure, and I am going to apologize for the Federal Government for taking so long to release that. 

Mr. Martin, Interior Secretary Salazar has been quoted as saying 

‘‘The jury is still out’’ on the validity of the Pavillion study. Similarly, experts in the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management viewed 

the draft report and communicated a number of concerns with the 

conclusions of the EPA the week before it was released to the state. 

Specifically, BLM’s comments, they ‘‘questioned the statistical validity of the two EPA monitoring well locations,’’ highlighted that 

there is ‘‘a serious lack of data if one is going to arrive at a specific 

source for the observed contamination’’, third, raised ‘‘concern over 

the well development process’’ and said that ‘‘arriving at conclusions at this stage is hasty, in my opinion’’ and finally BLM concluded that ‘‘the nature and extent of the contamination possible 

pathways and site conceptual models are not yet understood to the 

degree at which I would be comfortable assigning the source to 

anything including hydraulic fracturing.’’ Why do you think that 

the experts, that your experts are right and BLM’s are wrong? And 

have you discussed this at all with the Department of the Interior? 

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, we had a series of meetings with 

both BLM and BIA as well as with the state and with Encana including one working group meeting with all of the stakeholders as 

well as certainly including the Bureau of Land Management. We 

are going to conduct an exhaustive, thorough peer review process. 

We are going to evaluate comments like that, which I have not 

seen, to be honest, and we are going to abide by the results of that 

peer review process. 

Chairman HARRIS. Well, thank you. Let me ask a question. Ms. 

Sgamma’s testimony, or I guess it is not the testimony but it is the 

critical review of the draft report prepared for the American Petroleum Institute, so it is not that witness’s. It says ‘‘The EPA draft 

report jumps to the conclusion that hydraulic fracturing fluids are 

the source of many of the compounds found in the water samples 

from their two deep monitoring wells and that those materials have 

migrated to shallow or ground water.’’ Is that a fair representation 

of the conclusion of the study, that hydraulic fracturing fluids are 

the sources of many of the compounds found in the water samples? 

Mr. MARTIN. I believe we said that it is likely the source. 

Chairman HARRIS. Really? On page 33 and 39 are the two places 

in the report, and you have already testified you have read the report and you know, I would point to you the page that had the 

other figures, but let us talk about page 33 and 39 because that 

is where the conclusions are listed, and the word ‘‘likely’’ is only 

used in one place, and it is only used to say that gas production 

activities have likely enhanced the gas migration. That is the only 

place ‘‘likely’’ is used. The other two places—and Dr. Goldstein 

would appreciate this. It says that the data best supports. Now, in 

medicine, if you have 10 differential diagnoses but one really isn’t 

likely, what you say is well, you know, the data best supports this 

one but there are these other nine ones, and then you would say, 
72 

well, do I treat that because it is not likely, it is best supported if 

that treatment would make the other ones worse or result in the 

death of a patient if you misdiagnosed. Can you describe what the 

difference is between best supports and likely, because the press 

release—and see, the whole purpose of this hearing is to say look, 

you are jumping the gun. The press release says ‘‘likely’’ but the 

draft report actually doesn’t say ‘‘likely’’ about the migration of hydraulic fluid contamination. Could you address that? That is very 

important because that is the crux here because the press report 

said ‘‘likely.’’ The EPA concluded that it is likely that hydraulic 

fluids were the contamination, the source of contamination, but 

that is not what the draft report says to my reading. Why is my 

interpretation wrong? 

Mr. MARTIN. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think I would say that we 

looked at a wide range of hypotheses including some that we have 

been able to discount based on the results that we have encountered in our research that all of the materials that we found at 

depth including the synthetic organic compounds, and there is a 

range of them, broader than what Mr. Doll referred to, to the fact 

that there are breakdown products of some of the materials that 

we found there. There is benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene and xylene, very, very high alkalinity levels that we found, the absence 

of strong buffers, the fact that potassium hydroxide was used as a 

cross linker and a solvent and aluminum chloride was used, things 

that account for the presence of both high potassium and chloride 

levels as well as the very high alkalinity, the caustic level of alkalinity. There is a number of different—— 

Chairman HARRIS. Sure, I understand all that, but I assume a 

scientist wrote this report. 

Mr. MARTIN. Absolutely, sir. 

Chairman HARRIS. So why didn’t they use the word ‘‘likely’’ with 

regards to hydraulic fracturing fluids? They didn’t use the word 

‘‘likely.’’ You used the word ‘‘likely’’ in your testimony and your 

press office used the word ‘‘likely’’ in the press release. But the scientists didn’t. They said ‘‘best supports,’’ and I am going to use the 

exact words ‘‘best fitting and best supports.’’ Now, I have written 

many scientific papers, and when my P value wasn’t high enough, 

this is what I used. When I couldn’t say it is likely or—and likely, 

of course, we all know, you an attorney by training, I understand, 

that is just more likely than not. That is the 51 percent test. It is 

not a P value of less than .05, it is not 95 percent likely, it is just 

likely. But the report, the scientists in the report didn’t even use 

the word ‘‘likely.’’ Why did you choose to use the word ‘‘likely’’ in 

your testimony? You agreed with the conclusion that it was likely 

the source, and the press release used the word ‘‘likely.’’ Why? 

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, I guess I believe that those are 

equivalent, that we haven’t—we have said a number of times that 

we haven’t—— 

Chairman HARRIS. Mr. Martin, I will—and I accept your answer 

but I will tell you, there is a world of difference between ‘‘best supports’’ and ‘‘likely.’’ As an attorney, you ought to understand that. 

Because my understanding is, the word ‘‘likely’’ has a very specific 

meaning in a court of law. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. Miller. 
73 

Mr. MILLER. Dr. Goldstein, you are on a panel with a lawyer and 

a lobbyist, and you seemed to be twitching at this last line of questions and answers. Do you have anything to—do you have an opinion about the questions that Mr. Martin has been fielding? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Quite clearly, the word ‘‘likely’’ is a problem. It 

always has been a problem. I think ‘‘likely’’ can be used in a situation where there is far less than 50 percent. I am sure you use it 

in that way. I don’t know why—it doesn’t sound any real different 

to me is what I am hearing. Likely, best supports, they are just 

sort of different ways of sort of saying the same thing. Now, they 

could be interpreted in different ways quite clearly, and as I say, 

I read through the draft report having read some of the press accounts of it, and I thought again as a former Assistant Administrator that it was appropriately hedged based upon not really having the data. 

By the way, I would say that this Pavillion report, well, it doesn’t 

have the data because as it says over and over again, this would 

be really a simple thing to do if there had been baseline studies. 

If you don’t have baseline studies, you are responding to what is 

public. You can’t conceivably have a perfect randomized control 

trial. You are going to have some degree of uncertainty. I think 

what this tells us is that those companies which are paying for 

water sampling of local community folks, local groundwater are 

doing the right thing and those who are not were just stirring up 

a lot of trouble for themselves because these kind of studies will 

come up again and they are going to be the ones who are going to 

be sued for basically contaminating water. 

Mr. MILLER. Dr. Goldstein, I know that faculty humor is kind of 

an acquired taste, but there is a joke that administrators hate having scientists on their panels, on their committees because when 

the information changes, they change their opinion and you never 

know where they stand. 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Senator Muskie said it very well. He wanted 

one-handed scientists so he wouldn’t on the one hand this and on 

the other hand that. 

Mr. MILLER. That was Harry Truman’s line about economists. 

Mr. Chairman, in my—in all the confusion of this hearing, I 

failed to move two documents into the record. The first is a report 

conducted in 2010 that is a survey of the health of residents of 

Pavillion. The participants again reported various health effects— 

headaches, sore throat, nausea, sinus problems and other illnesses 

that are known to be associated with the contaminants that the 

EPA found in the drinking water in 2009. 

And the second—and I believe both of these have been provided 

to the majority staff. The second is a letter to the Subcommittee 

from Pavillion Area Concerned Citizens, the Powder River Basin 

Resource Council, the Western Organization of Resource Councils. 

This also was provided to the Subcommittee with the perspectives 

of people who are actually affected by the contaminated groundwater, none of whom were invited to appear at this hearing today. 

It urges the Subcommittee to support the EPA’s draft report. 

Chairman HARRIS. Without objection. 

[The information appears in Appendix II:] 
74 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Doll, you said that you were doing the work of 

the citizens of that area but you don’t contend that the various 

folks who are members of these organizations, particularly the concerned citizens—what is the name of it again, the letter that I just 

introduced, the Pavillion Area Concerned Citizens. They are not 

outside agitators, right? They are not—they didn’t come in from 

Oakland or Greenwich Village just to request this review, right? 

They really live there in Pavillion and have right along. Isn’t that 

right? 

Mr. DOLL. I don’t know who the membership is, to be honest 

with you. I don’t know if it represents all of the landowners there 

or not. 

Mr. MILLER. Do you know John Benton? 

Mr. DOLL. John Fenton? 

Mr. MILLER. Fenton? 

Mr. DOLL. Yes, I do. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. Has he been right there in Pavillion right 

along? 

Mr. DOLL. I don’t know when he moved to Pavillion, no, sir, I do 

not. 

Mr. MILLER. He is not an honest-to-God Wyomian, or whatever 

the phrase is? 

Mr. DOLL. Wyomingite. I don’t know when he moved to Pavillion. 

It was after the gas wells were drilled is what I understand but 

I don’t know the date. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. Dr. Goldstein, your written testimony and 

your oral testimony, you said that the industry claims that hydraulic fracturing—the industry claims both hydraulic fracturing is an 

innovative new technology and don’t worry, it has been around for 

years, decades, no problems with it, and that there is some contradiction in that. Do you think that we have sufficient—or how 

would you state—how would you describe the state of the science 

on natural gas drilling and fracking, and do policymakers have 

enough information to make informed decisions to protect public 

health? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. It is easiest to answer the second question. No, 

I don’t think they do. I think that the idea that this has been 

around for so long and therefore don’t worry about it is simply inappropriate. This is equivalent to when you have got five million 

gallons versus 50,000 gallons of fluid with changing chemical structure. You know, it is equivalent to saying well, there is no difference between a two-ton bomb and a hand grenade because they 

are both explosives, and we know about explosives. This is a tremendous increase in technology. We have in front of us all the time 

the industry folks in their commercials saying there is a wonderful 

new technology we are bringing that is going to get this gas. That 

is great. It is a wonderful new technology but we have to be careful 

with it. 

Mr. MILLER. My time is expired, and I want to help the Committee abide by the rules. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Miller. 

I recognize the chairman of the Committee, Mr. Hall from Texas, 

for five minutes. 

Chairman HALL. Thank you. 
75 

Mr. Martin, what involvement did the EPA headquarters have 

with your study? 

Mr. MARTIN. The study, Mr. Chairman, was conducted by scientists within the Office of Research and Development and scientists at Region 8, which is the region that I run. We involve scientists from elsewhere in the agency on occasion including the regional laboratory out of Pennsylvania, I believe it is. They were the 

people who did the work and wrote the study—or wrote the report, 

rather, sir. 

Chairman HALL. Did the EPA people or who reviewed the study 

plan? 

Mr. MARTIN. The study plan? 

Chairman HALL. Yes. 

Mr. MARTIN. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, that 

was just the scientists working on the report. I certainly never saw 

the study plan. It would have been developed, the original one, 

under the last Administration. It would have been 2008, so some 

years ago. 

Chairman HALL. Did they review the protocols? 

Mr. MILLER. The protocols are standard and are in use throughout the agency, and I don’t believe anyone outside the scientists 

working on this report were involved in evaluating or identifying 

protocols, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. Did they approve of your media plan and your 

outreach to the media on a draft, a non-peer-reviewed report? 

Mr. MARTIN. I believe so, sir. 

Chairman HALL. Tell us exactly what oversight or involvement 

EPA headquarters had with the Region 8 on this report and the 

media release, if you can do that. 

Mr. MARTIN. Well, Mr. Chairman, we briefed the upper levels of 

management periodically as we were developing the report, as the 

scientists were developing the report, more precisely. We—I know 

the Administrator met with Encana and spoke with the Governor 

of Wyoming late in the process. We have worked closely with the 

agency including the folks to whom I report and making sure that 

we were releasing the report in the way in which we could—the 

way in which best comported with the scientific report, a draft scientific report to which we plan to seek expert peer review. I mean, 

it is a very long, winding story, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HALL. Well, I agree with you there. In light of the use 

of Superfund authority to conduct this investigation and the differing results that came from Region 8 and the Office of Research 

and Development, I am interested in the relationship with EPA 

headquarters in carrying out the report, what that relationship actually was. That is what I am trying to get to. 

Mr. MARTIN. Well, the Assistant Administrator, Mr. Anastas, 

who was unable to be here today, was certainly involved in assuring that we were applying the strongest science, the best science 

and applying all of the protocols that apply here. 

Chairman HALL. Let me ask you this. How much has the EPA 

currently spent on the investigation and what does it plan to spend 

in the future? 

Mr. MARTIN. The first part of your question, Mr. Chairman, is 

easier to answer. It is roughly $1.7 million. We are now about to 
76 

embark in a conversation with the State of Wyoming, the tribes, 

USGS and others about additional investigation at the site, and I 

don’t know what that will cost or who will pay for it. 

Chairman HALL. When will you know? 

Mr. MARTIN. We haven’t had our first meeting. We are hoping to 

do that soon so I am guessing relatively soon, sir. 

Chairman HALL. All right. I thank you, sir. 

Chairman HARRIS. Thank you very much, Chairman. 

We will have one more round of five minute questions. We will 

hold you a little bit longer because we need to get down to the very 

end of this and know what is going on. 

Mr. Doll, in the draft report, EPA found ‘‘a wide variety of organic chemicals’’ in its two monitoring wells, and I am sure that 

is the basis of the conclusion that Mr. Martin has testified to that, 

you know, these are hydraulic fracturing fluids, but could this be 

the result of EPA drilling its two monitoring wells into gas-producing zones? I mean, my understanding is, they actually had 

blowout preventers on top of these wells. They were supposed to be 

drilled, you know, into water aquifers, a little unusual. I have a 

well in my backyard. I don’t think I put a blowout preventer on it 

when it was drilled. Could some of the contamination, well, what 

is claimed to be contamination, be the result of EPA drilling its two 

monitoring wells into gas-producing zones? 

Mr. DOLL. Mr. Chairman, the experts from the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the Department of Environmental Quality 

and the Water Quality Office all believe that this is induced contamination due to the drilling and completion of these two wells. 

Chairman HARRIS. And is it true, I think I read in the report 

that actually there had been, I guess it is called a blowout or something, at a well in the area that was actually drilled for water, a 

relatively shallow well drilled for water. Is that correct? 

Mr. DOLL. That is correct. That happened—— 

Chairman HARRIS. A much shallower well than the EPA monitoring wells, because I think that well was only several hundred 

feet. 

Mr. DOLL. The well was—— 

Chairman HARRIS. The blowout well. 

Mr. DOLL. Yes. That particular well was permitted to be a shallow water supply well but was drilled beyond that permitted depth 

and hit into a zone where the fluid, the drilling fluids were actually 

evacuated from the well bore in a loss of fluid and then natural gas 

entered it. 

Chairman HARRIS. And at what depth was that? Do you recall? 

Mr. DOLL. I believe that was in that 900- to 1,000-foot range. 

Chairman HARRIS. So that was in the range of the EPA monitoring wells? 

Mr. DOLL. Yes. 

Chairman HARRIS. Okay. I think a landowner did that, right? 

Mr. DOLL. Yes, that is correct. 

Chairman HARRIS. So they weren’t doing a monitoring well, they 

were just trying to drill for water and found gas? 

Mr. DOLL. That well as permitted to be a water supply well, yes. 

Chairman HARRIS. So it not beyond the pale that the EPA drilled 

for water and found gas either at that depth? 
77 

Mr. DOLL. You should expect depth the deeper you go in this formation. 

Chairman HARRIS. That is what I thought. 

Mr. Martin, was EPA aware of this strong possibility and is that 

why the agency used blowout preventers when they drilled the 

wells? I mean, my understanding is, they add significant cost. Now, 

I understand that to the U.S. government, cost sometimes doesn’t 

mean a whole lot, but I assume the EPA had a reasonable reason 

to believe that they could have a blowout and that is why they 

spent, you know, the hard-earned taxpayer dollars to put a blowout 

preventer on top of this well. Is that correct? I mean, did the EPA 

assume that they in fact could be drilling into a gas strata—— 

Mr. MARTIN. Well, Mr. Chairman—— 

Chairman HARRIS. —gas containing? 

Mr. MARTIN. Sorry. 

Chairman HARRIS. Yeah. 

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, we knew that—I have forgotten the 

name of the individual who was drilling that well. We knew that 

he had experienced a blowout at about, I think it was 500-some 

feet, which was unusual. We had some anecdotal evidence we are 

continuing to investigate, but given the fact that a blowout occurred, yes, we installed blowout protectors on the two drill rigs 

that drilled both of our monitoring wells out of concern for the safety of the workers. 

Chairman HARRIS. A concern, but knowing that in fact you could 

be drilling into gas. Mr. Doll, let me address this question to you. 

You don’t have to have a blowout when you drill into a—because 

my understanding is that the shallower strata, the gas could be 

under much less pressure. I mean, you could have gas under much 

less pressure. 

Mr. MARTIN. That is correct, sir. 

Chairman HARRIS. So in fact, you could drill into it and not even 

know that you are drilling into a gas-containing substance because 

there is no blowout. I mean, it is not like a blowout preventer 

would show that there is a rise, you know, a spike in pressure, 

wow, we hit something that is high pressure. You could drill that 

well, conduct everything and you know, by golly, you actually have 

some natural gas in what you find in the bottom of that well. 

Mr. DOLL. Typically, the use of water or just native mud that is 

mixed from the cuttings as you drill will be enough to control any 

of the low pressure that would encounter until you see your surface 

casing. Then after you have cemented it back to surface, you would 

put on your blowout preventer and drill deeper and that is required 

if you are drilling a gas well to depths close to 3,000 feet into the 

natural gas zone. 

Chairman HARRIS. Right. 

Mr. Martin, exactly why did you choose that deep? What was the 

rationale behind it, the monitoring wells, the depth? Why did you 

choose specifically to drill into a depth where you know or I guess 

if you communicated with the U.S. Geological Survey, you would 

know, or with the local, you know, Wyoming authorities, that you 

would know that there was a chance that you would be hitting natural gas while you are drilling a water well? 
78 

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, we were—the formation and the activity that has occurred there over the course of 50 or 60 years is 

complex so I think several of us have alluded to the fact that legacy 

pits, they are not pits attributable to the current operator but that 

there are legacy pits that are contributing significant contamination to a relatively shallow part of the aquifer, that there are domestic drinking water wells, municipal wells and stock watering 

wells that are drilled from relatively shallow depths to as deep as 

800 feet, and we were looking to drill a well that sort of sandwiched those, a set of wells that are somewhat deeper but 

shallower than the production zone. So we chose about 800 feet in 

depth below ground surface and about 1,000 feet in depth below 

ground surface. The shallowest fracking has occurred at 1,200 feet. 

The shallowest fracking in the area of these two wells has occurred 

around 1,600 feet. So we were trying to sandwich the domestic 

drinking water wells and the other wells so that we could get some 

better sense of whether there was a source of contamination that 

is deeper than those drinking water wells. 

Chairman HARRIS. Let me just follow up, and I will give the 

Ranking Member the extra time to even it up. 

But Mr. Martin, you used the word, and words are important, 

and you know, I am going to disagree with the doctor, and you 

have written scientific papers too. You know, you use words very 

specifically in your conclusions, and I disagree, I think the word 

‘‘likely’’ by the way has a very different meaning from ‘‘best explanation,’’ a very, very different meaning. To a scientist, I think it is 

a very, very different meaning. 

But Mr. Martin, let me ask, because you say the word ‘‘producing 

well.’’ But that is what is significant here because you could have 

small amounts of gas, not enough to produce at lower levels, and 

I think Mr. Doll’s testimony, somewhere in here what I read is that 

at those shallower levels, you could have low pressure that no one 

would drill to to produce because you couldn’t get gas out of it for 

commercial purposes, but it is there. So although you attempted to 

do what you are calling sandwiching, you are not sandwiching 

where—you are not saying—and again, I am drawing the extrapolation to Marcellus shale where you have got, you know, a mile of 

bedrock between the two. You don’t have a mile of bedrock here. 

You have got, and my understanding of the geology is, you know, 

you have got this bowl of potato chips, and by this connection, 

there is connection between the two and some of the superficial potato chips that have sand in there actually have low-pressure gas 

but no one would drill into to produce. To produce, you would have 

to drill lower. So do you agree that you drilled into a location that 

was known—because we know we had a blowout somewhere between 500 and 800 feet, 500 and 900 feet—known to have gas in 

it? Known, I mean, and look, everybody knew there was a blowout 

there that occurred at a depth shallower than you drilled your 

monitoring well. 

Mr. MARTIN. We had mud logs, Mr. Chairman, that suggested 

that in fact you wouldn’t find those levels of natural gas at that 

depth but the fact that there had been a blowout at shallower 

depths also suggested that something perhaps has changed, and 

you are absolutely right, there is no lithologic barrier that we know 
79 

of that would prevent the migration of either gas or either fluids 

vertically from the production zone, and in fact, we posited several 

hypotheses by which that is occurring, and that is the reason we 

chose those depths, to get some sense of whether in fact there is 

a deeper source that we could intercept with those monitoring 

wells. 

Chairman HARRIS. Well, thank you very much, and I defer to the 

Ranking Member, and you have 8–1/2 minutes to go. 

Mr. MILLER. I won’t use it all, Mr. Chairman. 

Curiously, the draft report that we have been discussing all 

morning is not part of the record, and someone reading the transcript of this hearing might wonder if the draft report was written 

in crayon, so it does appear that the draft report should be part 

of the record and I move that it be part of the record. 

Chairman HARRIS. I understand that we have no objection to 

parts of it, and it is sizable, I know, because I read it through and 

it has got a lot of appendices and things, but I will offer that our 

staff will work it out, and we will include parts of it. We will include parts of the draft report in the record. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay, and I assume that will be anywhere the word 

‘‘likely’’ appears. 

Chairman HARRIS. It only appears once. 

Mr. MILLER. Dr. Goldstein, you were very critical today of three 

advisory panels that have looked at hydraulic fracturing, fracking. 

You have been very critical of their composition. Based upon your 

experience with EPA during the Reagan Administration, you are 

very familiar with the EPA. I assume you are familiar with EPA 

Science Advisory Board, and could you assess for us the composition of the SAB hydraulic fracturing, the fracking panel? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. Well, they have a broad representation of the 

sciences. SAB, I think, is an excellent organization that does a very 

good job of representing all of the different scientific disciplines. 

Mr. MILLER. Okay. Chris Portier is the director of the National 

Center for Environmental Health at the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, and before that, he was in 

the triangle area of North Carolina, so I have met him, I know him 

and I know his reputation, which is very good, and he has called 

for studies into hydraulic fracking’s impact on public health, effect 

on public health. He said more research is needed for us to understand public health impacts for natural gas drilling and new gas 

drilling technologies. That is similar to your own testimony today. 

Do you have a general sense of where the greater weight of scientific opinion is on the need for greater research? 

Mr. GOLDSTEIN. I think Dr. Portier is correct in that. He, Dr. 

Birnbaum, who is the head of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, have also expressed themselves on the 

need for research on the mixtures issue. We had with oversight of 

this Committee a lot of research on mixtures during the time of the 

Superfund because you had unknown mixtures could appear. This 

needs to be repeated with using the new toxicological approaches, 

using molecular biology to better understand what mixtures—how 

mixtures threaten the potential for adverse effects. 

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman HARRIS. Well, thank you very much. 
80 

I want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony and the 

Members for their questions. Again, I apologize as yet again for the 

delay at the beginning. 

The Members of the Subcommittee may have additional questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to those in 

writing. I will ask, because time is somewhat of the essence because the comment period is limited on this study, that you be 

timely if at all possible, and I will just leave that at that. Leave 

it to your own figuring what ‘‘timely’’ is. The record will remain 

open for two weeks for additional comments from Members. 

The witnesses are excused and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(81) 

Appendix I 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS
82 

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Mr. Jim Martin, Region 8 Administrator, 

Environmental Protection Agency 
83 

Contrary to the statements in Ms. Brown's February 8 letter, EPA has been responsive to 

Encana's various previous requests for information, and provided a significant amount of 

information even before Encana submitted its FOIA Requests: 

On June 8,2010, before the drilling of EPA's monitoring wells, EPA provided Encana the 

Quality Assurance Project Plan for the wells' construction. 

• On August 5, 2010, EPA representatives met with Encana to orally share the Phase 2 sampling 

results before the public meeting in which EPA released the data. 

On June 17,2011, EPA provided the Quality Assurance Project Plan for Sampling of the 

Monitoring Wells. (Ms. Brown also asked for this document in the Consolidated FOIA Request.) 

• On November 17, 2011, in response to a request from Encana, EPA provided, by email.alink to 

EPA's Pavillion website, where EPA posted gas chromatograms from the Region 8 Laboratory. 

• On November 29, 2011, in response to a request from Encana, EPA provided, by email, 42 files 

and extensive additional information regarding construction, completion and sampling of the 

monitoring wells, field logs for drilling and sampling, and analytical methods used by EPA's 

Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Center. 

Since receiving Encana's FOIA requests, EPA has provided many additional Pavillion-related 

documents directly to Encana, and has also posted a substantial amount of information online for 

access by the public at large, including Encana. EPA has referred Ms. Brown to two relevant 

pages on EPA's Pavillion website: the home page 

(http://wv.iW.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wv/pavillion), and the Pavillion Site Documents page 

(http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wvlpavillionldocs.html). The home page contains the 

main documents and links such as the Draft Report, the Federal Register notices, ATSDR's 

Health Consultation Document, the January 20 I 0 Sampling Results Fact Sheet, and the Final 

Analytical Report. The home page also contains links to 58 figures. Further, as we informed Ms. 

Brown in emails on January 31 and February 2, 2012, EPA's Pavillion Site Documents page 

contains many additional documents. As oftoday's date, EPA has posted more than 800 

documents on the Site Documents page, most recently on May 10,2012. Together, these pages 

provide information that is encompassed within many of Encana's requests, and provide the vast 

majority of technical information relevant to the review of EPA's draft report, "Investigation of 

Groundwater Contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming," dated December 8, 2011. 

As we are able to do so, EPA intends to continue to provide releasable records to Encana, and to 

post them on the website. In particular, we expect to be able to provide Encana with records (to 

the extent they exist, in addition to those already posted) that are responsive to Encana's more 

precise requests. As indicated above and detailed below, however, EPA has already posted 

publicly, and provided to Encana, documents that may be responsive to many of these more 

precise elements of Encana's FOIA request: 

• The Monitoring Well Installation Work Plan Narrative) to the May 2010 Final Monitoring Well 

Installation Work Plan. [Requests 1.1 and 5.1 of the Consolidated FOIA Request]. Already 

2 
84 

posted on the Pavillion website, in a March 15, 2012 letter, Ms, Brown acknowledged thaI 

Encana has viewed this document on the website, 

• Product specifications, including model names and numbers and equipment serial numbers 

where applicable, for all equipment installed or placed in either of the two EPA deep monitoring 

wells, [1,6,5,6]. EPA provided the information in EPA's possession to Encana by email dated 

November 29,201 I, befi1re EPA received Encana's FOIA requests, To repeat that if1formation: 

the pump used is the J-class Sandhandler Submersible Pump, model no, 7JS3S4-PE, 

manufactured by Franklin Electric, EPA has an owner's manual for this pump, which has been 

posted on the website as of March 26, 2012, The company's documents do not refer to this pump 

as "explosion-proof" and EPA will remove this characterization from the final report, In its 

March 27 letter, EPA advised that Mf, Brown can obtain the information about this pump from 

the manufacturer's website, 

• Records concerning the source and preparation of the standards used for adamantane, 1,3-

dimethyldamantane, 2-butoxyethanol, tris(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate, squalene, and terpinol in 

water samples. [1.9,2.2,3.2,5.9]. EPA has posted infi1rmationfor the EPA Region 3 

Laboratory, In the near future, EPA expects to publicly post informationfi1r the Region 8 

Laboratory, 

• Records of the analytical method development done by the Robert S. Kerr Environmental 

Research Center or Shaw Environment and Infrastructure Inc. for all methods used in connection 

with water samples from the Pavillion Field area [I. I 0,5.10]. For all of the analytes in Phases 

1-4. EPA either used standard EPA analytical methods, or followed standard EPA analytical 

methods for method development where needed to improve detection limits or address identified 

concerns with the methods. These modifications were made for semi-volatile organic compounds 

including glycols. Glycols analysis conducted by the Region 3 laboratory was perfi1rmed using 

High Performance Liquid Chromatography with tandem Mass Spectroscopy (HP LC-MS-MS), An 

HPLC-MS-MS method does not currently exist for glycols analysis, EPA SW-846 Methods 8000c 

and 8321 werefollowedfor method development and Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

procedures, in order to improve detection limits and eliminate false positives, Shaw, Inc, 

analyzed for glycols using Gas Chromatography with Flame Ionization Detection (GC-FID) 

following EPA standard method 8015, Additional technical memos surrounding the Shaw/ORD 

glycol analysis were posted on March 30, 

MSDSs for all products and other chemicals used in connection with drilling, installation, 

cleaning and decontamination, and sampling of the two EPA deep groundwater wells, including 

drilling chemicals, pipe dopes, solvents, cleaners, adhesives (including electrical or other tape), 

lubricants, and sealing agents, [1.5,5.5]. On November 29,2011, EPA provided this information 

to Encana by email; the information is also posted on EPA's Pavillion website, On March 22. 

2012, EPA posted the MSDSfor the Wellguard/Jetlube product at 

,tip :lltip. epa, gov/r8/pavilliondocs/We IIDri II ingIn/i1rmation/Dri llingAddi ti vesMSDS! 

Sampling and Analysis Plans, Quality Management Plans, and Quality Assurance Project Plans 

(QAPPs) associated with the October 2010 Field Sampling Event, [1.7, 5.7]. As indicated above, 

in June 2010 EPA provided Encana with QAPPsfor drilling and sampling, On March 26, 2012, 

EPA posted QAPP versions 1-4 were at 
85 

ttp://ttp.epa.gov/r8/pavilliondocs/OA Documents/QAP PsI. EPA posted QAP P version 5 on or 

about January 30, 2012. 

• Documents concerning EPA's soil gas sampling efforts in the Pavillion Field area or any 

evaluation of the same [1.8,5.8]. EPA has posted all soil gas sample results on EPA's 

Pavillion webpage. Eight dedicated vapor probes were installed on three properties. 

Analytical results (fixed gases and light hydrocarbons) for soil gas sampling and gas 

samples collected from well casing of deep monitoring wells have been posted under Site 

Documents, Raw Lab Data, Phase 3 and 4, since January 30, 2012. 

• Chromatograms from Region 8 (including Region 8 Lab), Region 3 (including Region 3 

Lab), Kerr, Shaw, or any other lab that EPA had analyze water samples from Pavillion. [1.13, 

2.6,3.6,5.13]. In an email dated November 29, 2011, EPA provided to Encana Region 8 

Lab chromatograms for Phase 3 and 4 of the investigation. In January 2012, EPA posted on 

EPA's Pavillion website most chromatograms for other EPA Laboratories. EPA has 

encountered file formatting issues, but we anticipate that we will post the remaining 

chromatograms in the near future. 

• Mass spectra from Region 8 (including Region 8 Lab), Region 3 (including Region 3 Lab), 

Kerr, Shaw, or any other lab that EPA had analyze water samples from Pavillion using gas 

chromatography/mass spectrometry (GCIMS), high performance liquid chromatography 

(HPLC), or equivalent methods [1.14,2.7,3.7,5.14]. Mass spectra data originated by Shaw, 

Inc. and the Region 3 laboratory have been included as part of the raw lab data files found 

on the website in the Laboratory Data Report and the Sample Data Reports, respectively. As 

for the Region 8 laboratory, the mass spectra data have been included in the raw lab files in 

the Lab Data Packages. The Region 8 laboratory returned to their instrumentation to recover 

the individual mass spectral images; these data were posted on April 18th. 

• Records of "citizens' complaints of taste and odor problems," and a "public petition" 

referenced by the Congressional Research Service. EPA posted record~ related to citizen 

concerns on March 26, 2012 at 

ttp://ttp.epa.gov/r8/pavilliondocs/OtherDocuments/DocumentsRelatedToCitizenConcernsl. 

• Similarly, we expect to be able to provide Encana with various specific documents (again, to 

the extent we have not already done so) that are mentioned in otherwise broad requests: 

• Laboratory reports from Kerr, Shaw, and Region 3 for water samples from the Pavillion Field 

area. [1.12,2.5,5.12]. EPA has posted this information on EPA's Pavillion website. 

• Documents related to the two deep monitoring wells, including: 

a. Records associated with the drilling, installation, or sampling of the monitoring wells. 

[2.1,3.1,5.2} 

b. Records of the methods and materials used in drilling the two EPA deep wells to join 

lengths of well casing together and the methods and chemicals used to clean and 

decontaminate well casing and down hole drilling and monitoring equipment before its 

being placed down hole, including verification swab samples. [1.3, 5.3} 

4 
86 

c. Records on disposal of cuttings, drillingfluids, muds and other materials, and any other 

products or chemicals used in drilling and installation of the two deep monitoring wells. 

[l.4,5.4} 

d. Records related to the discrepancies in reporting limits, detections, and analytical results 

between or among the analytical results from Region 3 (including Region 3 Lab), Region 

8 (including Region 8 Lab), Kerr, Shaw, or any other laboratory that EPA had analyze 

water samples from the Pavillion Field area. [l.ll, 2.4, 3,4, 5.ll} 

As described above, beginning in June 2010 EPA provided to Encana technical information 

detailing the drilling, construction, completion and sampling of EPA's monitoring wells, as 

well as documents pertaining to sample analysis and results. Additionally, EPA publicly 

posted the information on our Pavillion website. 

In her February 8 letter, Ms, Brown identified several types of records to which she requested 

that EPA assign urgent priority. Several have already been addressed above; below we respond 

to the remainder using the numbers in Ms. Brown letter: 

3. Documentation of the specific locations at which the July 7,2011 PAY 01 and PAY 02 water 

samples were obtained. 

Samples labeled Pav 01 and Pav 02 on the analytical report dated 712212011 (Fechnical 

Directive 80A778SF) were archived samples from the October 2010 (Phase 3) sampling and 

were not collected during a separate sampling event. Monitoring wells MW01 and MW02 

were only sampled in October 2010 and April 2011. These samples were obtainedfrom 

MW01 (Pav 01) and MW02 (Pav 02, and were acidified at the time of collection with 

hydrochloric acid The report 's r~ference to a 7/712011 collection date refers to the date that 

the samples were taken from the archived sample and poured into sample containers that 

were then submitted to the lab for analysis. The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate 

effects of acidification on organic constituents remaining in the archived samples. 

It is unlikely that EPA will be able to release records responsive to broad requests that will 

require cross-office search and substantial review, which includes Encana's various "all 

communications" and "all records" requests, before the estimated datc provided (Septcmber 27). 

These types of records are not provided to the public to comment on for a draft report. 

Response to I.e. EPA's approach to making data publicly available for the peer review is in 

compliance with our procedures for peer review. Reviewers will have access to all the supporting 

data generated during the course of the investigation. 

2. During the hearing I asked you about your response to the Department ofInterior's Bureau of 

Land Management's (BLM) comments on the Pavillion draft. You stated you had not seen the 
87 

comments. I have attached a copy ofBLM's comments to these questions. Please provide a 

response to the concerns raised by these Federal experts. 

Response: Thank you for providing a copy ofBLM's informal electronic mail comments to the 

State of Wyoming. Subsequently BLM provided formal comments to EPA on March 1,2012. 

The comments have been submitted to the public comment docket as part of the peer review 

process. 

3. In your testimony you noted that "we are in discussions with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

about partnering in the sampling of the monitoring wells." USGS is the recognized expert in this 

area, and has been evaluating water quality and geology in this region of Wyoming since the 

1880s. For example, the agency found in 1959 - before oil and gas production in the Wind River 

Basin began - that "the quality of the water in the shallow aquifers generally is unsatisfactory for 

domestic water use." 

a. USGS has also found elevated concentrations of potassium and chloride in Pavillion-area 

groundwater since the early 1990s. They have evaluated the complexity of the aquifer in the 

Wind River Basin, and have conducted extensive work on permeability near Pavillion. Were 

the experts from USGS consulted during thc development of the plan for the monitoring 

wells or prior to the commencement to the drilling of the monitoring wells? Ifnot, why not? 

Response: In the draft EPA report, EPA referred to the findings of several USGS publications 

that describe water resources in the Wind River Basin. USGS scientists also were consulted prior 

to Phase 2 sampling regarding the potential use of strontium isotope measurements to support the 

Pavillion ground water investigation. EPA relied heavily upon several USGS and Wyoming 

Geological Survey reports' in understanding groundwater conditions in the area, and referred to 

the findings of several of the USGS publications in the draft report (e.g., see pages 4, 17, 18, and 

20 of the EPA Draft Report). EPA has been primarily concerned with conditions in the Wind 

River aquifer, which is the primary source for domestic and public water supply wells. In the 

"Summary and Conclusions" of the 1959 USGS report referred to in the Committee's question, 

the following statement is made: "This source (i.e., the Wind River formation) provides the best 

present and future supply of ground water in the area. Although generally not available in 

1 Bartos, T.T., Quinn, T.L., Hallberg, L.L., and EddY-Miller, C.A. (2008). Quality of shallow ground water in three areas of 

unsewered lOW-density development in Wyoming and Montana, 2001. U. S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations 

Report 2008-5012, 118 p. 

Oaddow, R.t. (1996). Water resources of the Wind River Indian Reservation, Wyoming. U.S. Geological Survey WaterResources Investigation Report 95-4223, 121 p. 

Morrisl D.A., Hackett, O.M., Vanlier, K.E., Moulder, E.A., and Durum, W.H, (1959). Ground water resources of Riverton 

irrigation project area, Wyoming Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 137~, 205 p. 

Plafcan, M., Eddy-Miller, C.A., Ritz, G.F., and Holland, J.P.R. (1995). Water resources of Fremont County. Wyoming. U.S. 

Geological Survey, Water-Resources Investigations Report 95-4095, 133 p. 
88 

quantities large enough for irrigation, the water yielded by the formation is adequate in quantity 

and of suitable quality for municipal, domestic, and stock use"(Morris, et aI., 1959). 

Question #3 references a statement from the 1959 report that shallow ground water quality was 

unsatisfactory prior to oil and gas production. This is a reference to the unconsolidated alluvial 

and colluvial ground water generally 50' or less in depth. Very few private water wells in the 

area of concern (and none of the public water supply wells in the town of Pavillion) are shallow 

enough to be potentially located in alluvial or colluvial deposits. Thus, the aforementioned 

statement is not relevant to the quality of water in the drinking water wells in the Pavillion area. 

4. EPA chose to not classify the Pavillion investigation as a "Highly Influential Scientific 

Assessment," which would have required that the case be held to the highest scientific standards 

as well as the most rigorous peer review process available. According to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) as well as EPA's Peer Review Handbook, a highly influential 

scientific assessment includes any assessment that "could have a potential impact of more than 

$500 million in any year" OR that is "novel, controversial, or precedent-setting or that has 

significant interagency interest." Why was the Pavillion investigation not considered a highly 

influential scientific assessment and subject to more rigorous peer review? 

a. In light of the fact that oil and gas activities generate almost $2 billion a year in revenues in 

Wyoming alone and that the going rate for one company's holdings in the Pavillion gas field 

was valued at $50 million before the EPA draft report, why did EPA find that the 

investigation could not "have a potential impact of more than $500 million? 

b. In light of the fact that EPA's report generated international press coverage in 4 different 

languages within 24 hours of being released and that the report currently generates more than 

600,000 search results on Google, why did EPA find that the investigation was not 

"controversial"? 

c. In light of the fact that, according to the first line of the Associated Press' coverage stated 

that EPA "announced.,. for the first time that fracking ... may be to blame for causing 

groundwater pollution, "why did EPA find that the investigation was not "precedentsetting"? 

d. In light of the fact that the Department of Interior, USGS, the CDC, SEC, and the 

Department of Energy are all examining hydraulic fracturing and that more than half of the 

wells in Pavillion are regulated by the Bureau of Land Management, why did EPA find that 

the investigation did not have "significant interagency interest"? 

Response (Questions 4a-d): EPA classified the draft report as "Influential Scientific 

Information" (lSI) rather than a Highly Influential Scientific Assessment (HISA) because the 

Pavillion investigation is a single study rather than the type of broad assessment involving an 

evaluation of a body of scientific or technical knowledge that comprises a HISA (as defined by 

OMB). Such a classification, however, does not limit the rigor of the peer review. In recognition 

of the high profile of this investigation, the Agency is using the peer review procedures for the 
89 

draft report that are equivalent to those required for a HISA, including highcr standards for 

ensuring reviewer independence from the agency and making agency responses to the peer 

reviewers available to the public. In fact, EPA has gone one step beyond the H1SA rcquirement 

of simply making the final peer review charge publicly available by soliciting public comments 

on the draft charge to the reviewers. 

5. Under the Information Quality Act, "dissemination" of any scientific information by federal 

agencies is subj ect to certain standards, including peer review procedures, in order to ensure high 

scientific quality and to avoid regulatory actions driven by the rei case of potentially faulty 

information. To avoid these standards, the draft rcport on Pavillion was classified as a "predissemination." What is a "pre-dissemination," and how does this designation apply to the 

release of a l20-page report which included conclusions and an accompanying press release scnt 

to tens of thousands of people and media outlets? 

Response: According to OMB's Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (peer Review 

Bulletin), "pre-dissemination" refers to the period prior to official dissemination of a government 

science document. The Peer Review Bulletin states that there are situations in which public 

participation in peer review is an important aspect of obtaining a high-quality product through a 

credible process." The Peer Review Bulletin can be located on the White House website at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/defaultlfiles/omb/memorandalfy2005Im05-03.pdf, page 27. 

Given the particularly high profile of the draft report on Pavillion, EPA publicly announced thc 

availability of the complete 120-page draft report for public review and comment, thereby 

enabling the peer reviewers to be able to consider public comments during their deliberations. 

Specifically, the Federal Register notice, which can be located on the federal register website at 

https:llwww.federalregister.gov/articles/2011112/ 14/20 11-32064/draft-research-reportinvestigation-of-ground-water-contarnination-near-pavillion-wyoming stated, "EPA is releasing 

this draft research report solely for the purpose of pre-dissemination peer review. This draft 

research report has not been formally disseminated by EPA. It does not represent and should not 

be construed to represent any Agency policy or determination." 

6. Since drilling depth, casing, and materials requirements are regulated by the states, what protocol 

did EPA follow in drilling its monitoring wells? Why did the agency not apply for a permit or 

submit a drilling plan to the state of Wyoming? Did EPA follow all local and State regulations 

despite the fact that it did not apply for a permit? . 

Response: The protocol for drilling and completion of EPA's monitoring wells is described in 

detail in the draft report on pages 5-11. EPA followed the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) policy for drilling and installing 

monitoring wells. For CERCLA investigations, EPA is not required to apply for a drilling 

permit. EPA sent the drilling plans to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

(WDEQ), and the drilling plan was revised to incorporate comments that were provided to EPA 

from WDEQ. 

8 
90 

7. EPA's finding of high pH in the wells is cited in the report as an indication of hydraulic 

fracturing's contribution through potassium hydroxide. However, according to the driller of these 

wells, the sparse quantities of this chemical used has near-neutral pH. However, materials used 

in developing EPA's monitoring wells, like dense soda ash, have a much higher pH value and 

more closely match EPA findings. What evidence can you provide that EPA's monitoring wells 

did not cause or contribute to elevated pH levels? Is it possible that cement intrusion and soda 

ash used in the drilling fluids were more likely to have caused the elevated pH? 

Response: No, it is not likely that the use of soda ash in drilling fluids or cement intrusion was 

responsible for the elevated pHs reported for the EPA monitoring wells. Dense soda ash was not 

used while drilling MW02 (as indicated in the drilling contractor and subcontractors' log and 

associated data and information posted on Region 8's Pavillion Internet page: 

http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillionlindex.htrnl). Soda ash was used during the 

drilling ofMWOl, but tests show that the addition of additives, including soda ash, into drilling 

mud resulted in a pH varying between 8 and 9 (p.S), much less than the pHs of 11.2-12.0 

reported in the monitoring wells (Table 3 on p. 24, and p. 33). Additionally, the alkalinity in the 

deep monitoring wells was dominated by hydroxide (OK). If dense soda ash (sodium carbonate, 

Na2COJ) were the cause, alkalinity would be dominated by carbonate (COJ)(p. 20 of draft EPA 

report). 

Water quality data indicate that cement intrusion did not occur. Aqueous samples from thc deep 

monitoring wells were highly undersaturated with respect to cement phases (e.g., portlandite) 

which would not be expected if cement intrusion had occurred (p. 20 of draft report). Sand 

baskets were placed (welded) above the well screens (as illustrated in Figures C21 and C22, p. 

C13 of draft report) in order to prevent cement intrusion during well completion. 

7a. Can you explain why the potassium levels detected in EPA's first monitoring well declined by 

more than 50 percent from October 2010 to April 2011, while the potassium level in EPA's 

second monitoring well increased during that same period? 

Response: Temporal and spatial variability of cation concentrations is not unexpected in ground 

water monitoring studies, and conclusions about temporal trends cannot be drawn without more 

time-dependent data. EPA has agreed to further sampling, and an evaluation of temporal tends 

will be conducted as more time-dependent data are collected. Potassium concentrations in both 

monitoring wells were between 8.2 and 18.3 times higher during both sampling events compared 

to the mean value of domestic wells sampled in the Pavillion area, as discussed in the draft EPA 

report (Figure 12 and p. 20). 

8. EPA does not indicate that the water it used to make the drilling fluids to drill the deep 

monitoring wells was properly tested. Is it possible that this water could have been a 

contributing source to the contamination? 

9 
91 

Response: Municipal water from Riverton, WY was used to mix bentonite for both MWO I and 

MW02 (p. 5 of the draft EPA report). EPA obtained the analytical summary report for municipal 

water for samples from the City of Riverton. Although not all of the contaminants detected in 

the deep monitoring wells are routinely tested by the City, volatile and semi-volatile organic 

compounds are part of their standard set of tests. No volatile or semivolatile organic compounds 

of concern were detected in the City of Riverton's public water supply (with the exception of 

byproducts of chlorine disinfection), whereas benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, and 

napthalene were detected in MW02. In addition, the two wells received water from the same 

truck, but the contaminants and their levels in the deep monitoring wells differed. This strongly 

suggests that the contaminants detected in the wells did not come from the truck. 

9. As far as the actual installation of the monitoring wells is concerned, did the EPA take samples 

and perfonn baseline testing on the materials used, including sampling of the production water 

prior to it being pumped down the wellbore, sampling of the drilling mud in similar fashion, or 

sampling of the steel and other materials used in the construction of these wells? 

Response: Yes, well drilling and construction materials were analyzed and managed to prevent 

the potential introduction of contamination. EPA collected and analyzed samples of bentonite 

(drilling mud) and additives used for drilling monitoring wells (results reported on p. 5-8 of the 

draft EPA report). Casing was washed prior to use (draft EPA report, p. 8). As previously noted 

(refer to response to Question 8), the municipal water from Riverton, WY was used to mix 

bentonite for both MWO I and MW02 (p. 5 of draft report). 

10. How did EPA ensure that the monitoring wells were drilled into the same fonnation as the 

complainants' wells, thus sampling the bad water in question? If this is not the case, or the 

agency cannot ensure this, then how can the study be seen as addressing these initial complaints 

or questions? 

Response: The monitoring wells and Pavillion private and public drinking water wells were 

drilled into the Wind River Fonnation. The Wind River Fonnation, the same formation in which 

the complainants' wells are completed, meets the definition of an Underground Source of 

Drinking Water (USDW) as defined in Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) Section 

144.3 (p. 4, draft EPA report. 

II. How did EPA detennine that their monitoring wells were sufficiently purged prior to sampling, 

in order to eliminate all borehole storage, and water introduced for development of the wells? 

Response: Simultaneous monitoring of multiple stabilization criteria (general water quality 

parameters) and water level monitoring ensured that the wells were sufficiently purged prior to 

sampling and that only fonnation water entered the purge and sample train (p. 11-12, draft EPA 

report). 

10 
92 

12. Did EPA complete a comprehensive review of background or baseline data for the chemicals of 

interest (especially methane, organic acids, and miscellaneous organic compounds) prior to 

completion of the study? Can they demonstrate that such analysis was completed for the actual 

site, or by use of analogous settings? Are the methane concentrations observed in domestic wells 

atypical of analogous geologic settings? 

Response: EPA conducted a comprehensive examination of all available background water 

quality information. There is virtually no baseline water quality information for private drinking 

water wells for methane or other organic constituents. In the absence of baseline data, other 

background information was identified and analyzed. This included a review often mud-gas logs 

recorded in the mid-1970s and early I 980s, which did not indicate gas shows (distinct gas 

chromatographic peaks) within 1000 ft below the ground surface at any location (p. 27, draft 

EPA report), suggesting that methane was not previously widely present in the aquifer at high 

concentrations (and therefore in domestic wells) within 1000 ft in depth. It should also be noted 

that synthetic organic chemicals (e.g., glycols) detected in MWOI and MW02 do not occur 

naturally in ground water. 

13. The sampling methods used in this investigation did not follow standard EPA guidance for 

sample collection and processing, particularly for Superfund sites (i.e., low flow sampling 

protocols). Rather, the EPA used sampling methods that had not been approved by the Agency. 

Can you explain this deviation? 

Response: Sampling methods used in this investigation followed standard EPA practice for 

sample collection and processing. These methods were defined in the Agency-approved Pavillion 

Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP). Sampling procedures were audited in a technical 

systems audit conducted in the field and found to be consistent with the methods detailed in the 

QAPP. Low flow sampling procedures (stabilization of water level elevation) were utilized at 

monitoring well MWO I and samples were collected when stabilization criteria of indicator water 

quality parameters were achieved. The low flow sampling procedure was not feasible at 

monitoring well MW02 because of the low yield (slow recharge rate to the well). In MW02, the 

water level was drawn down to the level at which pump cavitation (and degassing in well) 

occurred. Sampling activities took place during the recovery/recharge phase. Sample collection 

and preservation criteria and associated quality control information were reported in the draft 

EPA report (Tables BI and B2). 

14. Did EPA complete an independent validation oflaboratory data prior to issuance of the report, 

and if not, how did it address the presence of "target compounds" in blank samples, and the 

failure to confirm the presence of certain compounds (e.g., glycols) with multiple analytical 

methods? 

Response: For the Pavillion investigation, EPA followed Category I Quality Assurance (QA) 

requirements, the highest level ofQA practice. Audits of Data Quality (ADQs) were conducted 

11 
93 

by an EPA QA manager or a contractor (independent of this investigation) for analyses 

conducted at EPA's Region 8 laboratory in Golden, CO, EPA's Region 3 laboratory in Fort 

Meade, MD, EPA's ORD laboratory in Ada, Oklahoma, and Isotech Laboratories in Champaign, 

1L. The presence of target compounds in blank samples were reported (refer to Tables B7 B12 

of the draft report) and each reported value was evaluated based on criteria established in the 

QAPP to determine whether the data should be used or disqualified. There were no whole data 

sets that were declared "unusable" for the EPA draft report. In the case of multiple analytical 

methods for glycol, it was concluded that glycol analysis with gas chromatography using a flame 

ionization detector (GCIFID) gave false positive results, so these data were not used (as 

discussed on p. 27 of the draft EPA report). Glycol analysis with HPLCIMS/MS was used, as 

this is a more sensitive method with lower reporting limits. The stable carbon isotopic portion of 

the analysis conducted by Zymax in Phase II was not used because values were inconsistent with 

historical published data, whereas samples collected by EPA and Encana that were analyzed by 

Isotech were used. Samples having up to 3X the concentrations of substances detected in blanks 

were disregarded, as specified in the QAPP. 

IS. During the hearing, you stated that EPA has eliminated several potential sources of 

contamination. 

a. For the shallow drinking water wells, what potential pathways of contamination did you 

identify? Provide a description of which pathways EPA has scientifically eliminated and the 

rationale for that determination. What potential pathways remain? 

Response: EPA considered agricultural practices, septic systems, household/farmstead 

dumps, and oil and gas production practices as potential sources that could be affecting 

drinking water wells, which range in depth from approximately SO feet to approximately 800 

feet. Pesticides were detected in only four wells in the low part per trillion range. Nitrates 

were detected in 21 wells, but most of these detections were just above the reporting limit of 

O.S ppm. One well exceeded the Maximum Contaminant Level of 10 ppm nitrate. Since the 

well was located directly adjacent to a livestock holding area, this is the most likely source of 

the nitrate contamination in that instance. EPA concluded from these data, which showed an 

absence of significant pesticide or nitrate detections, that neither agricultural practices 

norseptic systems were likely sources. Organics such as Diesel and Gasoline Range Organics 

were present in domestic wells on a widespread basis, pointing away from a specific 

localized source such as a dump. Phase 2 of our investigation confirmed that historic gas 

production pits remained one source of contamination of the shallow aquifer. Other gas 

production sources could not be ruled out without further evaluation via deep monitoring 

wells (i.e., Phases 3 and 4). 

b. For the deep monitoring wells, what potential pathways of contamination did you identify? 

Provide a description of which pathways of contamination EP A has scientifically eliminated 

and the rationale for that determination. What potential pathways remain? 

12 
94 

Response: EPA installed two deep monitoring wells at the beginning of Phase 3 to 

detennine whether the source for contamination in drinking water wells was at a shallow or 

deep depth. As discussed in the above response, the absence of significant pesticide or nitrate 

detections had already ruled out agricultural practices and septic systems as potential sources. 

Gas production sources were not ruled out, and contamination (such as synthetic organic 

compounds, potassium, chloride, etc.) in the deeper monitoring wells suggests activities 

related to gas extraction and hydraulic fracturing were leading to upwardly migrating 

contamination (refer to draft EPA report). 

c. Does EPA believe that there is a single source of contaminants for both the shallow drinking 

water wells and the deep monitoring wells? 

Response: No. It is unlikely that surface sources such as production pits are affecting 

groundwater at the depth of EPA's deep monitoring wells, though they are causing shallow 

groundwater contamination as stated in EPA's draft report and Pavillion Phase 2 Analytical 

Results Report. Conversely, some of the same contaminants (such as synthetic organic 

compounds) that were identified in the deep monitoring wells were not identified in samples 

from the drinking water wells. If the pits were the only source, these contaminants would be 

expected in both the shallow and deep wells due to downward migration. 

16. The report published December 8, 20 II is identified as a draft report and EPA has indicated that 

the report will be finalized after the upcoming peer review. Does this mean EPA's investigation 

ofthe Pavillion ground water is complete? Will there be more investigative phases associated 

with the public drinking water supply associated with the initial objective of investigating the 

reason for the foul smelling, bad tasting private drinking water supply? Will there be additional 

investigative studies associated with the presence of frac fluids? 

Response: On March 8, 2012, Wyoming Governor Matthew Mead, the Northern Arapaho and 

Eastern Shoshone Tribes, and EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, issued ajoint statement 

indicating that EPA will partner with the State and the USGS, in collaboration with the Tribes, to 

conduct another round of sampling of EPA's deep monitoring wells in the Pavillion area. EPA 

also plans to resample the domestic wells in closest proximity to the monitoring wells in order to 

be consistent with earlier rounds of sampling. To ensure that the results of this testing are 

available for the peer review process, EPA is delaying the convening of the peer review panel on 

the draft Pavillion report until the additional data from USGS and EPA are publicly available. In 

the meantime, EPA's draft report will continue to be open to public comment. Beyond this, EPA 

will consider, in consultation with other stakeholders such as the State of Wyoming and the 

Tribes, whether additional investigative steps would be useful in better understanding the 

circumstances at Pavillion and the opportunities to resolve concerns associated with 

contamination of the drinking water aquifer. As a point of clarification, the citizen concerns 

about drinking water quality that prompted EPA to initiate the investigation in consultation with 

13 
95 

State and Tribal authorities concerned private wells outside the Town of Pavillion and were not 

associated with the Public Water Supply wells operated by the Town. 

17. In your testimony, you state the EPA had three external scientists review the sampling data and 

analysis. 

a. When were these three experts provided information and how long a period did they have to 

review the information. Please provide dates. 

b. Please submit a complete list of the data and analysis the three experts were provided. 

c. Did the experts review the draft report or the conclusions? Were these experts aware of 

EPA's conclusions when they were provided the sampling data and analysis? 

d. Please provide the Committee with the names of the three experts and their qualifications. 

Responses: 

a. EPA conducted a peer consultation using three experts. The peer consultation panel received 

review materials on October 13, 20 II. The panel members provided their comments to EPA 

by the end of the following week. 

b. The following materials were provided to the peer consultation panel for their review? 

1) Draft EPA Research Brief of the Pavillion investigation 

2) Additional text detailing on sampling procedures and analytical methods 

3) Summary of subsurface sample locations, depth of sample collection, times (phases) of 

sampling, target analytes, laboratories utilized, and analytical methods 

4) Geochemical results for Pavillion ground water 

S) Geochemical impacts in deep ground-water monitoring wells 

6) Aqueous analysis oflight hydrocarbon 

7) Gas and headspace analysis oflight hydrocarbon 

8) Isotopic data for dissolved, gas phase, and headspace analysis 

9) Detected dissolved methane concentration in domestic and monitoring wells 

10) QA data table of sample collection containers, preservation, and holding times for 

ground-water samples 

11) Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QAlQC) requirements for: 

a. analysis of metals and major ions 

b. analysis of dissolved gases, DIC/DOC, VOCs, low molecular weight acids and stable 

isotopes of water 

c. analysis of semi-volatiles, GRO, and DRO 

d. LCIMSIMS analysis of glycols 

e. analysis of ol3C of dissolved inorganic carbon 

f. Ol3C and oD oflight hydrocarbons for aqueous and gas samples 

g. analysis of fixed gases and light hydrocarbons for aqueous and gas samples 

h. portable gas analyzers 

:2 These materials were also included in the draft EPA report and are posted on the EPA Pavillion website. 

14 
96 

12) Summary of quality control samples, purpose, method, and frequency to support gas 

analysis 

13) Summary of analytes, illstruments, calibration, and check standards for portable gas 

analyzers 

14) Monitoring well construction schematic 

c. The peer consultation panel reviewed the draft research brief. The results and findings in the 

draft report are the same as they were in the draft research brief. Additional discussion 0 f 

methods, results, and findings was provided in the draft report at the recommendation of the 

peer consultation panel. 

d. Members of the peer consultation panel were selected based on their academic background, 

professional experience, research experience, publication record, experience serving on peer 

review panels, and absence of professional or financial conflicts of interest. Peer consultation 

panel members included: 

I) Dr. Jennifer Mcintosh 

Department of Hydrology and Water Resources 

University of Arizona 

2) Dr. Stephen Osborn 

Geological Sciences Department 

California Polytechnic University - Pomona 

3) Dr. A vner Vengosh 

Nicholas School ofthe Environment 

Duke University 

18. How will the peer review process work? Who will select the members of the peer review panel? 

Will the peer review panel have access to all the data and analysis, including data and 

information EPA has withheld from the public? How will the charge questions be developed? 

Will the panel be asked to give a unanimous review, or will the comments from individual 

panelists comprise the review? 

Response: The draft report will be reviewed by up to seven individuals with expertise in the 

relevant scientific and engineering disciplines. The contractor is responsible for selecting the 

reviewers and ensuring that the panel is absent conflicts of interest, independent of the agency, 

appropriately balanced, unbiased and impartial, and qualified. Reviewers will be selected based 

on a careful consideration of their scientific credentials, professional accomplishments, and 

recognition by professional societies. The background experiences of the candidates will also be 

considered to ensure that the panel represents a diversity of scientific perspectives and 

disciplines. 

EPA believes that the draft report, which contains a full list of references and over 50 pages of 

detailed appendices, provides all the information necessary to complete a scientific review of this 

15 
97 

document. To enhance public understanding and in the interest of transparency, we have made 

more than 750 additional documents available on the EPA Pavillion website. Reviewers and the 

public will also have access to the results of the additional sampling effort being conducted this 

spring by USGS and EPA. 

The draft charge questions were developcd by EPA and posted on the website. The public was 

provided the opportunity to submit comments on the draft charge, and EPA will consider these 

comments in preparing the final charge questions. Comments from individual reviewers, which 

will be made publicly available, will comprise the review (i.e., the panel will not develop a 

consensus report ). EPA will make the peer reviewers' comments and the Agency's responses to 

the reviewers' comments available to the public at the time that the revised report is made 

available to the public. 

16 
98 

Responses by Mr. Tom Doll, State Oil & Gas Supervisor, 

Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission 

~b 'D-U?], 

~ 

?]ad., 

~?<ML4JIU 

9, &"u 'H/i11i4m4 

7'-uA. 'D_ 

2211 Kin:.; [1oukvard, Casper, WI' 82604 

POBox 2640, Casper, WY 82G02-2G40 

March 2, 2012 

U, S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

2321 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington DC 20515-6301 

Attention: Andy Harris, M.D. 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Energy & Environment 

Fractured Science: Examining EPA's Approach to Groundwater Research into the Pavillion Analysis 

Hearing February 1, 2012 

Transcript Edits for the Record from Mr. Tom Doll, State Oil and Gas Supervisor, Wyoming Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission, 

I offer the following Transcript Edits to my Testimony of February 1, 2012: 

1) Please refer to the Transcript, page 80, Lines 1793 and 1794: "Mr. Doll. I believe that was in the 

900- to 1,000-foot range." 

In my testimony of February 1, 2012, I regret that I misspoke regarding the depth of the 

Meeks well. I was not sure of the depth and should have stated so during my testimony 

rather than guessing at the depth, 

For the record, the Meeks well was drilled to a depth of 540 feet when natural gas was 

encountered, 

2) Please refer to the Transcript, page 81, Line 1807: "Mr, Doll. You should expect depth the 

deeper you go in this formation." 

The question from Chairman Harris related to expectation of where gas could be found. 

My testimony would be more accurate to replace "depth" with "natural gas", 

PIWlle 307 ·234·7147 
99 

Line 1807 should read "Mr. Doll. You should expect natural gas the deeper you go in 

this formation." 

3) Please refer to the Transcript, page 82, Line 1853: "encounter until you see your surface casing. 

Then after you". 

Sincerely, 

To clarify my comments about well control using drilling mud until the surface casing is 

set, the word "see" should be replaced with "set". 

Line 1853 should read "encounter until you set your surface casing. Then after you". 

Thomas E. Doll, PE 

State Oil and Gas Supervisor 
100 

~ e--

'D....ug~ 

~ia.u 

1~~ 

7"-A'D .... 

2211 King Boulevard, Caspcr, WY 82604 

POBox 2G40, Caspcr, WY 82G02-2G40 

March 2, 2012 

U. S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

2321 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington DC 20515-6301 

Attention: Andy Harris, M.D. 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Energy & Environment 

Fractured Science: Examining EPA's Appraach ta Graundwater Research inta the Pavillian Analysis 

Hearing February 1, 2012 

Answers for the Record from Mr. Tom Doll, State Oil and Gas Supervisor, Wyoming Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission 

Response to The Honorable Andy Harris 

1. During the hearing, when Mr. Martin was asked abaut cement casings he stated, "We found 

weak or absent cement in many of the wells ot depth, and that was one of the reosons we 

hypothesized thot a patential pathway for verticol migration of the materiols thot we found 

at thot deeper levels of the oquifer. It is a potential pothwoy. We posited several potential 

pathways. We were unable ta identify any ane as the most likely ar the pathway_" 

1. aJ Do you agree with EPA's analysis of the cement bond logs regarding weok or obsent 

cement in the wells ond what that means for well integrity? 

I do not agree with the statement "weak or absent cement in many of the wells at depth". The 

stated "many" may ultimately be less than four wells out of 168 drilled wells in the Pavillion field. I do 

agree that poor well integrity, either insufficient casing set depth or improper proper cement volume 

and height could result in a pathway for vertical migration of fluids. That statement is applicable to 

water supply wells as well as natural gas wells. A hypothesis could be formed that poor well integrity 

exists to a much greater extent in the water supply wells and provides a pathway for vertical migration 

within the shallow aquifer itself. Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) rules are 

specific to oil and natural gas well integrity, Chapter 3, Sections 8, Section 22, and Section 45. 

During 2009, the WOGCC Project Geologist provided the Supervisor a spreadsheet that included the 

historical Pavillion natural gas well integrity data from the WOGCC website. This spreadsheet was 

Phone 307-234-7147 ht!p.! /W(~cc."tak.wy.HS 
101 

updated the Project Geologist's 2007 era review of the 168 natural gas wells drilled in the Pavillion field. 

This spreadsheet was provided to an EPA Region 8 consultant in mid-200B. The data was tabulated from 

the WOGCC web site for each natural gas well including but not limited to casing size, casing set depth, 

cement volume and type used, comments regarding the cementing practices including comments 

regarding circulation of cement to the surface on the surface casing cement job and on the primary 

casing cementing job. 

In 2010 a consultant for EPA Region 8, Denver, contacted the WOGCC Project Geologist with a 

listing identifying concern with well integrity of 36 natural gas wells of the 168 natural gas wells drilled 

in the Pavillion area gas field. The EPA consultant and WOGCC Project Geologist discussed these 

identified wells and agreed to engage in further research to ensure well record completeness. This 

collaborated and agreed to list of 35 wells was reviewed by the Pavillion Well Integrity Working Group 

during 2011. The operator, Encana, cooperated with the Working Group review by providing additional 

well information and cement bond logs to supplement WOGCC records. Additional well completion 

data is being provided by Encana as well. Some of the Tribal natural gas, wells under BLM regulatory 

oversight, may have missing information related to well integrity. BLM is represented on the Working 

Group and is reviewing Tribal well data. 

The Well Integrity Working Group reviewed the well list and requested Encana to perform a 

bradenhead pressure test at each well on the identified well list. A pressure gauge is installed on the 

wellhead between the surface casing and the production casing annulus. A positive bradenhead 

pressure between the surface casing and the production string though not conclusive could indicate 

communication behind or between the casings. Thirty-four of the 35 identified wells were tested. Four 

of the 34 natural gas wells had a positive test for casing-annulus pressure. One of these four wells with 

a positive pressure test, Pavillion Fee 31-10, is approximately 900 feet from the EPA monitoring well 

MWOl. Pavillion Fee 31-10 had surface casing set at 598 feet. The EPA drilled MW01 has surface casing 

set at 100 feet, was drilled to 790 feet, was not cemented using API guidelines, nor was a cement bond 

run by EPA. 

None of this information was included in the EPA Pavillion groundwater report. The spreadsheet 

prepared by the WOGCC Project Geologist, which was expanded to include the water supply well data 

known in the area, was distributed to all participants attending Working Group meetings, including the 

EPA, on April 28,2011 and was posted on the WOGCC web page with all Working Group minutes in 

December 2011. 

The Working Group continues to review the natural gas well data for a potential pathway for vertical 

migration of fluid or gas. This review continues as a work-in-progress with additional well testing on the 

four identified wells anticipated and possible well remedial work may be recommended. 

1. b) Would you agree that Mr. Martin's admission that EPA was unable to identify anyone as the 

mast likely pathway undermines the conclusions of the draft report that the contaminants found 

in the deep monitoring wells were mast likely the cause of hydraulic fracturing? 

I agree that EPA was unable to find a specific pathway for contamination of any type. EPA does not 

make the case for any mechanical, geological, physical or hydro-geologic means for fluid movement 

horizontally or vertically from deep natural gas wells to the two monitoring wells or to the shallow water 

supply wells. The EPA did not take into account the complex geology of the Wind River Formation. 

2 
102 

The EPA monitoring wells were drilled with one completed in the shallow water supply interval, 

MWOl, and one completed in the deeper natural gas reservoir, MW02. This is evidenced from analysis 

of the offset natural gas well electrical logs and EPA water analyses from the Draft Report that indicate 

that the MWOl water samples from 790 feet have geochemistry analogous to the shallow water supply 

wells, whereas the MW02 water samples from 970 feet have geochemistry analogous to the deeper 

natural gas dominated zones. 

The EPA identified a single detection of a single chemical compound out of nine samples analyzed by 

three different laboratories. EPA did not verify whether or not this chemical compound was even used 

in hydraulic fracturing treatments in Pavillion. Instead, EPA did a literature search for the chemical 

compound in Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) until the chemical compound was found to be used in a 

foaming agent used in hydraulic fracturing treatments. The EPA did not consider other uses for this 

chemical compound such as solvents, cleaners, and surfactants. 

1. c) What other potential pathways exist and how are they plausible sources of contamination? 

In all EPA water welt sampling and testing done to-date in the Pavillion area, EPA did not fully 

investigate the 42 domestic and 4 stock water supply wells for contamination from landowner septic 

systems (only two domestic wells were sampled for nitrate related to sewage). The identification and 

proximity of water supply wells to septic systems and leach fields has not been addressed. 

The Pavillion area is heavily irrigated by pivot systems and flood irrigated through a series of surface 

ditches throughout the growing season. Irrigation run-off and recharge of Five Mile Creek and the Wind 

River shallow aquifer has not been fully investigated or tested. Most domestic and stock water wells 

were sampled in the winter months with no ongoing irrigation run-off or recharge. Due to low annual 

precipitation in the Pavillion area, irrigation run-off is a major source of shallow aquifer recharge and 

contributes to Five Mile Creek flow. 

Other possible sources of contamination include an abandoned town landfill located northwest of 

the Town of Pavillion on Five Mile Creek. This site is up gradient of the domestic and stock water wells 

within the Pavillion natural gas field. This dump site is known to local residents but was not brought to 

the attention of the EPA or the Working Group members studying Landowner Identified Sites. 

Run-off from landowner stock pens and feedlots was not identified or tested. The proximity of 

water supply wells to stock pens and feedlots is unknown. Isolation of the water supply wells to prevent 

contamination has not been addressed. 

The use of pesticides, fertilizers (only one domestic well was sampled) and herbicides has not been 

fully identified, investigated or tested. These chemicals are used extensively in this irrigated bottom 

land as many landowners grow alfalfa and native hay. Area landowners provide weed free alfalfa to a 

Pavillion area plant that pelletizes alfalfa that is marketed outside of Wyoming. EPA has not investigated 

storage sites, application rates and frequency for these classes of chemicals. 

The identification and testing of soil contamination at current and abandoned shops, garages, fuel 

stations or vehicle repair shops, commercial and private, has not been addressed. These sites are 

potential direct sources for long term contamination to the shallow aquifer from diesel and gasoline 

fuels, lubricants, solvents, and anti-freeze used in farm, ranch and transport equipment. 

2. During the hearing, Mr. Martin explained the reason behind the depths chosen for the 

monitoring wells, stating, "we were trying to sandwich the domestic drinking water wells and 

3 
103 

the other wells so that we could get some better sense of whether there was a source of 

contamination that is deeper that those drinking water wells." Given your knowledge of the 

Wind River Formation, and the complex geology of this region, is EPA '5 reasoning for the depths 

and locations chosen for its monitoring wells a scientifically supported or logicol rationale? 

The EPA sampling and testing results taken in 2009 and 2010 and reported in August, 2010 could not 

conclude at what level contamination existed or identify the source of the chemicals identified in 

groundwater except that methane was found in some domestic water supply wells. Yet before that 

data and conclusion was reported to the public in August, 2010, EPA had already drilled the two 

deep monitoring wells in the Pavillion natural gas field. EPA provides little to defend its decision to 

expend the monies to drill monitoring wells. The explanation for the location of the wells seems 

unscientific and weak. It is obvious that the Wind River formation's complex geology was not taken 

into consideration in determining either the well location or the well depth of these monitoring 

wells. No logic or rationale is presented for locating the monitoring wells other than that they are 

each located on the surface of a landowner with a claim of groundwater contamination. No logic or 

rationale is presented for the depths chosen for the monitoring wells. These depths are greater than 

any domestic or stock water well and do not reflect the water quality or methane content of the 

shallow water supply wells used by people living within the Pavillion natural gas field. 

EPA monitoring well MW01 is located near 219 Indian Ridge Road on the Randall property in NE-NE 

Section 10, Township 3 North, and Range 2 East. Pavillion Fee 31-10, a producing natural gas well is 

located in NW-NW Section 10, Township 3 North, Range 2 East, and is approximately 900 feet from 

the EPA monitoring well MWOl. Pavillion Fee 31-10 had surface casing set at 598 feet. MW01 had 

surface casing set at 100 feet and was drilled and cased to 790 feet but a cement bond log was not 

run by EPA. The EPA also located the MW01 within 600 feet of the Tribal 41X10 location, a 

reclaimed drill site that was plugged and abandoned by Shell in 1973. Note also that the MW02 

well is located near 124 Harris Bridge Road on the Locker property, at SW-NW Section 12, Township 

3 North, Range 2 East, and is approximately 300 feet from the Tribal Pavillion 12-12, a producing 

natural gas well located at SW-NW Section 12, Township 3 North, Range 2 East, and is also located 

near a landowner junk yard. Tribal Pavillion 12-12 had surface casing set at 635 feet and MW02 

had surface casing set at 100 feet and was drilled and cased to 970 feet but a cement bond log was 

not run. 

3. Mr. Doll, you described the unique hydrogeology of the Pavillion gas field as a complex "bowl of 

potato chips". In light of this complexity, were the two monitoring wells with only two data sets 

collected by EPA sufficient to in terpretf/ow and cause-and -effect relationships between 

hydroulicfrocturing and drinking water? Does the detection of a contaminant in one well 

indicate any statistical significonce or confidence in the conclusion that was reached? 

The EPA was incomplete and inadequate in addressing the impacts of the geology of the 

Pavillion area in the Draft Report on Investigation of Ground Water Contamination in Pavillion, WY. 

4 
104 

EPA misrepresented the complex geology and hydrogeology of the Wind River formation in central 

Wyoming. EPA used a simplistic stratigraphic model that assumes continuous sand bodies implying 

vertical and horizontal fluid and natural gas migration. EPA fails to grasp that an inadequate 

geological understanding results in flawed analysis and erroneous conclusions regarding any source 

of contamination from natural or other sources. The Wind River formation's complex geology was 

not taken into consideration in determining either the well location or the well depth. Two 

sampling events, the first in October ZOlO and the second in April ZOll, at the two EPA 

monitoring well sites are not sufficient to interpret horizontal or vertical fluid or natural gas 

migration in this complex geology. The visualization of potato chips layered in a bowl illustrates 

how the individual sand lenses are oriented across the natural gas field and how some could be in 

contact or communication vertically and horizontally with each other while most sand lenses are 

not. 

The guidelines provided by USGS specific to sampling the Wind River Formation (ZOOS) 

provides detailed monitoring well design and spatial setting for sampling. State and federal 

agency and USGS scientists would not to rely on only two monitoring wells and only two sampling 

events to make any conclusion as to complex cause and effect relationships in fluid and natural 

gas migration in this complex geology. In addition, the detection of a single chemical compound 

was found by only one of the three laboratories; was found in only one of nine samples analyzed; 

and was not found in any other samples. That result should have been a red flag to EPA that the 

sampling frequency and sample numbers were statistically insufficient to verify the detection or 

make general causative conclusions. The only scientific conclusion to be drawn by EPA from this 

single detection should have been that additional testing was required to get a representative 

sample of formation fluid. The scientific method requires testing and verification. 

Repeatability and verification were not provided by EPA over the entire sampling data set 

from these monitoring wells. EPA claims to have used "lines of reasoning" but these are not 

clearly developed and they do not reflect any application of the scientific method to "test and 

verify". The EPA methodology is a convergence of reasoning to an unsupported conclusion that 

more reflects "analysis by description" and that certainly obscures facts that conflict with the EPA 

hypothesis. This is the poor unsupported science that leads EPA to their predetermined outcome 

that hydraulic fracturing caused groundwater contamination at Pavillion. 

4. You state in your testimony that the EPA did nat follow USGS recommendations for drilling and 

sampling monitoring wells, and that this mistake may have resulted in the detected chemicals 

being introduced by the drilling itself 

1. a) Can you elaborate on the specific misstep EPA made with respect to USGS guidance, and why 

this is important? 

The USGS published a Scientific Investigations Report in 2005, number Z005-5027, in cooperation 

with the Wind River Environmental Quality Council, titled "Monitoring-Well Network and Sampling 

Design for Groundwater Quality, Wind River Indian Reservation, Wyoming". The Pavillion natural gas 

field is located in north central Fremont County Wyoming near the center of the 3,500 square mile 

Wind River Indian Reservation. The USGS report details monitoring well deSign for groundwater 

quality monitoring specific to the Wind River Indian Reservation. The USGS Report was not referenced 

in the EPA Pavillion report therefore was not likely known or used in this project design. By not 

following USGS design for Wind River Formation monitoring wells and sampling protocols, the entire 

scientific basis for and results from the EPA Pavillion project are in question. 

5 
105 

The technical and scientific experts from the WOGCC, Department of Environmental Quality 

(WDEQ), and Water Development Office (WDO) provided EPA Region 8 with over 4 pages of questions 

and concerns related to the drilling, completion, development, testing, sampling and analysis of the 

two monitoring wells in early November, 2011. The majority of those questions and concerns remain 

unanswered. These state agency experts cannot make any conclusions based on the EPA monitoring 

well data or the report but do contend that the organics detected in the samples were introduced 

during well activities. 

Many examples could be provided to support the state agency expert's contention, but the main 

concerns relate to the following possible scenarios regarding introduced contamination: 

The tanker truck used to haul the water for drilling and developing (or injecting water) 

contaminated the wells. Contamination in the form of hydrocarbons was detected in the 

MW02 well, the deepest and the first well drilled. No hydrocarbon contamination was 

found in MW01, the second and shallowest monitoring well drilled. The EPA report 

provides no evidence that the truck was ever steam cleaned, flushed or sampled, not even 

once prior to and or at any time during its use on this project. Hydrocarbons, poor quality 

water from unknown sources, or rust, mud, trash, or hydrocarbon residue in the tank from 

other job activities prior to this project, could be enough to contaminate the monitoring 

wells with the organic chemicals at the levels detected. No evidence is provided that the 

tanker truck was dedicated solely to hauling water for these wells or was this truck the only 

tanker truck used to haul water. The organic chemicals detected in the April 2011 sampling 

event were substantially less that those found in the original sampling event of October 

2010. This is evidence our experts used to conclude that the induced organic contaminates 

were cleaning up with decreasing concentration detects with subsequent production of the 

monitoring well. Additional production and subsequent testing should lead to lesser and 

potentially to a non-detect of organics. 

The drilling mud materials as mixed in the make-up water were not properly sampled at the 

time of use. Some mud samples were identified as being taken in July 2011, over one year 

after the wells were drilled. The mud samples taken by EPA were diluted them 100 to 1 

for testing. The EPA used a non-API dilution method with no explanation provided. 

Typically, the drilling rig contractor maintains a mud system for optimum drilling rate, bit 

life, well control, and with mud properties required to carry cuttings out of the hole. Mud is 

weighed in the API balance scale and mud properties including mud filter loss or filtrate are 

reported. Mud filtrate was not collected by EPA and its properties were not sampled and 

analyzed. As the drilling mud is pumped through the bit at depth and under pressure, a 

mud cake is formed on the porous Wind River formation sand lenses as they are drilled 

through. In lost circulation circumstances, whole drilling mud can be pumped into the sand 

lenses. Due to the pressure differential, mud filtrate is forced into the formation much like 

liquid coffee from grounds is forced through the filter and the coffee grounds remains on 

the filter. When the Wind River formation was produced from the EPA monitoring wells, 

the first fluid recovered contained mud filtrate. The pH, potassium, sodium, chloride and 

other chemicals found and reported by EPA are directly attributed to the drilling mud and 

mud filtrate invasion into the porous Wind River formation sand lenses. 

The report indicates that the some of the steel casing run in the wells was washed off at a 

car wash in Riverton. Surfactants are used at a car wash. The report does not detail how 

clean the interior of the casing was, only that the external casing area was washed. Rust, 

mill varnish, particulates could contaminate the wells when the casing was run in the hole. 

Some of the casing and the tubing were sprayed from a garden hose to clean them at the 

6 
106 

well site. This garden hose uses water hauled to the site by the tanker truck, stored onsite, 

and pumped by the rig pump through the hose. 

On November 30, 2011 at a public meeting in Casper, the chief EPA scientist for the project 

said no lubricant or thread sealer was used on the casing or tUbing when run into the well. 

Steel casing and tubing threads and couplings, specifically the crossover from steel casing to 

the stainless steel casing and screen, must be properly and sufficiently lubricated to allow 

the threads to be tightened to the proper manufacturers torque to ensure a seal and the 

provide connection integrity. Lubricants and sealants used on well casing and tubing are a 

source of organics contamination at the levels detected. 

EPA did not follow a pump and displacement method during the cementing of the steel 

casing and stainless steel screen in the monitoring wells. EPA used "tremie pipe" run into 

the annular space between the outside of the steel casing and the inside of the drilled hole. 

No mention of decontamination of the tremie pipe was provided in the Draft Report. EPA 

mixed an insufficient volume of cement necessary to fill the well for the calculated annular 

volume. A cement bond log was not run by EPA in either monitoring well, yet EPA has been 

critical of natural gas well cement bond logs. Mud, drill cuttings and cement were left in 

the wells from the total depth of the well up to or across the stainless steel screen. The 

first fluids produced from the screens would include soluble products from the drilling mud, 

drill cuttings, and cement, all possible contamination pathways at the parts per billion levels 

detected in the monitoring wells. 

Each well had a downhole electric submersible pump installed on the end of tubing to recover 

samples of Wind River formation fluid. The pump is attached to steel tubing and lowered into the 

well. The power cable (from the pump to the electric service panel on the surface) is typically laid 

out on the ground. As the pump is lowered and attached to the tubing the power cable is picked 

off the ground and clamped or taped to the outSide of the tubing. Around any drilling rig the 

potential for soil contamination exists from the drilling mud, diesel fuel, motor oil and antifreeze 

used on the rig, as well as gasoline or diesel used for fuel for the power generator. The power 

cable could have been drug through such spills or leaks as it was lowered in the hole thus 

providing a pathway downhole for organics at the levels detected. Contamination from spills could 

have been picked up by the cable as it was picked up off the ground and lowered in the hole. 

Notes from the EPA indicate a diesel spill on the MW01 site was of such volume that the 

landowner Randall was concerned about the cleanup. A diesel spill at the rig is certainly a source 

of organics contamination at the parts per billion levels detected in the monitoring wells. The EPA 

did not file a spill report as per Commission Rule Chapter 4, Section 3. 

5. Is it possible for water that does not exceed EPA's maximum contaminant levers to still taste 

or smell bad? What can cause this? Has the State identified potential sources of the bad taste 

and bad smell in the water in Pavillion? 

Drinking water that meets the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) standards may still have a taste or 

odor. In Pavillion, as early as the 1800's groundwater was identified as poor quality. In 1959, the 

USGS documented Pavillion water as unsatisfactory for domestic use due to high concentrations of 

naturally occurring sulfates, total dissolved solids and pH. The Town of Pavillion has five Wind River 

7 
107 

Aquifer water supply wells treated to meet SDWA standards. The fact that a majority of Pavillion 

residents have good drinking water from the town supply or have good quality private water supply 

wells is only now being published in area newspapers. These individual water users admit to having 

been silent too long regarding Pavillion water supply issues (Casper Star Tribune, February 26, 2012). 

Drinking water with iron and high dissolved solids (hard water) has a bitter, metallic tang and 

may stain porcelain sinks or leave a residue on faucets. It is curious to note that none of the water 

samples taken by EPA from the two monitoring wells were analyzed for iron. For unknown reasons, 

EPA did not consider iron in their analyses, electing not to expend the effort to properly preserve the 

samples or do an iron analysis. Pavillion domestic water supply wells contain high concentrations of 

iron and have a metallic taste. 

The bad smell in the water is the rotten egg odor of naturally occurring sulfate dissolved in the 

water. Pavillion domestic water supply wells contain high concentrations of naturally occurring 

sulfates and can exhibit a bad odor and still meet SDWA standards. Charcoal filtration of this water 

can eliminate the odor. 

In addition, several Pavillion domestic water supply wells contain evidence of bacteria as reported in 

August 2010 from the 2009 and 2010 samples. Observations of filters find a jet black material which 

is captured on the filter media along with a clear slim. These bacteria thrive in an unclean sulfate and 

iron rich water environment in the domestic well. Well maintenance and potential bacteriologic 

contamination in the 42 domestic water supply wells has yet to be addressed by EPA even after 

testing and analysis performed since 2009. Proper domestic well maintenance can eliminate the 

bacteria and provide a high degree of water quality for the landowner. WOGCC, WDEQ, and 

Wyoming Rural Water personnel have discussed proper well maintenance and cleanup procedures 

with various Pavillion landowners. Some continue to ignore this advice and continue to claim 

contamination from the Pavillion natural gas field (Casper Star Tribune, February 26, 2012). EPA truly 

did not concentrate on the domestic supply well water quality as the bacteriological testing done in 

2009, 2010, and 2011 did not sample for fecal coli form bacteria which could identify a serious public 

health issue. 

6. As Wyoming's representative to the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (lOGCC), 

how would you characterize the stringency of Wyoming's regulations af ail and natural gas 

production, including hydraulic fracturing, campared with other States? 

Wyoming has regulated well stimulation since the 1950's. In June, 2010 Wyoming adopted well 

stimulation rules addressing protection of groundwater and the identification of permitted water 

supply wells within Y. mile of the drilling and spacing unit or the Commission approved drilling unit; 

clarified requirements for well integrity, casing set depths, casing design and cementing properties; 

individual requirements for disclosure of well stimulation fluid chemical additives by name, by type, 

by compound Chemical Abstracts Service number, and concentration; and included requirements for 

the handling and accounting of well stimulation load fluid recovery. Wyoming is the only state that 

requires chemical compound disclosure as part of the permit approval process prior to initiation of 

the well stimulation process. All states require the disclosure of chemica! compounds to be reported 

post-stimulation. Attached is a copy of a comparison of hydraulic fracturing fluid disclosure laws 

from nine states including Wyoming (Inside Climate News, February 15, 2012). 

8 
108 

Wyoming works with Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (IOGCe) member states to 

review and develop well stimulation rules and regulations. The WOGCC web page is the envy of 

10GCC members and is used by the public, the oil and gas industry, federal and state agencies. The 

site provides access to well records and production data. Approximately 17,000 reports are scanned 

into the OGCC database each month and consist of as few as two pages to several hundred pages per 

report. Well data is available by accessing the WOGCC web page at http://wogcc.state.wv.us then 

selecting "Completions" from the left hand column of the home page. A screen with two calendars 

allows the selection of dates and the operator name may be entered as an option. The result is a 

screen with a listing of all wells, or listing of wells for the specific operator, for those dates selected. 

A click on the desired icon for a specific well will provide the well information including permits, 

reports, and production data. This allows public access to all chemical compounds planned and 

actually used in the well stimulation as per OGCC rules Chapter 3, Section 4S. 

7. Since EPA did not consult with the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, you 

agency was not able to provide advice with respect to EPA's development of the deep 

monitoring wells. What information or suggestions would you have provided to EPA 

regarding their choice of site location, depth of drilling, drilling practices, local 

hydrogeological conditions, etc? 

The Commission would have collaborated with EPA, USGS, BLM the Tribes, WDEQ and other 

state agencies in developing and implementing a monitoring well program. A GIS representation 

of the Pavillion natural gas field, permitted and known water supply wells, pits, dumps, houses, 

feed lots, irrigated lands, etc. would be identified and mapped. 

The purpose and need for the monitoring wells would be understood by state, federal and 

Tribal shareholders. The scientific objective and results anticipated would have been clearly 

stated and documented. Previous EPA Pavillion sampling and test results did not provide a source 

of contamination in the domestic water supply wells. Had the shareholders participated in an open 

and collaborative discussion, the objective of drilling two monitoring wells may have been different. 

Had the WOGCC been consulted and allowed to collaborate in the planning of the two EPA 

monitoring wells we would have suggested well locations and well depths that would be 

representative of the aquifer used by the landowners in the Pavillion natural gas field. All known 

natural gas wells, producing and abandoned, would be identified. The Wyoming State Geological 

Survey (WSGS) would take the lead regarding identification of the geology and hydrogeology 

related to well sites and well depth. The Wind River Basin as a whole has been studied by WSGS 

and WSGS ongoing focus on the Pavillion area would result in a stronger understanding of the 

geology of the Wind River Formation. 

Proper hole diameter, casing size, and cementing properties and procedures would be 

designed to ensure well integrity and zonal isolation. The overall project design and scientific 

objectives would be met with the appropriate wellbore design. Procedures and protocols would 

be discussed, documented and a consensus reached. 

All state, Tribal and federal agency personnel would be knowledgeable of the project details 

and participate in the design of the wells and with the scientific protocols to prevent 

contamination of the Wind River Formation by the placement of the wells and meet the scientific 

objectives. The use of third parties to sample, transport, provide laboratory analyses and quality 

control and quality assurance would be evaluated and selected. 

9 
109 

The monitoring wells would have been permitted with WOGCC as the Pavillion area is known 

to have shallow natural gas production. Typically, monitoring wells are permitted by the Office 

of the State Engineer (WSEO). The EPA Pavillion Report provides that the two monitoring wells 

had 4 inch steel casing. The WSEO does not require a permit for monitoring wells with 4 inch 

diameter casing. In this case, however, the WOGCC permit would provide public information for 

each well's location, proposed depth and completion program by requiring a detailed drilling and 

completion plan. 

The drilling mud system would be designed to prevent contamination by mud filtrate loss 

and yet control the well. All mud properties would be measured by API methods and 

documented. The likelihood of encountering natural gas would have been discussed, 

understood and accounted for. The drilling rig would be equipped to properly handle natural gas. 

A team would be selected for well site observation with at least one supervisor or designated 

representative from each agency to be onsite at all times, and specifically during each critical 

well operation, to document procedure, decontamination, and proper rig activity related to their 

scientific discipline. Documentation would be mandatory and detailed. 

The activity would be managed as a science project. All equipment used to drill the well 

including mud pumps, drill pipe, handling tools, piping and water storage systems would be 

degreased, steam cleaned and decontaminated as necessary and maintained throughout the job 

to prevent becoming a source of contamination to the Wind River Formation. All water trucks 

would be dedicated to this monitoring well project, degreased, steam cleaned, decontaminated, 

and maintained. Each load of water used at each drill site would be tracked and documented as 

to source, sampled and tested to insure no hydrocarbon or other chemical compound 

contamination. All casing, screens, pumps, tubing, power cables, in fact anything entering the 

well will be inspected, documented, and degreased, steam cleaned, or sandblasted as is 

necessary to remove mill scale, particulates, oil and greases, then stored onsite in plastic wrap. 

All such equipment would be cleaned again prior to running into the well. 

WOGCC rules, Chapter 3 and Chapter 4, will be followed. Surface casing will be of sufficient 

length to be 100 to 120 feet below the deepest offset permitted water wells. All casing and 

tubing connections will be properly lubricated and torqued to manufacturers speCifications. 

Lubricants will be sampled, volume used documented, and application will be with care 

reflecting the science project. 

Proper cementing techniques would be detailed and employed, such as the pump and 

displace method rather that the use of a pipe lowered between the casing and the hole. All 

cement will be API grade. Proper excess volume will be mixed and pumped to ensure proper 

coverage and isolation. The isolation of the zone of interest may include mechanical tools such 

as packer elements and ports rather than a screen. 

All fuels, lubricants, solvents, cleaners, degreasers, mud and additives, well products, 

cements and additives, in fact all chemical compounds on location, solid or liquid, would be 

sampled and preserved as delivered to location and as used or mixed on location, documented 

as to source, manufacturer, with all custody transfer, compound use, compound name and type, 

concentration as delivered and as used or mixed on location, when and how applied, to include 

Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) number and appropriate Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS), 

etc. 

The well cleanup and development would include the use of nitrogen rather than water 

injection. If water injection is required for development then all water used would be 

documented, sampled and tested, and treated as necessary to prevent formation damage and to 

10 
110 

minimize contamination to the Wind River Formation. Total fluid volumes injected and 

recovered would be accurately measured and documented. Any natural gas recovered would be 

measured and properly vented using proper safety protocols and as per the OGCC rules. 

Once the well is ready for long term production, the wellhead will be properly isolated and 

secured. All production equipment will be steam cleaned and decontaminated prior to being run 

into the well. All sampling equipment would be handled as if in a laboratory environment with 

strict adherence to protocol throughout, including documentation, preservation, proper handling 

and chain of custody. 

This is only a portion of the suggestions that would have developed over the planning and 

implementation of such a science project. The key to the successful design and implementation 

would be early and often technical meetings with all stakeholders present. 

Thank you for this opportunity to address your questions. 

Thomas 

~~ E. Doll 

State Oil and Gas Supervisor 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

11 
111 

.~ (!.;,.~ 

'D-UfJ. ~ 

~94" L4I«t 

tJ. fJ'U«e7l/~ 

74-tU ri. 'D",,_ 

2211 King Boulevard, Casper, WY R2604 

POBox 2G40, Casp~t; WY 82602-2640 

March 2, 2012 

U. S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

2321 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington DC 20515-6301 

Attention: Brad Miller 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Energy & Environment 

Fractured Science: Exomining EPA's Approach ta Graundwater Research inta the Pavillian Analysis 

Hearing February 1, 2012 

Answers for the Record from Mr. Tom Doll, State Oil and Gas Supervisor, Wyoming Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission 

Response to The Honorable Brad Miller 

1. After the hearing I received a letter (attached) from the Pavillian Area Cancerned Citizens 

(PAAC), which alsa include an enclasure af a letter fram the State Engineer's Office. The PACC 

apparently watched aur February 1" hearing very closely, and were specifically concerned with 

comments that appear to be inaccurate related to the drinking water well blowout. In your 

testimony you stated that you believed that the blowout happened at a 900 to 1000 foot range. 

The enclosure provided by PACC says that the blowout happen at 540 feet-

"The Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's opinion of what caused the 

problems in the first Meeks #2 well was that the "blowout" was the result of the water 

well driller drilling to 540 feet, finding a good sand, and blowing the hole dry in an 

attempt to determine water deliverability. Because this is a gas bearing lone, the 

unloaded hole proceeded to produce gas" 

Pilonc :;07-234-7147 http://wqI(.Cc.Slal~.\··\·.1t .... 

12 
112 

The State Engineer's Office letter to one of the Pavillion residents nat only acknowledges the 

danger of drilling to 540 feet, but alsa approves a secand well permit to drill even deeper to 

700 feet. The PACC letter and its enclosure illustrate that the residents of Pavillion do nat 

trust the State government to regulate the ail and gas industry. 

Mr. Doll we hear fram the industry that state governments should be responsible for 

regulating ail and gas drilling and you state that "Wyoming has historically regulated 

hydraulic fracturing." Why should the Federal government trust a state to regulate its 

awn ail and gas drilling, when that state is willing to apprave the drilling of a water-well 

into a gas bearing zane? Why didn't the state turn dawn this permit? In the State 

Engineer's Office letter two recommendations are made for drilling into a gas bearing 

zone, why are these recammendotions and not requirements? 

The Wyoming State Engineer's Office (WSEO) has statutory responsibility for granting rights to the 

water of the State. The Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (WOGCC) has statutory 

responsibility for oil and natural gas activity in the state. The WOGCC does not have statutory authority 

for water supply wells or monitoring wells. 

A permit for appropriation of the water must be granted by the WSEO along with the application for 

permit to drill the well. The letter referred to is dated April 7, 200B, and signed by Patrick Tyrrell, State 

Engineer. The State Engineer was aware of the first Meeks water supply well "blowout" and the 

comments made by WOGCC as quoted. The State Engineer, in the letter, provides a warning to the 

landowner that the probability of encountering natural gas is high in this well to be drilled deeper than 

the original well that encountered a flow of natural gas at 540 feet. The State Engineer quotes the 

statute W.S. 41-3-391 that states "an application for a permit for a well in any areas not designated as a 

critical area shall be granted as a matter of course ... " I cannot speak for the State Engineer but I believe 

the statute quoted in the letter is clear as to his course of action. 

The WSEO letter provides two recommendations for the landowner to follow based on WOGCC 

recommendations to the WSEO for permitting water supply wells to be drilled into a gas bearing zone in 

the Pavillion Field. These recommendations to the WSEO were an outcome of an internal study 

completed on the original Meeks well "blowout". WOGCC does not regulate the drilling of water supply 

wells and as such made recommendations to the State Engineer specific to drilling water supply wells in 

the Pavillion natural gas field. 

The Federal government should trust the State of Wyoming to regulate oil and natural gas well 

drilling as the WOGGCC has been doing since the 1950's. The personnel of the WOGCC are experienced 

in the unique geology and drilling, completion and production conditions encountered in Wyoming 

through plug, abandonment and reclamation. WOGCC successfully administers EPA's Underground 

Injection Control Program and has since mid-1980. WOGCC has an orphan well program to plug, 

abandon and reclaim wells and well sites. This intimate and current knowledge is specific to Wyoming. 

A federal, one-size fits all, rule approach will not be effective or efficient as it would be, among other 

concerns, too cumbersome and slow to react to changes in technology or regulatory need. 

13 
113 

Much of the groundwater found in most of the geologic basins across Wyoming contains natural 

gas. A good example is the Powder River Basin of northeastern Wyoming which produces 

approximately 2.5 billion cubic feet per day of methane from wells completed in shallow coals in the 

Fort Union aquifer. The WOGCC, WDEQ, WSEO, Wyoming Rural Water, and Wyoming Water 

Development Office have been collaborating to stUdy and provide conclusive answers regarding the 

groundwater concerns of all citizens in the Pavillion area and to provide a clean water solution. 

Wyoming promulgated chemical compound disclosure rules for well stimulation and clarified casing 

and cementing requirements in 2010. Wyoming is the only state to require disclosure of chemical 

compounds planned to be used in well stimulation as part of the permit approval process prior to the 

initiation of the stimulation process. Disclosure to the Commission of the actual chemical compounds 

used in the well stimulation is required post-stimulation. The reuse, recycling and disposal of fluid 

flow back must be reported. 

In my testimony of February 1, 2012, I regret that I misspoke regarding the depth of the Meeks well. 

I was not sure of the depth and should have stated so during my testimony rather than guessing at the 

depth. 

2. Mr. Doli during the hearing Mr. Martin mentioned that the state of Wyoming has not shared 

split sampling that they took during several phases of the investigation. 

Mr. 00/1, did the state take split sampling during the investigation? If the State did take 

split sampling during the investigation, why has it not been shared with EPA? If the 

State did not take split sampling during the investigation, did the state do any sampling 

before or during the investigation? If not, why not? 

I am not aware if any state agency participated in split sampling of the monitoring wells during the 

investigation, the WOGCC did not. Contrary to Mr. Martin's comments, the WOGCC was not informed in 

advance of the EPA plan to drill monitoring wells within the Pavillion natural gas field. To my 

knowledge, based on a personal conversation, the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

(WDEQ) was not informed until the drilling rig was ready to drill the first well, MW02. 

I am aware that the WOGCC Project Geologist was informed in February 2011 via email and 

telephone correspondence by a counterpart in EPA Region 8 that two monitoring wells were drilled by 

EPA in the summer of 2010. That notification was six months after the two wells were drilled and 

occurred three months after the first sampling event. WOGCC personnel were informed verbally by EPA 

Region 8 staff on April 20, 2011 at the Working Groups public meeting that the second sampling event 

had occu rred. 

At no time were WOGCC personnel informed or provided advance notice of sampling events therefore 

we had no chance to collect split samples had we desired to do so. I have no knowledge of or if WDEQ 

or other state agency personnel were informed in advance of the sampling events. 

3. Mr. Doll when Chairman Hall asked you "What would you have recommended to EPA if you had 

been consulted? You were not consulted, were you?" You answered back, "No sir, we were not. 

The Oil and Gas Conservation Commission was not." You go on to say, "They may have 

14 
114 

contacted by email the head of the Department of Environmentol Quality but not the Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission." 

Mr. Doll as 0 representative of Governor Mead, as you stoted in your testimony, can you 

please tell me the extent of the communication between the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quolity, on office under the Governor, and the EPA pertaining to the 

Pavillion investigotion? 

WOGCC personnel were informed in February 2011 that two monitoring wells were drilled by 

EPA in the summer of 2010. That notification was six months after the two wells were drilled and three 

months after the first sampling event. WOGCC personnel were informed verbally by EPA Region 8 staff 

on April 20, 2011 at the Working Groups public meeting that the second sampling event had occurred. 

My testimony on February 1, 2012, as quoted, is based on a personal conversation I had with 

the Director of WDEQ. About the time the drilling rig was moving to the first well location, I understand 

an email from EPA was received by WDEQ personnel informing them that the drilling of the first 

monitoring well was scheduled. The testimony of February 1, 2012 was my recollection of that 

conversation. 

I cannot provide comments regarding the extent of the communication pertaining to the 

Pavillion investigation between the WDEQ and EPA. I have no direct knowledge of or involvement in 

those communications. The EPA Pavillion investigation has been ongoing since 2008. 

Thank you for this opportunity to address your questions. 

~~ Thomas E. Doll 

State Oil and Gas Supervisor 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

15 
115 

List of Attachments 

Inside Climate News "Fracking Fluid Disclosure Laws", table, February 15, 2012 

Casper Star Tribune, Front Page, February 26,2012 

16 
116 

Fracking Fluid Disdosure lcg~s 

Nine itat~$ require energy companil!S fO dh.ctose inform:llion about !'racking fluids they use, 

Hf'l'e'i how those laws Mack np ag3ihst prnpmcd U.S. BlM rule'~. 

~!15'1.l 
117 

Texas 

(Rules became 

effective feb. 1, 

2012). 

Wyoming 

Nine states requir,e lllll!"rgy eomp\l.nl~ to dbcloJlt informuiDn .1bout fr3ddng flui{is Iftl:')' use, 

Here.!! how those Jaws st~ek up against proposed U.S. BlM rule-5. 

Names of produCts, 

chemicals and their CAS 

n"mbers, 

Only hazardous chemicals 

are matched with th@ 

prod\..ll$ they go Into, 

Names of products, 

chemfca/s an" theJf CAS 

numbers. 

!Operators also 'disclose the 

concentration of 

each product as a 

percent of the 

totalfracking 

!lukl. 

What about 

Pl'Opri¢tary It'lfO-~a~(jn?, 

pUbliC seekIng access eM sul1mlt a 

ft;Que:st to the Dept of Envlronmenta! 

Protection. The reqve5t is pl'Isse.d to the 

operator, which then makes Its case to 

the DE?, ThE! DEP m<)kes the final 

IdeclsJon, 

No. Compames are not required to dls<;lose 

trade 5etret informatIon unless the 

Operators disclose: Mtomey gen~1 or cour!; determines the 

the actual or i Information !s not entitled to trade secret 

maximum 

concentr~tion of 

: only hazardous 

ichemka!s, 

i protection. A landowner or state agenq 

I ~n challenge trade secret c!assWtca~jon. 

'The information -cannot be withheld from 

i l1ealth care professionals tn lln 

! emergency. 

but not to the public. 

"'CAS IWmoers arO the unique codes that the Chemical Abstracts SerVIce assigns to Individual chemica! compounds. 

u-FracFlXus.org W3!i set up by regulators /!I'l-d the Industry for IIOluntar/ disclosure of fracklng compounds. 

"''"'''The OccuplHlOna! S"fl3ty and Health A,dmlnlstratton requires M~teria! Saft!ty Data Sheets for chemio!s conslderOO haz.arrlolls to worl«!r S3fet'l. 

+The agency dId not rl2spond to r~Quut!i for !nformatlon, 

Page 1: 

2/15/11 
118 
119 
120 

Responses by Ms. Kathleen Sgamma, Vice President, 

Government & Public Affairs, Western Energy Alliance 
121 

Communities have a right to be concerned that industrial activities like oil and natural gas development 

are properly regulated and protective of public health. State regulators work hard to ensure that public 

health and the environment are protected, yet are often unfairly maligned by environmental groups or 

second guessed by the EPA. 

On the other hand, unfounded concerns are raised by environmental groups with an agenda of stopping 

any oil and natural gas development, and in many cases, any development at all. There has been a 

concerted effort by groups to scare local communities about the impacts of development as a means of 

shutting down development. Misinformation propagated by these groups has caused local communities 

and citizens to fear a process that is safe given the safeguards, procedures, and monitoring that are 

required and implemented by industry. This fear leads to development roadblocks that can deprive local 

and state economies of tens of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in economic activity. Since 

wealth is the key to public and personal health, safety and the environment, these roadblocks are 

counterproductive to the very local communities that seek to protect their environment. 

Wild claims about cases of contamination are made on a regular basis, and the media continue to 

perpetuate information that has been proven time and again to be false. Despite scientific information 

published by GWPC, 10GCC, EPA (see the 2004 HF study), and state regulators, the media and 

environmental groups focus on anecdote and blatantly false information, no matter how often that 

misinformation has been discredited. I think that is a the significant factor in exaggerated public 

concerns - not industry secrecy. 

Ironically, the filmmaker of Gasland, who chose to interrupt the committee hearing, turn it into a 

publicity stunt, and obfuscate by hiring SOmeone to impersonate an ABC News crew, has been very 

successful at propagating false information about oil and natural gas. The lies in his film have been so 

blatant that Colorado, Texas and Pennsylvania regulators have felt compelled to issue statements 

pointing out the blatant false information in Gasland. It's unfortunate that the Ranking Member felt 

compelled to hold up the hearing to give further publicity to a propagandist. 

Despite the disclosure of chemicals used in HF in Material Safety Data Sheets, local communities have 

called for easier access to information on HF fluids. Industry has addressed that concern by voluntarily 

disclosing via FracFocus.org. Industry has also worked with state regulators in Colorado, Wyoming, 

Montana, New Mexico, Texas and other states to develop disclosure regulations that protect intellectual 

property rights while providing emergency responders and the public with more information. In 

addition, industry practices are well regulated and disclosed to the public. 

2b. Dr. Goldstein's unsubstantiated claims about people getting cancer, autism or leukemia from oil and 

gas wells are very surprising, since normally scientists do not make unsubstantiated, broad claims 

without data. 

Dr. Goldstein has already determined that there will be health effects without citing any data. His 

comments both at the hearing and in other public forums are needlessly scaring local populations, and 

display his inexperience with how oil and gas regulatory processes protect local populations. 

Carcinogenic chemicals are used in industrial and household activities on a daily basis. If handled 

properly and not ingested or inhaled, the carcinogens found in household products do not lead to 

cancer. The same holds true for chemicals used in industrial applications. Manufacturing facilities that 

handle chemicals follow strict procedures to ensure that workers and the general population are not 
122 

exposed. If there is no route of exposure of a substance to the general population, it will not result in 

cancer, no matter how potentially carcinogenic a substance may be in a high enough dosage. 

In order for populations to experience a health impact from oil and gas development, there would have 

to be a pathway of exposure from any harmful substances to the local population. Well integrity is the 

main component to ensure that any substances used in drilling or HF cannot communicate with 

aquifers. State regulations in all producing states are designed to ensure that wells are properly 

constructed so that fluids and hydrocarbons are properly contained. Once fluids are returned to the 

surface, operators must properly dispose of them in accordance with the Clean Water Act and the Safe 

Drinking Water Act. 

The best sources of data on the health effects of oil and gas development are long-term health studies 

of oil and gas workers, since they are much more likely to be in direct contact with any substances than 

the general population. An extensive review of oil and gas related studies in the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Health Hazard Evaluation database found few chronic illnesses.' 

The most comprehensive, long-term study of workers showed no evidence of increasing cancer 

incidence or mortality. I have included the details as an attachment. 

Dr. Goldberg's insinuation about autism is especially inflammatory, given the current lack of 

understanding of the causes of autism. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, 

states that "Scientists aren't certain about what causes ASD, but it's likely that both genetics and 

environment playa role. Researchers have identified a number of genes associated with the disorder. 

Studies of people with ASD have found irregularities in several regions of the brain. Other studies 

suggest that people with ASD have abnormal levels of serotonin or other neurotransmitters in the 

brain. These abnormalities suggest that ASD could result from the disruption of normal brain 

development early in fetal development caused by defects in genes that control brain growth and that 

regulate how brain cells communicate with each other, possibly due to the influence of environmental 

factors on gene function. While these findings are intriguing, they are preliminary and require further 

study." 

Suggesting that oil and gas activity will cause abnormal rates of autism in communities is irresponsible 

and is not a credible statement. 

In addition, I would suggest that the committee obtain further information from Dr. Goldberg to put the 

chart he displayed during the hearing of violations per well into perspective. The data showed zero to 

approximately 2.7 violations on average. However, the chart gave no perspective on the types of 

violations. Companies must comply with hundreds of detailed regulations on a well site, and small, 

technical violations that arise from missing or incorrectly filled out paperwork are not the same as 

serious violations that could result in a safety or environmental infraction. Without information on the 

nature of the violations, the data are not very meaningful. 

1 Literature Review of Oi/lndustry Worker Exposure, Quality Environmental Professional Associates, April 2008. 
123 

Responses by Dr. Bernard Goldstein, Professor and Dean Emeritus, 

Graduate School of Public Health, University of Pittsburgh 
124 

state in my written testimony, " ... a focus that is solely on the issue presented by the Pavilion study 

seems like a subterfuge ... " 

Further, as emphasized in my testimony, the toxicity of fracking mixtures is not being adequately 

addressed. We are storing up an intentional burden of ignorance that will in the long run significantly 

detract from the positive aspects for our nation of unconventional gas drilling. 

In response to the questions of the Honorable Brad Miller 

1. Dr. Goldstein, you said during the hearing a few times that the EPA draft Pavillion study 

was "appropriately hedged." And the study was "appropriately hedged" because the EPA 

did not have baseline studies. . 

Whose responsibility should it be to conduct baseline studies? How would 

baseline studies help the Pavillion residences? Should baseline studies of 

potentially impacted areas be standard practice of the oil and gas industry? 

Response: Baseline studies should be carried out by industry of drinking and recreational water sources 

that could be contaminated by any aspect of unconventional natural gas drilling. The key question is 

whether the burden of proof should be on the homeowner or other user of a contaminated water 

source to demonstrate that water contamination was caused by industry; or on industry to demonstrate 

that groundwater contamination did not come from its activities. The costs of providing independent 

baseline measurements are trivial compared either to the profits involved - or compared to industry's 

costs in defending against the inevitable litigation. 

-Also, please comment on whether it is common for scientific studies to "hedge" like 

EPA did in this study? 

Response: Yes, it is appropriate for the interpretation of any study to be "hedged" based upon the 

strength of the data and the possibility for confounding. As I stated at the Hearing, this study was begun 

in response to public concern at a specific location. The nature of such field studies is that there always 

will be some potential for confounding that must be considered. EPA appears to have appropriately 

taken possible confounders, such as other sources of the contamination, into account both in its 

carrying out and in its interpretation of the study. 

2. Dr. Goldstein, one of the complaints of the industry about the Pavillion study is that 

EPA should not have included conclusions in the study before it was independently peer 

reviewed. What do you think about that suggestion? How would this change the scientific 

integrity of the study? 

2 
125 

Response: I do not understand why there is a complaint about EPA including its conclusion in the draft 

report before peer review. A routine part of the peer review process is for the reviewer to comment on 

whether the conclusions are justified by the data. Obviously, it is impossible to do so if the peer 

reviewer does not have access to the conclusions. So I see no grounds for such a complaint. 

3 
126 

Appendix II: 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL FOR THE RECORD
127 

SUBMITTED REPORT FOR THE RECORD BY RANKING MEMBER BRAD MILLER

Ranking Member Miller would like to submit for the record the conclusions of the EPA draft 

"Investigation of Ground Water Contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming." The full report may be found 

using the following reference and website. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development and National Risk 

Management Research Laboratory, "Investigation of Ground Water Contamination near Pavillion, 

Wyoming," Draft. EPA 600!R-OO!000, December 2011. 

Pavillion, Region 8, US EPA. http://www.epa.gov/regionS/superfund/wy/pavillion/index.html. [accessed 

on February 9, 2012.J 
128 

DRAFT 

4.0 

Conclusions 

The objective of this investigation was to determine 

the presence of ground water contamination in the 

Wind River Formation above the Pavillion gas field and 

to the extent possible, identify the source of 

contamination. The combined use of shallow and 

deep monitoring wells allowed differentiation 

between shallow sources of contamination (pits) and 

deep sources of contamination (production wells). 

Additional investigation is necessary to determIne the 

areal and vertical extent of shallow and deep ground 

water contamination. 

Detection of high concentrations of benzene, xylenes, 

gasoline range organics} diesel range organics) and 

total purgeable hydrocarbons in ground water 

samples from shallow monitoring wells near pits 

indicates that pits are a source of shallow ground 

water contamination in the area of investigation, Pits 

were used for disposal of drilling cuttings, flowback, 

and produced water. There are at least 33 pits in the 

area of investigation. When considered separately} 

pits represent potential source terms for localized 

ground water plumes of unknown extent. When 

considered as whole they represent potential broader 

contamination of shallow ground water. A number of 

stock and domestic wells in the area of investigation 

are fairly shallow (e.g., < 30 m) representing potential 

receptor pathways. EPA is " member of a stakeholder 

group working with the operator to determine the 

area! and vertical extent of shallow ground water 

contamination caused by these pits. The operator of 

the site is currently engaged in investigating and 

remedjating severa! pit areas. 

Detection of contaminants in ground water from deep 

sources of contamination (production wells, hydraulic 

fracturing) was considerably more complex than 

detection of contaminants from pits necessitating a 

multiple lines of reasoning approach common to 

-

complex scientific investigations. In this approach, 

individual data sets and observations are integrated to 

formulate an explanation consistent with each data 

set and observation. While each individual data set or 

observation represents an important line of reasoning, 

taken as a whole, consistent data sets and 

observations provide compelling evidence to support 

an explanation of data. Using this approach, the 

explanation best fitting the data for the deep 

monitoring wells is that constituents associated with 

hydraulic fracturing have been released into the Wind 

River drinking water aquifer at depths above the 

current production zone, 

Lines of reasoning to support this explanation consist 

of the following. 

1. High pH values 

pH values in MW01 and MW02 are highly 

alkaline (11.2-12.0), above the pH range 

observed in domestic wells (6.9-10), and 

above the pH ra nge previously reported for 

the Wind River Formation with up to 94% of 

the total alkalinity contributed by hydroxide. 

The presence of hydroxide alkalinity suggests 

addition of base as the causative factor for 

elevated pH in the deep monitoring wells. 

Reaction path modeling indicates that sodiumsulfate composition ground water typical of 

deeper portions of the Wind River Formation 

provides little resistance to elevation of pH 

with small addition of potassium hydroxide. 

With the exception of soda ash, the pH of 

drilling additives in concentrated aqueous 

solution was well below that observed in the 

deep monitoring welts, Dense soda ash was 

added to the drilling mud which v"ried 

between pH 8 - 9. 

The possibility of cement/grout intrusion into 

the screened intervals was considered as a 

possibility for elevated pH in both monitoring 
129 

DRAFT 

wells. However, cement intrusion typicJliy 

leads to pH values between 10 and 11 below 

that observed in deep monitoring wells. 

Prolonged purging did not show decreasing 

pH trends, Water chemistry results indicate 

that ground water from the wells was highly 

undersaturated with respect to cement 

phases (e,g" portlandite), 

Material Safety Data Sheets indicate that 

potassium hydroxide was used in a crosslinker 

{<S%} and in a solvent. 

2, Elevated potassium and chloride 

The inorganic geochemistry of ground water 

from the deep monitoring wells is distinctive 

from that in the domestic wells and expected 

composition in the Wind River formation. 

Potassium concentration in MW02 (43,6 

mg/L) and MWOl (54,9 mg/L) is between 14.5 

and 18,3 times the mean value of levels 

observed in domestic wells (3 mg/L, 99% of 

values < 10 mg/L). Chloride enrichment in 

monitoring well MW02 (466 mg/L) is 18 times 

the mean chloride concentration (2S,6 mg/L) 

observed in ground water from domestic 

wells. Chloride concentration in this well is 

significant because regional anion trends 

show decreasing chloride concentrations with 

depth, In addition, the monitoring wells show 

low calcium, sodium, and sulfate 

concentrations compared to the genera! trend 

observed in domestic well waters. 

Potassium levels in concentrated solutions of 

drilling additives were all less than 2 mg/L, 

One additive (Aqua Clear used during well 

development) contained 230 mg/L chloride in 

a concentrated solution, Information from 

well completion reports and Material Safety 

Data Sheets indicate that the formulation of 

fracture fluid provided for foam jobs typically 

consisted of 6% potassium chloride. 

Potassium metaborate was used in 

crosslinkers (5-10%, 30-60%}. Potassium 

hydroxide was used in a crossiinker «S%) and 

in a solvent. Ammonium chloride was used in 

crossHnker (1-27%). 

Alternative explanations for inorganic 

geochemical anomalies observed in deep 

monitoring wells have been provided and 

considered. These alternate explanations 

include contamination from drilling fluids and 

additives, well completion milterials, and 

surface soil, with contamjnation from all these 

sources exacerbated by poor well 

development, Contamination by drilling fluids 

and additives is inconsistent with analysis of 

concentrated solutions of bentonite and 

additives. WeI! construction materials (screen 

and sections of casing) consisted of stainless 

steel and were power-washed on site with 

detergent-free water prior to use. Sections of 

tremie pipe used to inject cement above 

screened intervals were also power washed 

with detergent-free water prior to use, 

Stainless-steel screens and sections of casing 

and tremie pipe remained above ground level 

(did not touch soil) prior to use, Both deep 

monitoring wells were purposefully located 

away from the immediate vicinity of gas 

production wells, known locations of pits, and 

areas of domestic waste disposal (abandoned 

machinery) to minimize the potentia! of 

surface soli contamination. Conductor pipe 

installed over the first 30,5 m (100 tt) of 

drilling at both deep monitoring wells 

eliminated the possibility of surface soil entry 

into the borehole, Turbidity measurements in 

MW01 during sampling ranged from 7.5 and 

7,9 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs), 

Turbidity measurements in MW02 during 

sampling ranged from 24,0 to 28,0 NTUs, 

slightly above the stated goal of 10.0 NTUs but 

nevertheless was clear water typical of 

domestic wells during sampling, A low 

-
130 

DRAFT 

recharge rate in MW02 necessitated a 

prolonged period of weI! development which 

was likely due in part to gas flow (reduced 

relative permeability to water) into the well 

during development. 

3. Detection of synthettc organic compounds 

Isopropanoi was detected in MW01 and 

MW02 at 212 and 581 ~g/L, respectively. 

Diethylene glycol was detected in MW01 and 

MW02 at 226 and 1570 ~g/L, respectively. 

Triethylene glycol was detected in MW01 and 

MW02 at 46 and 310 ~g/L, respectively. 

Another synthetic compound, tert-butyl 

alcohol, was detected in MW02 at a 

concentration of 4470 Ilg/L. Tert-butyl alcohol 

is a known breakdown product of methyl tertbutyl ether (a fuel additive) and tert-butyl 

hydroperoxide (a gel breaker used in hydraulic 

fracturing). EPA methods were utilized for 

analysis when applicable for compounds or 

classes of compounds. Detection of synthetic 

organic compounds in MW01 and MW02 was 

made in part through the use of noncommercially available modified EPA 

analytical methods. For instance, high 

performance liquid chromatography/mass 

spectrometry/mass spectrometry was utilized 

for analysis of diethylene, triethylene and 

tetraethylene glycols. Ethylene glycol, which 

was widely used for well stimulation, required 

additional method modification and was not 

analyzed during this investigation. 

Isopropano! was detected in concentrated 

solutions of drilling additives at a maximum 

concentration of 87 Ilg/L, well below that 

detected in deep monitoring wells. Glycols 

were not detected in concentrated solutions 

of drilling additives. 

Material Safety Data Sheets indicate that 

isopropanol was used in a biocide (20-40%), in 

-

a surfactant (30-60%), in breakers «1%, 10-

30%), and in foaming agents «3%, 1-5%, 10-

30%). Diethylene glycol was used in a foaming 

agent (5-10%) and in a solvent (0.1-5%). 

Triethylene glycol was used in a solvent (95-

100%). Material Safety Data Sheets do not 

indicate that tert-butyl hydro peroxide was 

used in the Pavillion gas field. The source of 

this compound remains unresolved. However, 

tert-butyl alcohol is not expected to occur 

naturally in ground water. Material Safety 

Data Sheets do not contain proprietary 

information and the chemlcal ingredients of 

many additives. 

Alternative explanations provided to date and 

considered by EPA for detection of synthetic 

organic compounds in deep monitoring wells 

include arguments previously listed and 

addressed. 

4. Detection of petroleum hydrocarbons 

Benzene, tolu,ene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes 

(BTEX) were detected in MW02 at 

concentrations of 246,617,67, and 750 ~g/L 

respectively. Trimethylbenzenes were 

detected in MW02 at 105 Ilg/L. Gasoline 

range organics were detected in MW01 and 

MW02 at 592 and 3710 ~g/L, respectively. 

Diesel range organics were detected in MWOl 

and MW02 at 924 and 4050 Ilg(L respectively. 

Naphthalene was detected in MW02 at 6 

Ilg(L. EPA methods were utilized for analysis. 

BTEX and trimethylbenzenes were not 

detected in concentrated solutions of drilling 

additives. 

Material Safety Data Sheets indicate that 

aromatic solvent (typically BTEX mixture) was 

used in a breaker «75%). Diesel oil (mixture 

of saturated and aromatic hydrocarbons 

including naphthalenes and alkylbenzenes) 

was used in a guar polymer slurry(liquid gel 
131 

DRAFT 

concentrate (30-60%) and in a solvent 160-

lOO%}. Petroleum raffinates (a mixture of 

paraffinic, cydoparaffinic, olefinic, and 

aromatic hydrocarbons) were used in a 

breaker «30-60%). Heavy aromatic 

petroleum naphtha (mixture of paraffinic, 

cycloparaffinic and aromatic hydrocarbons) 

was used in surfactants (S-10%, 10-30%, 30-

60%) and in a solvent (10-50%). Toluene was 

used in a flow enhancer (3-7%). Xylenes were 

used in a flow enhancer (40-70%) and a 

breaker (confidential percentage). Gasoline 

range organics correspond to a hydrocarbon 

range of [6 - [10. It includes a variety of 

organic compounds ketones, ethers, mineral 

spirits, stoddard solvents, and naphthas. 

Detection of gasoline range organics does not 

infer the use of gasoline for hydraulic 

fracturing. 

Alternative explanations provided to date and 

considered by EPA for detection of petroleum 

compounds in deep monitoring wells include 

arguments previously listed and addressed. An 

additional alternate explanation for detection 

of petroleum compounds includes use of 

lubricants on the drillstem and well casing, use 

of electrical tape on submersible pumps, and 

components of submersible pumps. Jet Lube 

Well Guard hydrocarbon free lubricant 

specifically designed for monitoring well 

installation was used for drillstem 

connections, No lubricants were used to 

attach sections of casing or sections of tremie 

pipe during cementation, Ciampsi not 

electrical tape, were used to bind electrical 

wires for submersible pumps. Water collected 

for samples during recharge at MWOl and 

MW02 would have a short contact time with 

components of submersible pumps. For 

components of submersible pumps to be a 

causative factor of high concentrations of 

petroleum hydrocarbons observed in MWOl 

and MW02, components of submersible 

5. 

pumps would have to contain high levels of 

water extractable petroleum compounds and 

consist of a matrix aUowing rapid mass 

transfer, neither of which is plausible. 

Another alternate explanation is that 

detection of petroleum hydrocarbons in 

ground water is expected above a natural gas 

field. Gas from Fort Union and Wind River 

Formations is dry and unlikely to yield liquid 

condensates at ground water pressure and 

temperature conditions. In addition, a 

condensate origin for petroleum 

hydrocarbons in ground water is doubtful 

because dissolved hydrocarbon gas 

compositions and concentrations are simi!ar 

between the two deep monitoring wells and 

therefore would yield similar liquid 

condensates, yet the compositions and 

concentrations of organic compounds 

detected in these wells are quite different. 

Breakdown products of organic compounds 

Detections of organic chemicals were more 

numerous and exhibited higher 

concentrations in the deeper of the two 

monitoring wells. Natural breakdown products 

of organic contaminants like BTEX and glycols 

include acetate and benzoic acid. These 

breakdown products are more enriched in the 

shallower of the two monitoring wells, 

suggesting upward/lateral migration with 

natural degradation and accumulation of 

daughter products. 

Hydraulic gradients are currently undefined in 

the area of investigation. However/ there are 

flowing stock wells (e.g., PGDW44 - one of the 

deepest domestic wells in the area of 

investigation at ZZ9 m below ground surface) 

suggesting that upward gradients exist in the 

area of investigation. ln the Agencis report 

on evaluation of impacts to USDWs by 

hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane 

-
132 

DRAFT 

6. 

resel"VoirsIEPA, 2004), hypothetical 

conceptual models were presented on 

contaminant migration in a USO\.r\/ during 

injection of fracturing fluids into a USDW. In 

thesE conceptual models, highly concentrated 

contaminant plumes exist within the zone of 

injection with dispersed lower concentration 

areas vertically and laterally distant from 

injection points, Data from deep monitoring 

wells suggests that this conceptual model may 

be appropriate at this site. 

Sporadic bonding outside production casins 

directly above intervals of hydraulic fracturing 

It is possible that wellbore design and integrity 

issues were one causative factor in deep 

ground water contamination at this site 

(surface casing of production wells not 

extending below deepest domestic wells, little 

vertical separation between fractured zones 

and domestic wells, no cement or sporadic 

bonding outside production casing). 

A review of well completion reports and 

cement bond/variable density logs in the oreo 

around MWOl and MW02 indicates instances 

of sporadic bonding outside production casing 

directly above intervals of hydraulic fracturing. 

For instance, at Pavillion Fee 34-038, a cement 

bond/variable density log conducted on 

10/22/2004 indicated no cement until 838 m 

(2750 It) and sporadic bonding to 1036 m 

(3400 It) below ground surface. The well 

completion report for this production well 

indicates that hydraulic fracturing was 

performed at 1039 m (3409 It) below ground 

surface on 11/9/2004 prior to cement squeeze 

job, at 823 m (2700 It) and 256 m (840 ft) 

below ground surface in April 2005. At Tribal 

Pavillion 41-10 a cement bond/variable 

density log indicates ,porodic bonding directly 

above the interval of hydraulic frocturing at 

493 m (1618 ft) below ground surface. A 

cement bond/variable density log conducted 

-

7. 

on Tribal Pavillion 24-02 after a squeeze job at 

the base of the surface ciJSing indicates 

sporCldic bonding outside production casing 

below surface casing to the interval of 

hydraulic fracturing at 469 m (1538 It) below 

ground surface. At Tribal Pavillion 11-118, a 

cement bond/variable density log indicates 

sporodic bonding between 305 to 503 m 

(1000 to 1650 ft) below ground surface with 

hydraulic fracturing occurring at 463 m (1516 

It) below ground surface. 

Hydraulic fracturing into thin discontinuous 

sandstone units 

There is little lateral and vertical continuity to 

hydraulically fractured tight sandstones and 

no lithologic barrier (laterally continuous shale 

units) to stop upward vertical migration of 

aqueous constituents of hydraulic fracturing in 

the event of excursion from fractures< 

Sandstone units are of variable grain size and 

permeability indicating a potentially tortuous 

path for upward migration. 

!n the event of excursion from sandstone 

units, vertical migration of fluids could also 

occur via nearby well bores. For instance, at 

Pavillion Fee 34-03R, the cement 

bond/variable density log indicates no cement 

until 671 m (2200 ft) below ground surface. 

Hydraulic fracturing occurred above this depth 

at nearby production wells. 

Although some naturol migration of gos would be 

expected above a gas field such as Pavillion, data 

suggest that enhanced migration of gas has occurred 

to ground water at depths used for domestic water 

supply and to domestic wells. Lines of reasoning to 

support this explanation consist of following. 

1. Hydrocarbon and isotopic composition of gas 

The similarity of ol3e values for methane, 

ethane, propane, isobutane, and butane 
133 

DRAFT 

between gas production and monitoring wells 

and plots of 613C-CH4 versus 50 -CH<j and 6 13(_ 

CH,;l versus methane/{ethane + propane) 

indicate thallight hydrocarbons in casing and 

dissolved gas in deep monitoring wells are 

similar to produced gas and have undergone 

little oxidation or biodegradation indicative of 

advective transport. The absence of ethane 

and propane in three of four domestic wells 

having sufficient methane to anow isotopic 

analysis and a shift of IiHC_CH, and BD-CH, 

values in a positive direction relative to 

produced gas suggests the presence of gas of 

thermogenic origin in domestic wells 

undergoing biodegradation, This observation 

is consistent with a pattern of dispersion and 

degradation with upward migration observed 

for organic compounds. 

2. Elevation of dissolved methane 

concentrations in proximity to production 

wells 

Levels of dissolved methane in domestic wells 

generally increase in those wells in proximity 

to gas production wells. With the exception of 

2 domestic wells where methane was 

detected at less than 22 [lg/L, methane was 

not detected in domestic wells with 2 or less 

production wells within 600 m. 

3. Spatial anomaly near PGDWO~ 

Methane concentrations in ground water 

appear highest in the area encompassing 

MW01, PGDW30, and PGDW05. Ground 

water is saturated with methane at MWOl 

which is screened at a depth (239 m bgs) 

typical of deeper domestic wells in the area. 

Methane was detected in PGDW30 at 808 

[lg/L at a depth of only 80 m, the highest level 

in any domestic well. A blowout occurred 

during drilling at a depth of only 159 m bgs in 

December 2005 adjacent to PGDW05. 

An alternative explanation of rligh methane 

concentrations jn this area is that it is close to 

the top of the dome comprising the Pavillion 

gas field which may facilitate natural gas 

migration toward the surface. However, this 

geologic feature would also facilitate 

enhanced gas migration. Also, a mud-gas log 

conducted on 11/16/1980 (prior to intensive 

gas production well installation) at Tribal 

Pavillion 14-2 located only 300 m from the 

location of the uncontrolled release does not 

indicate a gas show (distinctive peaks on a gas 

chromatograph) within 300 m of the surface 

4. Shallow surface casing and lack of cement or 

sporadic bonding outside production casing 

With the exception of two production wells, 

surface casing of gas production wells do not 

extend below the maximum depth of 

domestic wells in the area of investigation. 

Shallow surface casing combined with lack of 

cement or sporadic bonding of cement 

outside production casing would facilitate 

migration of gas toward domestic wells. 

The discussion on migration of fluids 

associated with hydraulic fracturing is relevant 

for gas migration and is not repeated here for 

brevity. Of particular concern are we!!bores 

having no or little cement over large vertical 

instances. For instance, at Pavillion Fee 34 M 

03R, the cement bond/variable density log 

indicates no cement until 671 m (2200 ft) 

below ground surface. At Pavillion Fee 34-03B, 

a cement bond/variable density log conducted 

on 10/22/2004 indicated no cement until 838 

m {2750 tt} below ground surface. Migration 

of gas via wellbores having no cement or poor 

cement bonding outside production casing is 

well documented in the literature. 

An alternative explanation of wellbore gas 

migration provided to EPA and considered is 

that domestic wells are poorly sealed and thus 

-
134 

DRAFT 

constitute a potential gas migration pathway. 

However, lack of cement and sporadic 

bonding outside casing in production 

constitutes a major potentia! gas migration 

pathway to the depth of deep monitoring and 

domestic wells. It is possible that domestic 

wells could subsequently facilitate gas 

migration toward the surface. 

Citizens' complaints 

Finally, citizens' complaints oftaste and odor 

problems concurrent or after hydraulic 

fracturing are internally consistent. Citizens! 

complaints often serve as the first indication 

of subsurface contamination and cannot be 

dismissed without further detailed evaluation, 

particularly In the absence of routine ground 

water monitoring prior to and during gas 

production. 

An alternate explanation provided and 

considered by EPA is that other residents in 

the Pavillion a rea have always had gas in their 

wells. Unfortunately, no baseline data exists 

to verify past levels of gas flux to the surface 

or domestic wells. 

A lines of reasoning approach utilized at this site best 

supports an explanation that Inorganic and organic 

constituents associated with hydraulic fracturing have 

contaminated ground water at and below the depth 

used for domestic water supply, However, further 

investigation would be needed to determine if organic 

compounds associated with hydraulic fracturing have 

migrated to domestic wells in the area of 

investigation. A Hnes of evidence approach also 

indicates that gas production activities have likely 

enhanced gas migration at and below depths used for 

domestic water supply and to domestic wells in the 

area of investlgation, 

Hydraulic fracturing in the Pavillion gas field occurred 

into zones of producible gas located within an 

Underground Source of Drinking Water (USDW). 

HydrauHc fracturing for coal~bed mc:than~ recovery is 

often shallow and occurs directly into USDWs (EPA 

2004). TDS less than 10,000 mgjL in produced water 

is common throughout the Rocky Mountain portion of 

the United States (USGS 2011; Dahm et al. 2011). 

Ground water contamination with constituents such 

as those found at Pavillion is typically infeasible or too 

expensive to remediate or restore (GAO 1989). 

Collection of baseline data prior to hydraulic fracturing 

is necessary to reduce investigative costs and to verifv 

or refute impacts to ground water, 

Finally, this investigation supports recommendations 

made by the U.S. Department of Energy Panel (DDE 

2011a, b) on the need for collection of baseline data, 

greater transparency on chemica! composition of 

hydraulic fracturing fluids, and greater emphasis on 

well construction and integrjty requirements and 

testing. As stated by the panel, implementation of 

these recommendations would decrease the 

likelihood of impact to ground water and increase 

public confidence in the technology, 
135 

SUBMITTED LETTER FOR THE RECORD BY PAVILLION AREA CONCERNED CITIZENS, 

THE POWDER RIVER BASIN RESOURCE COUNCIL, 

AND THE WESTERN ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE COUNCILS
136 

"The Wyoming Oil and Gas conservation Commission's opinion of what caused the problems in 

the first Meeks #2 well 'was that the "blowout" was the result of the water well driller drilling to 

540 feet, finding a good sand. and blowing the hole dry in an attempt to determine water 

deliverability. Because this is a gas bearing zonc, the unloaded hole proceeded to produce gas:' 

Mr. Doll was obviously confused ahout the depth orthe water well and we wonder if his opinion 

of the gas bearing zone is the 540 feet zone statcd above or the nine hundred to a thousand feet 

mne h~ testitied 1(\. We als(\ wonder why the state continues to permit water wells into a "gas 

hearing zone". Even on the Meeks' propcliy. Mr. Meeks has received a permit extension to drill 

a water well to seven hundred feet (enclosed). The extension makes recommendations to Mr. 

1'v1eeks outlined in W,S. 4 J -3-931. Are these recommendations made to everyone applying for a 

water well permit? How is this penllitting process protective oCWyoming citizens. private 

propCI1y and the mineral resource? 

When asked about the P ACC membership, 1\1 r. Doll said he didn't know who the members are or 

how long they've lived in the Pavillion area. When asked about PACC chair. John Fenton. Mr. 

Doll said he believed Fenton had moved to Pavillion after the gas wells were drilled. Mr. Doll 

is apparently as confused about the residents he claims to represent as he is about the 

contamination itself. PACC members are long time residents who have fanned and ranched in 

the Pavillion area for many years. They are not outsiders trying to push an agenda. They are 

residents who are trying to understand what they are contaminated with. how it is affecting them. 

whD is responsible and how it will be rcmediated. The membership includes Jell' Locker. who 

has lived in Wyoming his entire life. He and Rhonda have been on their current farm for over 25 

years. Donna and Louis Meeks h~ve lived in Wyoming their entire lives and have been on their 

tann for 37 years. John Fenton has lived in Fremont County fiJI' over 37 years and in the 

Pavillion area for over 12. John's wife Catherine has lived on the family place they now farm 

with hcr parents Marvin and Evelyn Griflin for 46 years. They moved to their farn1 before the 

gas wells were drilled. Shirley Knight was born and raised in Frcmont County. She and her 

husband Harold Knight havc lived in the Pavillion area for 35 years. Lucille and George 

Borushko have lived in the Pavillion area tor 15 years. We invite Mr. Doll to tour the Pavillion 

area whcrc we would be willing to better educate him about our community. 

During the February 1 hearing, in subsequent meetings and through public cOlIlments, 

Wyoming's state representatives continue to say they believe the contamination in the Pavillion 

area is not from oillllld gas operations or tracking. They continue to protect (he interests ofthc 

oil and gas industry rather than the citizens they say they represent. After years of refusing to 

investigate the contamination in the Pavillion area. they now attack the EPA investigation and 

say the state should be in charge. The state agencies have continually told the impacted residents 

that they do not have the funds or manpower to investigate contamination issues. \Vhcre did the 

Wyoming state agencies suddenly find funding. 1l1l1l1pOWer and expertise to address the 

extremely complicated issues in the Pavillion area') Why aren't (hey demanding the disclosure 

of all iluids L1sed during drilling, fracking and production of the Pavillion/Muddy Ridge gas 

t1eld 7 Finally, why doesn't the state demancl that all samples taken by industry and subsequcnt 

test results from the Pavillion area be provided to the state and the public? 

2 
137 

After years oflooking to the state for answers, we fear that the stute of Wyoming's goal is to 

protect the oil and gas industry. We believe they will do so at the expense of the citizens they 

are charged to protect and represent. and iflert in charge of this investigation. will never conduct 

an investigation tbat will detemline the true extent and source of the contamination in the 

Pavillion area. These arc among the reasons we Sllpp0I1 the EPA Pavillion groundwater 

contamination investigation. the draft rep0I1 of contamination in the Pavillion area. and all future 

EPA investigations in the Pavillion area. 

The following PACC members thank yon on behalf of our organization. 

Sincerely. 

Enclosures: l.ouis l\·1ceks request for water well permit changes 

COlTespolldencc from Wyoming State Engineer 

Cc: Congressman Eddie Bcmice Johnson. 

Congresswoman l.ynn C. Woolsey 

Congressman Bcn Ray l.l\jan 

Congressman Paul D. Tonka 

Congresswoman Zoe l.ofgren 

Congressman Jerry McNerney 

3 
138 

State Engineer's Office HERSCHLER BUILDING, 4-E CHEYENNE, WYOMING 82002 

April 7, 2008 

Louis Meeks 

212 Power.line Road 

Pavillion, Wyoming 82523 

(307) 777-7354 FAX (307) 777·5451 

§?'_Ql§.g@g~.9jVyo.gov 

Re: Permit No. D.W. 170310 (Meeks #2 well) 

Dear Mr. Mceks: 

DAVE FREUDENTHAL 

GOVERNOR 

PATRICK TYRRELL 

STATE ENGINEER 

The State Engineer's Office received your March request to change the estimated depth 

of the proposed Meeks #2 well from 300 feet, as stated on thcApplicationfor Permit to 

Appropriate Ground Water, submitted October 17, 2005 and approved November 3, 

2005, to 700 feet. 

As you well know, from the problems experienced with drilling the Meeks #1 well, there 

appears to be shallow gas present in the area in which you wish to drill. The probability 

that you will encounter a similar gas situation in the deeper well is high. That being said, 

this agency is guided by the following Wyoming Statute: 

W.S. 41-3-931. Application; when granted generally; denial subject to 

review; defects and corrections gcncrally; cancellation. All application for a 

permit for a well in any areas /lot deSignated as a critical area shall be granted as 

a matter of course, if the proposed use is beneficial alld, if the state ellgilleel'finds 

that the proposed means of diversion alld cOllstruction are adequate. Jf the state 

engineer finds that to grant the application as a matter of course, wOllld IlOt be in 

public's water illterest, then he may deny the.applicatioll subject to review at the 

next meeting of the state board of control. Jf the state engineer shall find that the 

proposed means of diversion or cOllstruction are inadequate, or if the application 

is otherwise defective, he may return the application for correction. Jf such 

correction is nol made within ninety (90) days, the state engineer /IIay cancel the 

application. 

The Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission's opinion of what caused the 

problems in the first Meeks #2 well was that the "blowout" was the result ofthe water 

well driller drilling to 540 feet, finding a good sand, and blowing the hole dry in an 

attempt to determine water deliverability. Because this is a gas bearing zone, the 

unloaded hole proceeded to produce gas. 

Surface Water Ground Water Board of Control I 
139 

When drilling into a gas bearing zone in the Pavillion Field is likely, the Wyoming Oil 

and Gas Conservation Commission recommends the following: 

• All water wells deeper than approximately 200 feet should be cased and cemented 

from total depth to surface. 

• Any water.well drilled in the Pavillion Field should not be unloaded without first 

casing and cementing it. 

Your request to drill a 700 foot deep water well at this locution under Pennit No. U.W. 

170310 is hereby approved. 

Should you wish to avoid the type of problems encountered while drilling the original 

Meeks #2 well, the S tate Engineer's Office would suggest that you adhere to the 

recommendations ofthe Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission concerning 

construction of water wells in this area and proceed with caution. 

If you have any questions, please call me at (307) 777-6150. 

~-/~~~--~ Patrick T. Tyrrell, State 

Copies: 

Lisa Lindemann, Administrator, Ground Water Division 

Loren Smith, Superintendent, Water Division 3 

Steve Furtney, Policy Advisor, Govemor's Planning Office 

Don Lih."Wartz, Supervisor, Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

John Corra, Director, Wyoming Department ofEnviromnental Quality 

Mark Thiesse, WDEQ West District Supe.rvisor, Groundwater Section 

Bureau of Land Management, Lander Field Office 

Shoshoni Oil and Gas Commission 

2 
140 

PERt'VllT STATUS V.W 170310 

Priority Date OCTOBER 19, 2005 Approval Date NOVEMBER 3,2005 

SEP 29, 2006 • NOTICE OF EXPIRATION OF TIME FOR COMPLETION OF 

CONSTRUCITON AND/OR COMPLETION OF BENEFICIAL USE MAILED. 

SCANNED AUG 0 '\ 'lOOi 

October fl, 2006 Request for extension of time fot' completion of construction and completio 

of beneficial use received and granted until Dec.ember 31, 2007. Applicant 

notified of exte.nSiD1.1 by letter NOV J? 2006 

Date 10f Approval (Lis9mtiJ~~ " 1lt-Ground liater Division "CANNED AUG 0 1 70n7 

i' 

I 

September 2, 2007 - Request for extension of time for completion of Construction and 

completion of Beneficial Use received and extended until December 31! 

2009, 

Applicant notified of extension by letter Jf\hI ) 1, 

;;n;::at='e=:o"f""i'Ap::Cp::Cr:"o"'vc'a71=<---

~b,r 'I, ll.ON . 

- p,l': I<iiiif,;2~~ a Lindemann. AdrniniStratOT ---

Ground Water D1vision 

March 24 ~ 2008 - Letter from applicant requesting to amend the total de.pth of the well from 

300 feet to 700 feet was receive.d and granted. See letter filed in Miscellane 

;;-Da~t::e:-:-?=1=""'::~t-I_i:",to~i:::~e-''f,-u_n_de_r_perm1t No" U" W. 170310 "-~'i::;s':;''}¢,' ,~.fN:,,:::-::~~'lt::;!'L~=~=-____ _ ~d~inistr'iitOr Ground Water Division 
141 

State Engineer's Office HERSCHLER BUILDING,4-E CHEYENNE, WYOMING 82002 

(307) 777-7354 FAX (307) 777-5451 

Louis A & Donna ,J Meeks 

212 Powerlin8 Road' 

Pavillion, Wy 82523 

RE: Permit No, U,W. 170310 

Meeks #2 

Dear Appropriator: 

seolag@sep,wyo.gov 

November 17, 2006 

DAVE FREUDENTHAL 

GOVERNOR 

PATRICKTYRRgLL 

STATE ENGINEER 

Agreeable to your request of recent date, the time limit for Completion of 

Construction and Completion of Beneficial Use of Water has been extended until 

December 31, 2007. 

LUdp 

Sincerely, 

,/\I ' ,/\1. .Lrt<-~ \_~~~ 

Lisa Lindemann, Administrator 

Gl'ound "Intcrt)ivisimr 
142 

Louis Meeks 

212 Powerline Rd 

Pavillion, WY 82523 

State Engineer's Office HERSCHLER BUILDING, 4·E CHEYENNE, WYOMING 82002 

(307) 777·7354 FAX (307) 777·5451 

seo!eq@s~ 

,Tanuary 31,2008 

RE·> Permit Ne, U.W. 170810 

Meeks #2 

Deal' Appropriator: 

DAVE FREUDENTHAL 

GOVERNOR 

PATRICK TYRRELL 

STATE ENGINEER 

Agreeable to your request of recent date, the time limit for Completion of 

Construction and Completion of Beneficial Use of Water has been extended until 

December 31, 2009, 

LLidm 

Surface Writer 

Sincerely, 

+~k..~ Lisa Lindemann, Administrator 

Ground \Vater Division 

GroUlld Water Board of Control 
143 

Louis A. Meeks 

212 W Powerline Rd 

Pavillion, VV'Y 82523 

State Engineer's Office IiERSCHLER BUILDING, 4·E CHEYENNE, WYOMING 82002 

(307)777-7354 FAX (307)777-5451 

seo!eg@seo.wyo.gov 

November 3, 2009 

RE: Permit No. U,W, 170310 

Meeks #2 

Deal' Mr. Meeks: 

DAVE FREUDENTHAL 

GOVERNOR 

PATRICK TYRRELL 

STATE ENGINEER 

Agreeable to your request of reccnt datc, the timo limit for Completion of 

Construction and Completion of Beneficial Use of Water has been extended until 

December 31, 2011. 

LLidm 

Surface Water 

Sincerely, 

Cf4L_~ Lisa Lindemann, Administrator 

Ground Water Division 

Ground Wute!' Board of Control 
144 

State Engineer's Office 

June 4, 2008 

Louis A. & Donna J. Meeks 

212 PowerJine Rd. 

Pavillion, WY 82523 

HERSCHLER BUILDING. 4·E CHEYENNE. WYOMING 02002 

(307) 777·7354 FAX (307) i77-5451 

seoleg@seo,wvo.gov 

Re: Pel'mitNo. U.W.170310 

Meeks #2 

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Meeks: 

DAVE FREUDENTHAL 

GOVERNOR 

PATRICK TYRREll 

STATE ENGINEER 

Per your letter of request received March 24, 2008, the estimated depth of the Meeks #2 

Well, has been amended to 700 feet. Enclosed is a copy of the amended permit for your 

records. 

If you have any questions, please contact the Ground Water Division. 

""""iY

" dL 

~"m, Adm'"''''''''' Ground Water Division 

LL\src 

Surtace Water Gl'Olll1dWfltcr BOilrd of Control 
145 

SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS FOR THE RECORD BY MR. RALPH HALL, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
146 

Mr. Shawn M. Garvin -2- January 5, 2012 

I look forward to hearing from you both directly and at the staff level. 

Secretary 

cc: P A Congressional Delegation 
147 

RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS 

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 

HEARINGS SECTION 

OIL & GAS DOCKET NO. 7B-0268629 

COMMISSION CALLED HEARING TO CONSIDER WHETHER OPERATION OF THE 

RANGE PRODUCTION COMPANY BUTLER UNIT WELL NO.1 H (RRC ID 253732) AND 

TEAL UNIT WELL NO. 1H (RRC ID 253729) IN THE NEWARK, EAST (BARNED 

SHALE) FIELD, HOOD COUNTY, TEXAS, ARE CAUSING OR CONTRIBUTING TO 

CONTAMINATION OF CERTAIN DOMESTIC WATER WELLS IN PARKER COUNTY, 

TEXAS 

FINAL ORDER 

The Commission finds that, after statutory notice in the above-numbered docket, 

heard on January 19-20, 2011, the examiners have made and filed a report and proposal 

for decision, issued on March 11,2011, containing findings of fact and conclusions of law, 

which was served on all parties of record, and that this proceeding was duly submitted to 

the Railroad Commission of Texas at conference held in its offices in Austin, Texas. 

The Commission, after review and due consideration of the proposal for decision 

and the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained therein, and any exceptions and 

replies thereto, hereby adopts as its own the findings of fact and conclusions of law 

contained therein, and incorporates said findings of fact and conclusiOrlS of law as if fully 

set out and separately stated herein. 

It is accordingly ORDERED that production from the Butler Unit Well No.1 Hand 

Teal Unit Well No. 1 H, operated by Range Production Company, shall be allowed to 

continue as Range Production Company has established that the operations of the wells 

have not caused or contributed, and are not causing or contributing to contamination of any 

domestic water wells. 

Each exception to the examiners' proposal for decision not expressly granted herein is 

overruled. All requested findings of fact and conclusions of law which are not expressly adopted 

herein are denied. All pending motions and requests for relief not previously granted or granted 

herein are denied. 
148 

Oil & Gas Docket No. 78-0268629 

Final Order 

Page 2 

It is further ORDERED by the Commission that this order shall not be final and effective 

until 20 days after a party is notified of the Commission's order. A party is presumed to have 

been notified of the Commission's order three days after the date on which the notice is actually 

mailed. If a timely motion for rehearing is filed by any party at interest, this order shall not 

become final and effective until such motion is overruled, or if such motion is granted, this order 

shall be subject to further action by the Commission. Pursuant to TEX. GOV'T CODE 

§2001.146(e), the time allotted for Commission action on a motion for rehearing in this case 

prior to its being overruled by operation of law, is hereby extended until 90 days from the date 

the parties are notified of the order. 

'\'1",,01 -A.. _ .f· 

Done this ~of Y\t..Uffi. , 2011. 

• -
149 

EUZAlIETH A. JONES, CHAIRMAN 

MICHAEL L. WIUlAMS, COMMISSIONER 

DAVID PORTER, COMMI,9SIONER 

LlNDlL C. FOWLER, JR., GENERAL COUN5lJl. 

COLIN K. LINEBERRY, DIRECTOR 

HEARINGS SECTION 

RAILROAD COMMISSION OF TEXAS 

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL 

OIL AND GAS DOCKET NO. 7B·0268629 

COMMISSION CALLED HEARING TO CONSIDER WHETHER OPERATION OF THE 

RANGE PRODUCTION COMPANY BUTLER UNIT WELL NO.1 H (RRC 10253732) AND 

TEAL UNIT WELL NO.1 H (RRC 10 253729) IN THE NEWARK, EAST (BARNETI SHALE) 

FIELD, HOOD COUNTY, TEXAS, ARE CAUSING OR CONTRIBUTING TO 

CONTAMINATION OF CERTAIN DOMESTIC WATER WELLS IN PARKER COUNTY, 

TEXAS 

Heard by: Donna K. Chandler. Technical Examiner 

Gene Montes, Hearings Examiner 

Appearances: 

David Jackson 

Stephen Ravel 

John Riley 

Andrew Sims 

Mike Middlebrook 

Norman Warpinski 

John McBeath 

Mark McCaffrey 

Keith Wheeler 

Charles Kreitler 

Alan Kornacki 

Chris Hosek 

David Poole 

David Cooney 

Barry Hageman 

Bill Stevens 

Representing: 

Range Production Company 

Railroad Commission staff 

Enervest Operating Co, LLC 

Texas Alliance of Energy Producers 

J701 NORTH CONGRESS AVENUE * POST OFFICE Box 12967 * AUSTIN, TExA.s 7871t~2%7 * PHONE: 512/46)..6924 FAX: 512/463-6989 

TDD 800-735-29119 OR TDY 512-463-7284 AN EQUAL OPPORTUNlTY EMPWYIOR http://www.trc,S(~u:.I:I.,u~ 
150 

OIL AND GAS DOCKET NO. 7B-0268629 

Procedural history: 

Notice of Hearing: 

Hearing held: 

Transcript date: 

Record Closed: 

PFD issued: 

Revised PFD issued: 

December 8,2010 

January 19-20, 2011 

January 24, 2011 

February 17, 2011 

March 7, 2011 

March 11, 2011 

REVISED EXAMINERS' REPORT AND PROPOSAL FOR DECISION 

STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

Page 2 

This hearing was called by the Railroad Commission of Texas ("RRC") to determine 

whether the Butler Unit Well No.1 H ("Butler well") or the Teal Unit Well No.1 H ('Teal 

well"), both horizontal drainhole wells operated by Range Production Company (''Range'') 

and producing from the Newark, East (Barnett Shale) Field, are causing or contributing to 

the contamination of certain domestic water wells in Parker County. The Notice of Hearing 

specifically states: 

" ... the Commission will consider the extent and causation of and responsibility 

for, any contamination that may have occurred, or which is likely to occur, in 

domestic water wells in the area of the Range Production Company Butler 

Unit, Well No. 1H (RRC No. 253732) and the Teal Unit, Well No. 1H (RRC 

No. 253779), and, more particularly, whether the operation ofthese wells has 

caused or contributed, ormay cause or contribute, to any such contamination. 

The Commission may also consider whether there is any alternative cause or 

contributor to any contamination that may have occurred." 

The RRC has had an ongoing investigation into the cause of gas being produced in 

the domestic water wells since August 2010. In October 2010, the Environmental 

Production Agency ("EPA") began its own investigation into the cause of the contamination 

of the wells, and on December 7,2010, the EPA issued an Emergency Administrative Order 

to Range. (See Attachment A, Range Exhibit No.5). In the order, the EPA concluded that, 

"[Range] caused or contributed to the endangerment identified herein [inter alia, benzene 

and methane in two nearby domestic water wells.]" (See Attachment A, Conclusion of Law 

No.46). The Order further described to Range " ..... the action you must take to ensure the 

Butler Unit and Teal Unit production facilities pose no imminent and SUbstantial 

endangerment to public health through methane contamination of an underground source 

of drinking water." 
151 

OIL AND GAS DOCKET NO. 78·0268629 Page 3 

The Notice of this hearing was sent to Range, the owners of the two domestic water 

wells at issue and to three EPA officials. The Notice stated 'The Commission encourages 

the participation of EPA in the hearing and presentation by EPA of evidence in its 

possession supporting the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Emergency 

Administrative Order." Range appeared at the RRC hearing and presented evidence in 

support of its position that the operations of its Teal well and Butler well are not contributing 

to the production of methane in domestic water wells. 

RRC staff appeared at the hearing and cross-examined Range's witnesses. Staff 

presented an exhibit summarizing the RRC's investigations in this matter, beginning August 

6,2010. (See Attachment B, Staff Exhibit 1). 

There was no appearance at the hearing by any representative of the EPA or by 

owners of the water wells identified as contaminated. 

DISCUSSION OF THE EVIDENCE 

Background 

In August 2010, Mr. Steven Lipsky complained to the Abilene District Office of the 

RRC that his domestic water well contained natural gas. On August 17, 2010, the RRC 

collected water samples from the Lipsky well for analysis. On August 26,2010, the RRC 

collected gas samples from the Lipsky well for analysis. At approximately the same time, 

the RRC requested Range to provide a gas analysis from both the braden head (the space 

between the surface casing and the production casing of the well) and from the production 

tubing of its Butler welL' The RRC further requested that Range test the mechanical 

integrity of the casing of its Butler well. The Butler well is the nearest producing well to the 

Lipsky well. The path of the Butler well comes within a horizontal distance of approXimately 

450 feet of the location of the Lipsky water well, but at that point, the Butler wellbore is more 

than 5,000 feet deeper than the Lipsky water well. 

In a memo dated September 22,2010, the RRC Abilene District Office staff stated 

"Each of the gas samples taken, the Lipsky water well, the Butler Unit production and the 

Butler Unit bradenhead gas had distinct characteristics from each of the others." Range 

conducted the requested production casing integrity test on its Butler NO.1 on October 14, 

2010. The test, which was witnessed by RRC personnel, indicated no communication 

between the surface casing, production casing, or production tubing. 

, The Butler well is a horizontal drainhole well producing from the Newark, East (Barnett Shale) Field at a 

depth of approximately 5,700 feet. 
152 

OIL AND GAS DOCKET NO. 78-0268629 Page 4 

On October 26, 2010, the EPA collected the following samples for its investigation: 

1. water and gas samples from the Lipsky water well; 

2. a water sample from the Rick Hayley domestic water well storage tank; 

3. gas and water samples from the tubing of the Butler well; and 

4. gas sample from the tubing of the Teal Unit Well No.1 H.2 

The horizontal portions of the Teal well and Butler well are approximately 1 ,000 feet 

apart and the wells are drilled from the same surface location. The Rick Hayley domestic 

water well is on property adjacent to the Lipsky property to the north and is a horizontal 

distance of approximately 300 feet from the path of the Butler well. However, at that point, 

the Butler well is more than 5,000 feet deeper than the Hayley water well.(See Attachment 

C, portion of Range Exhibit No. 30). 

In a letter dated December 3,2010, Range notified John Tintera, Executive Director 

of the RRC, that Range would continue to work with the RRC to demonstrate that both the 

Teal well and the Butler well were in compliance with all RRC regulations. In the same 

letter, Range offered to collect soil samples to investigate the possible source of gas 

production in the Lipsky well, provide gas monitoring equipment and alternative water 

sources to Mr. Lipsky, and install monitoring wells as directed by the RRC. The letter 

further indicated that Range's initial analyses indicated that the gas produced in the Lipsky 

water well had a different constituent analysis than gas from both the Butler well production 

tubing and from the Butler well bradenhead. 

On December 7,2010, the EPA issued an Emergency Administrative Order ("EAO") 

to Range. On December 8, 2010, the RRC issued its Notice of Hearing in this docket. 

Range Operations 

Michael Middlebrook, Vice President of Operations for the Barnett Shale and 

Northeast Marcellus Shale for Range, testified regarding Range's operations in the area, 

specifically concerning the Teal and Butler wells. The Teal well was drilled beginning in 

March 2009 and the Butler well was drilled beginning in June 2009. Both wells were put 

on production in August 2009. The wells are drilled from the same surface location, which 

is approximately 2,300 feet southeast of the Lipsky water well. 

In August 2010, after Mr. Lipsky's complaint to the RRC about his water well, RRC 

staff inspected the Teal and Butler wells. Both wells were producing at the time of the 

inspection. The inspection revealed that the Teal well had no pressure on the braden head 

and the Butler well had 30 psi on the bradenhead. The pressure on the Butler well bled 

2 The Teal Unit Well No.1 H is another horizontal drainhole well producing from the Newark, East 

(Barnett Shale) and operated by Range. 
153 

OIL AND GAS DOCKET NO. 78-0268629 Page 5 

down to 0 psi within 10 seconds.' Pressure on the braden head of a well is an indication 

that formations behind uncemented production casing are seeping fluid into the space 

behind the production casing. Range was requested to collect and analyze gas samples 

from the production tubing and from the bradenhead of the Butler well. 

The Butler well has surface casing set at 394 feet and cemented to surface. The 

well has production casing set from its total measured depth of 9,054 feet to surface, 

including a horizontal lateral approximately 3,300 feet in length. The top of cement behind 

the production casing is found in the vertical portion of the wellbore at approximately 4,850 

feet, as verified by a cement bond log. There is no cement behind the production casing 

from a depth of 4,850 feet to surface. The gas sample taken from the tubing is therefore 

gas from the Barnett Shale producing interval. The gas sample taken from the bradenhead 

is gas from any formation open to the wellbore above 4,850 feet. 

Because of the pressure found on the braden head of the Butler well, the RRC 

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. In order to perform the test, Range placed a packer on the tubing to 

isolate the tubing from the casing/tubing annulus. 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 

that the casing in the well has integrity, i.e. that 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. 

In late October, Range was contacted by the EPA, requesting that EPA be allowed 

to take gas samples from the Butler well. On October 26,2010, the EPA collected a gas 

sample from the tubing of the Butler well. At the same time that the EPA was collecting 

its single sample, Range collected additional samples of gas from the Butler well tubing, 

the Butler bradenhead, and the Teal tubing. Because there was no braden head pressure 

on the Teal well, no gas sample could be collected from the braden head of that well at that 

time. Range also collected a sample of the gas that is being reinjected into the casing in 

both wells for gas lift purposes. 

Approximately 30 days after the EPA had collected its sample, Range was notified 

by phone of the EPA's position that the gas in the Lipsky water well was the same as 

Range's production gas. Range requested the EPA's gas sampling data, but the EPA did 

not provide the data. 

, More recently, the braden head pressure in the Butler well builds only to about 5 psi and bleeds down to 

o psi immediately. 
154 

OIL AND GAS DOCKET NO. 78-0268629 Page 6 

Geology and hydrogeology 

Dr. Charles Kreitler was called by Range to testify regarding geology and aquifers 

in the area. The Trinity aquifer group (including the Paluxy. Glen Rose and Twin Mountains 

formations) is part of the Cretaceous system. In this area of Parker County, the Strawn, 

which is part of the Pennsylvanian system, directly underlies the Trinity. The base of the 

Cretaceous/top of Pennsylvanian varies from approximately 200 feet below surface (in the 

area of the Lipsky water well) to approximately 400 feet below surface (in the area of water 

wells approximately one mile to the east)' The base of the Pennsylvanian/top of 

Mississippian in the area of the ButierlTeal wells is approximately 5,700 feet. The Barnett 

Shale is part of the Mississippian system. The Cretaceous dips to the southeast while the 

Pennsylvanian section dips to the west. An erosional unconformity exists which allows a 

natural communication between the Cretaceous and the Pennsylvanian. The 

Pennsylvanian contains hydrocarbons and salt water, while the Cretaceous section 

contains fresh water. The unconformity is verified by seismic data. In summary, the area 

from the surface to the base of Cretaceous (ranging from 200 feet to 400 feet below 

surface) contains fresh water. Immediately below this zone, from the base of the 

Cretaceous to about 5,700 feet is Pennsylvanian age rock containing natural gas, oil and 

saltwater. Below that, starting at a depth of approximately 5,700 feet, is Mississippian age 

rock that includes the gas-bearing Barnet! Shale formation. 

A structure map of the area around the Butler well and Teal well was drawn based 

on 3-D seismic data. There is no indication of faulting in the vicinity of the wells and 

therefore no pathway to communicate the Barnett Shale all the way up, over 5,000 feet 

vertically, to the Cretaceous. 

Most of the domestic water wells in the area are completed in the Twin Mountains. 

Some are completed in the shallower Paluxy. The two are separated by the Glen Rose 

aquitard, which retards the vertical movement of water between the Twin Mountains and 

Paluxy. The Twin Mountains is not a highly productive aquifer. As water wells are 

pumped, the water level in the Twin Mountains falls. Because the Twin Mountains is in 

communication with the Strawn due to the unconformity, gas and water from the Strawn 

can move to the Twin Mountains and mix. 

Water wells within 3,000 feet of the ButlerlTeal surface location were sampled to 

determine methane concentration. Some homeowners did not allow their wells to be 

sampled. In the samples, methane concentrations ranged from non-detect to almost 3 

4 This variance In the base of cretaceous is due to differences in ground level elevations. 
155 

OIL AND GAS DOCKET NO. 78-0268629 Page 7 

parts per million (ppm).5 The Perdue water well had the highest methane concentrations, 

at 2.B ppm. The Perdue well is the deepest water well in the area, extending about 100 

feet into the Strawn. The Lipsky well had a methane concentration of 2.3 ppm, the second 

highest concentration found. The concentrations in the various water wells do not 

demonstrate any type of plume, which would be expected if the gas was from a single 

source. Instead, the concentrations in the wells vary randomly over the area. 

The water well samples also indicate variations in total dissolved solids from about 

500 ppm to about 1,BOO ppm. The normal range for total dissolved solids in the Trinity 

aquifer is 500-700 ppm. Chlorides in the water well samples varied from 20 ppm to 535 

ppm. The total dissolved solids and chloride concentrations vary randomly over the area, 

just as the methane concentrations. Range believes that the methane, total dissolved 

solids and chlorides are all indications of communication between the Twin Mountains 

aquifer and the higher salinity waters of the underlying Strawn. 

The United States Department of Interior ("USDI"), Office of Surface Mining, advises 

that owners of water wells with methane concentrations less than 1 0 ppm require no action 

other than periodic monitoring to make sure concentrations do not change. The USDI 

further advises that methane will not accumulate in the wellbore of a water well if it is 

properly vented to the air. The TCEQ requires that all public water supply wells be vented 

to prevent gas accumulations of any kind in the wellbores. 

Microseismic Analysis and Hydraulic Fracturing 

Norman Warpinski, the DirectorofTechnologyforPinnacie-Halliburton Service, was 

called to testify regarding microseismic data and hydraulic fracturing in the Barnett Shale. 

In order to produce hydrocarbons, tight rocks such as the Barnett Shale, must be 

hydraulically fractured, thereby creating pathways for hydrocarbons to move to the 

wellbore. Fracture stimulations are designed to keep the injected fluid within the productive 

formation. Fracturing is effective in the Barnett Shale because the Barnett Shale is overlain 

by the Marble Falls and underlain by either the Viola or Ellenburger, all of which are 

carbonate rocks effective in preventing growth of fractures out of the intended zone. 

Microseismic monitoring is used to monitor the results of hydraulic fracturing. During 

the hydraulic fracturing process, microseisms occur as a result of rock fracturing. These 

microseisms emit seismic energy which can be detected in geophones which have been 

placed in nearby wells. By mapping the microseisms, the geometry, dimension and growth 

behavior of a fracture can be determined. 

5 Some of the wells that indicated "non-detect" of methane were sampled at the outlet side of the treatment 

equipment and any gas which had been dissolved in the water would likely have already fallen out of 

solution. 
156 

OIL AND GAS DOCKET NO. 78-0268629 Page 8 

Microseismic data is available for about 2,400 fracture stimulations in the Barnett 

Shale. In Parker County alone, data is available for more than 320 fracture stimulations. 

For the Parker County data, the greatest fracture height seen is about 400 feet, or to a 

vertical depth no higher than 4,500 feet. The separation between any drinking water 

source and the highest fracture height is more than 4,000 feet. Dr. Warpinski stated that 

it would be impossible to create a fracture height of such magnitude. 

Range believes that the microseismic data available for wells in Parker County 

confirm that hydraulic fracturing of Barnett Shale wells is not the cause of natural gas 

production in the Lipsky well or any other water well in the area. 

Geochemical Gas Fingerprinting 

Mark McCaffrey, Senior Technical Advisor of Fluid Services for Weatherford 

Laboratories, was called by Range to testify regarding the various gas analyses. Dr. 

McCaffrey presented results of geochemical gas fingerprinting which demonstrate that gas 

from the Lipsky water well does not match gas from the Barnett Shale. Dr. McCaffrey 

believes that the EPA's geochemical gas fingerprinting study is flawed because the EPA 

did not attempt to identify other potential sources of gas in the Lipsky well besides the 

Barnett Shale. Further, the geochemical parameter used in the EPA fingerprinting study 

was the methane carbon isotope. This parameter does not differentiate between Barnett 

Shale gas and gas from Pennsylvanian age rock such as the Strawn formation, but simply 

provides a determination that both gases are thermogenic. Gas found in the shallower 

Strawn formation would be expected to have similar carbon isotopic composition because 

the Barnett Shale is the source rock for all gas bearing zones in and above the Barnett 

Shale. Over geologic time, gas has migrated up from the Barnett Shale into other 

formations and it is not surprising that the gas samples collected by the EPA have similar 

methane isotopes and are both thermogenic. 

Dr. McCaffrey believes that the appropriate geochemical parameters to use in this 

case are nitrogen and carbon dioxide (C02), These two parameters are more useful when 

considering that the source of gas in the Lipsky well may be the Pennsylvanian age Strawn 

formation. Available publications provide data indicating that Pennsylvanian age reservoir 

gases typically have higher nitrogen and lower CO2 than Barnett Shale gas. 

For its fingerprinting study, Range used solution gas samples and headspace gas 

samples from 25 water wells within 3,000 feet of the surface location of the Butler and Teal 

wells. Solution gas is the gas which is dissolved in the water. Headspace gas is the gas 

above the water level in a well. Additionally, Range had samples from the Butler well 

tubing (Barnett Shale) gas, Butler well bradenhead gas, Teal well tubing and Teal well 

bradenhead. Range also had samples of gas being injected into both the Teal and Butler 
157 

OIL AND GAS DOCKET NO. 78-0268629 Page 9 

wells. Elevated nitrogen concentrations were found in the headspace gas of the Lipsky 

well, indicating that the gas is derived from a Pennsylvanian reservoir, and not the Barnett 

Shale. The Butler braden head gas is approximately 50% nitrogen enriched Pennsylvanian 

gas and 50% microbial gas. The Teal braden head sample was found to be almost entirely 

rnicrobial. Neither braden head gas sample contained Barnett Shale gas. Further, Barnett 

Shale gas contains no microbial gas, as was found in the two braden head samples. 

If Barnett Shale gas were migrating upwards and communicating to shallower zones, 

some component of Barnett Shale gas would have been present in the braden head 

samples of the Teal and Butler wells. Further, 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. 

Petroleum Engineering 

John McBeath, consulting petroleum engineer, was called by Range to testify 

regarding the history of gas in water wells and about the mechanical integrity of Range's 

wells. He also testified as to the extent of Range's investigation into the reason gas is 

found in the Lipsky well, as requested by the RRC. 

Gas production from water wells is not uncommon in this area, and has occurred for 

many years prior to Barnett Shale gas development. In October 2005, a water well was 

drilled on the Hurst property, slightly less than 900 feet west of the Lipsky well. The Hurst 

water well was drilled to a depth of 180 feet and flowed sufficient gas such that the well was 

flared when initially completed. The gas in the well depleted after a few months and the 

well is now used as an irrigation supply well. In 2007, a water well was drilled on the 

Oujesky property to a depth of 220 feet. This well, approximately 750 feet north of the 

Lipsky well, also flowed gas for a couple of months. The Lake Country Acres public water 

supply had five wells, the earliest drilled in 1995. These water supply wells are 

approximately 7,000 feet to the east of the Lipsky well. One of the wells, the No.4, flowed 

122 MCF (thousand cubic feet) of gas per day and was plugged shortly after drilling in 

2003. The storage tanks for the remaining four Lake Country Acres water supply are 

aerated to de-gas the water and signs around the tanks warn of flammable gas. 

The Lipsky well was drilled in 2005 to a depth of 200 feet, which Range estimates 

is within 25 feet of the base of the Cretaceous. According the Lipsky's deposition, there 

were no problems with his water well until August 2010 when the output from the well 

decreased. Lipsky had the pump in the well replaced with a smaller pump in an effort to 

prevent the water level from falling below the pump. The decreased output from the well 

continued. Range notes that Mr. Lipsky's home on the property was completed in early 

2010, a very large home with extensive landscaping and a swimming pool, likely resulting 

in an increase in water consumption by Lipsky. Range believes the increased water 
158 

OIL AND GAS DOCKET NO. 78-0268629 Page 10 

consumption by Lipsky, in combination with increased development in the subdivision, may 

have drawn down water levels in area water wells such that gas could be drawn in from the 

Strawn formation. 

Prior to the drilling of the Teal and Butler wells in 2009, there is significant evidence 

of shallow gas production within a 2Yz mile radius of the wells. The Strawn formation 

directly underlies the Cretaceous formation, which is the aquifer in the area. Water well 

records indicate that numerous water wells penetrated the Strawn formation, while 

numerous others are completed within 25 feet of the top of the Strawn. In addition to gas 

produced in the numerous water wells, several gas wells were completed in the Center 

Mills (Strawn) Field approximately one mile to the southeast of the Butler and Teal wells. 

These wells produced gas in the mid-1980's from the Strawn, with depths ranging from 358 

feet to 426 feet. The Lake Country Acres water supply wells are drilled to depths ranging 

from 385 feet to 420 feet. 

Range identified 74 oil/gas wells within 2Yz miles of the surface location of the 

Butler and Teal wells, some of which are abandoned locations which were permitted but 

never drilled. Range studied the available drilling, completion and plugging records for the 

wells and found that 11 wells have potential to communicate to freshwater zones due to 

inadequate surface casing or improper plugging. However, the closest of the 11 wellbores 

is about one mile away in the area of the Center Mills (Strawn) Field. Range does not 

believe that any of the 11 wells have any connection tothe Lipsky well problem, but Range 

cannot rule out the possibility that any of the 11 wells may have contributed to gas 

production in water wells in other areas, such as the Lake Country Acres water supply 

wells. Eight of the 11 wells are within about Yz miles of the Lake Country Acres water wells. 

The surface casing for the Butler well is set at 394 feet and the surface casing for 

the Teal well is set at 409 feet. The surface casing on the Butler well was tested to 1,500 

psi and the surface casing on the Teal was tested to 1,200 psi. The Texas Commission 

on Environmental Quality ("TCEQ") recommends that the interval from land surface to 20 

feet below the base of the Cretaceous be protected, with the Cretaceous estimated to 

occur at 175 feet. Surface casing on both wells exceed the requirements of the TCEQ. 

Range's experience in the area is that the Cretaceous generally extends to approximately 

320 feet. 

The top of cement behind the production casing in the Butler No.1 is 4,580 feet, 

based on a cement bond log. The production casing was pressure tested to 845 psig on 

October 15,2010. The top of cement behind the production casing in the Teal No.1 is 

4,810 feet, also verified by a cement bond log. The production casing in the Teal No.1 

was pressure tested on December 28, 2010 to 705 psig. The production casings in both 

wells have mechanical integrity to prevent migration of Barnett Shale gas behind pipe. 
159 

Oil AND GAS DOCKET NO. 78-0268629 Page 11 

Groundwater Investigation 

Keith Wheeler was called by Range to testify regarding the groundwater 

investigation performed by Range per the RRC's December 16, 2010 letter to Range. In 

late December, ambient air samples were collected from different sources near the area 

water wells, such as near the wellhead or in the pump house. A headspace gas sample 

and a water sample was taken from each of the water wells. Additionally, 117 soil gas 

samples were collected from around the water wells. 

The highest measured concentration found in any of the ambient air samples was 

6 ppm for ethane, 13.9 ppm for methane, and 61 ppm for propane. The lower explosive 

limit is 30,000 ppm for ethane, 50,000 ppm for methane, and 21,000 ppm for propane. 

These ambient air samples indicate insignificant potential for any fire or explosion. 

Each of the 25 water samples was field tested at the time of sampling for 

temperature, specific conductance, dissolved oxygen, pH, oxidation reduction potential and 

turbidity. Each sample was then sent to a lab for testing of more than 135 constituents. 

The constituents include 108 volatile organic compounds (VOC). Of this 108, 16 were 

detected in at least one of the water wells. However, no sample contained a level in 

excess of the Texas Risk Reduction Program Protective Concentration level (PCl) 

established by the TCEQ. The PCl is the value at which the analyte does not present an 

unacceptable risk to human health. RCRA metals barium, chromium, and lead were 

detected in at least one water sample, but no sample had a level exceeding the PCl. 

Dissolved butane, ethane, isobutane, methane or propane was found in at least one water 

sample. However, there are no established PCl for these dissolved gases because they 

are not toxic for ingestion of groundwater. Three other analytes (chloride, sulfate and total 

dissolved solids) were detected in all samples, but there are no established PCl for these 

analytes. In some wells, the concentrations of these three analytes exceeded the 

Secondary Maximum Contaminant levels (SMCl) for drinking water in the State ofTexas, 

as established by TCEQ pursuant to the EPA standards for the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

However, the presence of these three analytes indicates the aesthetic quality of the water 

such as odor and taste, and does not indicate risks to human health. 

Soil gas samples were collected from 117 locations around the domestic water 

wells in the area of the Upsky well. The samples were retrieved from depths between 1 

and 3 feet below surface. Each gas sample was tested for presence of methane, ethane, 

propane and butane. The highest concentration of any of these gases was less than 0.2% 

of the lower explosive limit for each gas. As in the other analyses, the concentrations were 

randomly distributed over the area, with no indication of any single source. 
160 

OIL AND GAS DOCKET NO. 78-0268629 Page 12 

EXAMINERS' OPINION 

The examiners find that Range's evidence clearly demonstrates that its drilling and 

operations of the Teal and Butler wells have not contributed to contamination of any 

domestic water wells. The examiners further find that the most likely source of gas in the 

Lipsky well and other domestic water wells in the area is the shallow Strawn formation. 

Most of the domestic water wells in this area are completed in the Twin Mountains 

formation within the Cretaceous. The Cretaceous and the underlying Pennsylvanian are 

in direct communication as a result of an erosional unconformity between the two systems 

of rock. The Strawn is the shallowest formation within the Pennsylvanian. The Strawn is 

found at a depth of about 200 feet below surface in the area of the Lipsky water well and 

at a depth of approximately 400 feet below surface in the Lake Country Acres water supply 

wells about one mile to the west. Water wells records show that some water wells in the 

area were actually drilled into the Strawn formation. Additionally, there was gas production 

in the mid-1980's from the shallow Strawn formation in the Center Mills (Strawn) Field, with 

gas production from depths of less than 400 feet below surface. 

Domestic water wells in the area of the Lipsky water well have contained methane 

gas for many years. The nearby Hurst water well produced sufficient gas to flare when it 

was initially completed in 2005. The Oujesky well also produced gas for a couple of 

months just after completion in 2007. One water well in the Lake Country Acres water 

supply produced 122 MCF of gas per day upon completion, so much gas that it had to be 

abandoned as a water supply well. All of these wells were drilled priorto the drilling of both 

the Butler and Teal wells by Range in 2009. 

The EPA's investigation compared gas produced from the tubing of the Butler well 

(Barnett Shale gas) to gas found in the Lipsky water well. The methane carbon isotope 

fingerprint analysis of the gases were found to be very similar and both gases were 

determined to be thermogenic. Range demonstrated that use of the methane carbon 

isotope in the EPA analysis was inappropriate because the Barnett Shale is the source 

rock for all gas bearing zones above the Barnett Shale, including the much shallower 

Strawn formation. All gas produced from the same source rock would be expected to have 

a similar methane carbon isotope. The EPA did not attempt to identify any other potential 

source of the gas produced from the Lipsky well. Range further showed the appropriate 

geochemical parameters to use for fingerprinting in this case are nitrogen and carbon 

dioxide. Published literature confirms that Pennsylvanian age gases, including the Strawn, 

have higher nitrogen and lower carbon dioxide than Barnett Shale gas. 

For its gas fingerprinting analysis, Range collected samples of heads pace gas and 

solution gas from 25 water wells within 3,000 feet of the surface location of the ButlerfTeal 

wells. Range also collected samples from the tubing of the Butler well, tubing of the Teal 
161 

Oil AND GAS DOCKET NO. 78-0268629 Page 13 

well, bradenhead of the Butler well, bradenhead of the Teal well, and injection gas used 

in both the Teal and Butler wells. The fingerprinting analyses performed by Range 

demonstrates that gas found in the Lipsky water well and other water wells had elevated 

nitrogen concentrations, indicating Pennsylvanian gas, not Barnett Shale gas. Additionally, 

gas produced from the Barnett Shale in the Butler and Teal wells contained no microbial 

gas, but the bradenhead samples from each well did contain microbial gas. These 

differentials confirm that the Barnett Shale is not in communication with any other zone, 

including the much shallower Strawn. 

In addition to the fingerprinting analysis, additional testing for the presence of 135 

constituents was performed on water samples from the 25 water wells. The constituents 

include 108 volatile organic compounds. No sample contained a level in excess of the 

Texas Risk Reduction Program Protective Concentration level (PCl) established by the 

TCEQ. The PCl is the value at which the analyte does not present an unacceptable risk 

to human health. The water samples were also tested for eight RCRA metals. Three of 

these metals, barium, chromium, and lead, were detected in at least one water sample, but 

no sample had a level exceeding the PCL. Dissolved butane, ethane, isobutane, methane 

or propane was found in at least one water sample, but these gases are not toxic for 

ingestion of groundwater and there are no established PCl for these gases. Three other 

analytes (chloride, sulfate and total dissolved solids) were detected in all samples and 

some exceeded the SMCL. However, the presence of these three analytes affects only 

the aesthetic quality of the water such as odor and taste, and are not indications of risks 

to human health. 

Ambient air samples were collected from various areas around the wellbores and 

pump houses of the water wells. These ambient air samples were tested for ethane, 

methane and propane. All samples were far below the lower explosive limit for the three 

gases, meaning there is insignificant potential for explosion for fire. Additionally, 117 soil 

gas samples were tested for presence of methane, ethane, propane and butane. The 

highest concentration of any of these gases was less than 0.2% ofthe lower explosive limit 

for each gas. 

Range also presented extensive microseismic data to demonstrate that hydraulic 

fracturing has not caused communication between the Barnett Shale and Cetaceous 

aquifers in the area. Microseismic data is available for 320 fracture stimulations for wells 

in Parker County. For these 320 stimulations, the greatest fracture height is about 400 

feet. Given that the separation between the Barnett Shale and the aquifer is about 5,000 

feet, it is evident that hydraulic fracturing of the Barnett Shale has not caused any 

communication with the aquifer. 
162 

OIL AND GAS DOCKET NO. 78-0268629 Page 14 

The Butler and Teal wells have mechanical integrity which will prevent any migration 

of gas out of the Barnett Shale. The surface casing in each well is set below the base of 

the Cretaceous and is cemented to surface. The surface casings and production casings 

of both wells were tested when set during the drilling process. Further, Range performed 

a mechanical integrity test on the Butler well at the request of the RRC to demonstrate that 

the low braden head pressure on the well was not related to any type of casing problem. 

The cement behind the production casing is verified by a cement bond log in both wells. 

Based on the evidence, the examiners conclude that gas produced in the Lipsky 

water well and other area water wells is from the Strawn formation which is in direct 

communication with the Cretaceous aquifer in which the water wells are completed. Some 

of the water wells even penetrated the Strawn formation. 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. When the appropriate parameters are used in a fingerprinting study, it is clear that 

the gas produced from the water wells is from Pennsylvanian rock (Strawn) which is 

significantly different in composition than Barnett Shale gas. 

FINDINGS OF FACT 

1. Notice of this hearing was given on December 8, 2010 to all parties entitled 

to notice, including Range Production Company, the owners of the two 

domestic water wells at issue, and three officials of the Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

2. The hearing was called by the Railroad Commission of Texas to considerthe 

extent and causation of and responsibility for, any contamination that may 

have occurred, orwhich is likely to occur, in domestic water wells in the area 

of the Range Production Company Butler Unit, Well No. 1 H (RRC No. 

253732) and the Teal Unit, Well No.1 H (RRC No. 253779), and, more 

particularly, whether the operation of these wells has caused or contributed, 

or may cause or contribute, to any such contamination. The call of the 

hearing was also to consider whether there is any alternative cause or 

contributor to any contamination that may have occurred. 

3. Range Production Company presented evidence in support of its position 

that neither its Butler Unit Well No.1 or its Teal Unit Well No.1 has caused 

or contributed to contamination of any domestic water wells in the area. The 

EPA did not appear at the hearing. Neither owner of the two domestic water 

wells appeared at the hearing. 
163 

OIL AND GAS DOCKET NO. 78-0268629 Page 15 

4. The Teal Unit Well No.1 H was drilled beginning in March 2009 and the 

Butler Unit Well No.1 H was drilled beginning in June 2009. The wells are 

horizontal drainhole wells completed in the Newark, East (Barnett Shale) 

Field. 

5. The Butler Unit Well No.1 H and the Teal Unit Well No.1 H were drilled from 

the same surface location, which is approximately 2,300 feet southeast of 

the domestic water well on Steven Lipsky's property in Parker County. 

6. Both the Butler Unit Well No.1 H and the Teal Unit Well No. 1 H have 

sufficient surface casing to protect usable quality water as recommended by 

the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. 

a. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality recommends that 

the interval from land surface to 20 feet below the base of the 

Cretaceous be protected, with the Cretaceous estimated to occur at 

175 feet. 

b. The surface casing for the Butler Unit Well No.1 H is set at 394 feet 

and cemented to surface. 

c. The surface casing for the Teal Unit Well No.1 H is set at 409 feet 

and cemented to surface. 

7. Both the Teal Unit Well No.1 H and the Butler Unit Well No. 1 H have 

production casing cemented in a manner to prevent migration of fluids 

behind pipe. 

a. The top of cement behind the production casing in the Butler Unit 

Well No. 1 H is 4,580 feet, based on a cement bond log. The 

production casing was pressure tested to 845 psig on October 15, 

2010. 

b. The top of cement behind the production casing in the Teal Unit Well 

No.1 His 4,810 feet, based on a cement bond log. The production 

casing in the Teal No.1 H was pressure tested on December 28,2010 

to 705 psig. 

8. The Lipsky water well was drilled in 2005 to a depth of 200 feet. The 

horizontal drainhole of the Butler Unit Well No.1 H comes within a horizontal 

distance of approximately 450 feet of the Lipsky well, but is more than 5,000 

feet deeper than the Lipsky water well. 
164 

OIL AND GAS DOCKET NO. 78-0268629 Page 16 

9. Mr. Lipsky's first complaint to the District Office of the Railroad Commission 

in Abilene regarding natural gas in his water well was in August 2010. The 

Railroad Commission collected a water sample from the Lipsky well on 

August 17, 2010 and collected a gas sample from the well on August 26, 

2010. 

10. The Rick Hayley domestic water well is on property adjacent to the Lipsky 

property to the north. The horizontal drainhole of the Butler Unit Well No.1 H 

comes within a horizontal distance of approximately 300 feet of the Hayley 

well, but is more than 5,000 feet deeper than the Hayley water well. 

11. On October 26, 2010, the EPA collected water and gas samples from the 

Lipsky water well, a water sample from the Rick Hayley domestic water well 

storage tank, gas and water samples from the tubing of the Butler Unit Well 

No.1 and a gas sample from the tubing of the Teal Unit Well No. 1H. 

12. On December 7,2010, the EPA issued an Emergency Administrative Order 

to Range Resources Company. Range was advised of the EPA's 

determination that Range's oil and gas production operations related to the 

Butler Unit Well No. 1H and the Teal Unit Well No. 1H " ... .were directly 

related to imminent and substantial endangerment to a public drinking water 

aquifer." 

13. In the subject area of Parker County, the Pennsylvanian age Strawn directly 

underlies the Trinity aquifer group which is composed of the Paluxy, Glen 

Rose and Twin Mountains. The Trinity is Cretaceous age. 

14. The depth of the base of the Cretaceous/top of Pennsylvanian occurs at 

depths ranging from approximately 200 feet to approximately 400 feet in this 

area. An erosional unconformity exists which allows communication between 

the Cretaceous and the Pennsylvanian. 

15. The Barnett Shale occurs at a depth of approximately 5,700 feet in the area 

of the Butler Unit Well No. 1H and Teal Unit Well No. 1H. 

16. The Barnett Shale is Mississippian age rock, but is the source rock for all 

gas-bearing formations in the Fort Worth Basin including the subject area. 

17. Gas production in water wells in Parker and Hood Counties has occurred 

since at least 2003, several years before the drilling and production of both 

the Teal Unit Well No.1 H and the Butler Unit Well No.1 H. 
165 

OIL AND GAS DOCKET NO. 78-0268629 Page 17 

a. A domestic water well on the Hurst property, approximately 900 feet 

west of the Lipsky water well, was completed in October 2005 and 

flowed gas sufficient to flare for a few months. The well is 180 feet 

deep. 

b. In 2007, a domestic water well on the Oujesky property approximately 

750 feet to the north of the Lipsky property, flowed gas upon 

completion which continued for a couple of months. The well is 220 

feet deep. 

c. Well No.4 of the Lake Country Acres water supply flowed 122 MCF 

per day upon completion in 2003 and was plugged. This well is 

approximately 7,000 feet to the east of the Lipsky water well and was 

drilled to a total depth of approximately 400 feet. 

18. Production from the Strawn formation occurred in the mid-1980's from the 

Center Mills (Strawn) Field approximately one mile to the southeast of the 

surface location of the Butlern-eal wells. The Strawn in this field was 

productive from depths as shallow as 358 feet. 

19. Lipsky first reported gas production from his water well after construction of 

a home, extensive landscaping and pool construction on his property in 

2010. 

20. Samples from 25 water wells within 3,000 feet of the Butlern-eal surface 

location were analyzed for 135 constituents, including 108 volatile organic 

compounds, eight RCRA metals, and dissolved gases. None of the samples 

had levels of any of the constituents which exceed the Texas Risk Reduction 

Program Protective Concentration Level established by the TCEQ standards. 

21. Ambient air samples taken from various areas around the 25 water wells 

contained concentrations of methane, ethane and propane far below the 

lower explosive limit for the gases. The highest concentration of any of the 

gases was 0.29% of the lower explosive limit. 

22. Soil gas samples from 117 sites were tested for methane, ethane, propane 

and butane, and the concentrations of these gases were far below the lower 

explosive limits for each gas. The highest concentration of any of the gases 

was 0.176% of the lower explosive limit. 

23. Because the Barnett Shale is the source rock for shallower gas-bearing 

formations, the methane carbon isotope fingerprint for Barnett Shale gas is 

expected to be similar to Strawn gas, as determined by the EPA's analysis. 
166 

OIL AND GAS DOCKET NO. 7B-0268629 Page 18 

24. The appropriate geochemical parameters for fingerprinting to distinguish 

Strawn gas of Pennsylvanian age from Barnett Shale gas of Mississippian 

age, are nitrogen and carbon dioxide, not methane carbon isotope. Gas 

from Pennsylvanian age rock, including the Strawn, has higher nitrogen 

concentration and lower carbon dioxide concentration than Barnett Shale 

gas. 

25. Gas found in the 25 water wells, including the Lipsky and Hayley water wells, 

does not match the nitrogen fingerprint of Barnett Shale gas. The gas found 

in the water wells matches Pennsylvanian gas. 

26. Bradenhead gas samples from both the Teal Unit Well No.1 H and the Butler 

Unit Well No.1 H do no match Barnett Shale gas, confirming that gas is not 

migrating up the wellbores and that the Barnett Shale producing interval in 

the wells is properly isolated. 

27. Hydraulic fracturing of the Barnett Shale in the Teal Unit Well No.1 H and the 

Butler Unit Well No.1 H did not result in communication of the Barnett Shale 

with shallow aquifers from which water wells in the area produce. 

a. Based on available 3D seismic, there is no evidence of faulting in the 

area of the ButlerfTeal wells. 

b. Microseismic data available for more than 320 fracture stimulations 

in Parker County indicate a maximum fracture height of approximately 

400 feet, meaning that almost one mile of rock exists between the 

highest fracture and the shallow aquifer. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. Proper notice was issued in accordance with applicable statutory and 

regulatory requirements. 

2. All things have occurred to give the Railroad Commission jurisdiction to 

consider this matter. 

3. Specifically, the Commission has jurisdiction over the issues in this 

proceeding pursuant to Title 3, Oil and Gas, Subtitles A, B, and C of the 

Texas Natural Resources Code, Chapter 26,27 and 29 of the Texas Water 

Code, and Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §§ 2001 et seq. (2010). 

4. No person conducting activities subject to regulation of the Commission may 

cause or allow pollution of surface or subsurface water in the state. 16 Tex. 

Admin. Code Ann. § 3.8(b). 
167 

OIL AND GAS DOCKET NO. 78-0268629 Page 19 

5. Pursuant to 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 1.47, in response to a written complaint 

or on the Commission's own motion, the Commission may issue a notice 

commanding a person or agency subject to the Commission's jurisdiction to 

appear at a public hearing and show cause why the person or agency should 

not be compelled to do the act required or refrain from doing an act. 

6. The Railroad Commission has acted appropriately in its investigation of, and 

actions with regard to, the Lipsky complaint. 

7. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through the following 

individuals, were provided notice of this hearing: Dr. Alfredo Almendariz, 

Regional Administrator, Tucker Henson, Office of Regional Counsel, John 

Blevins, Office of Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Tex. Gov't Code 

Ann. § 2001.051 et seq. and 16 Tex. Admin. Code §1.45. 

8. Steven Lipsky and Rick Hayley were provided notice of this hearing pursuant 

to Tex. Gov't Code Ann. §2001.051 et seq. and 16 Tex. Admin. Code § 

1.45. 

9. The EPA, Mr. Lipsky and Mr. Hayley did not to appear or participate in the 

evidentiary hearing. 

10. Range has met its burden of proof as to the matters considered in this 

proceeding and has established that none of its activities in the subject wells 

are in violation of Statewide Rule 8. 

11. The Protective Concentration levels (PCl) are the default cleanup standards 

in the Texas Risk Reduction Program, found at 30 Tex. Admin. Code §350 

et seq. and the water well sampling results established that PCLs were not 

exceeded for any of the wells sampled. 

EXAMINERS' RECOMMENDATION 

Based on the evidence presented and summarized in the above findings of fact and 

conclusions of law, the examiners recommend that a Final Order be issued which finds that 

the operations of the Teal Unit Well No.1 H and the Butler Unit Well No.1 H by Range 

Resources Company have not contributed and are not contributing to contamination of any 

domestic water wells. 

;, Respectfully submitted, 

, i I} I ..l-~/ ~_ 

Ge~~,.M'ont~~' \, 

'. " //.. ,/ 

\ JJJAkt\f.~c1.fl.A·\JJ>Ct/! Donna K. Chandler \ 

Hearings Examiner Technical Examiner 
168 

SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS FOR THE RECORD BY MR. PAUL D. TONKO, MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
169 

Public Participation Plan 

EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. 

Pavillion, Wyoming 

Voluntary Remediation Program 

Natural Gas Well Locations 

Tribal Pavillion 14-11 

Trial Pavillion 42-11 

Tribal Pavillion 24-3 

Prepared by: EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. 

Prepared for: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality and Interested Parties 

Date: April 8, 2008 
170 

Contents 

1.0 Introduction 

2.0 Site and Project History 

2.1 History of VRP Sites 

2.2 Regulatory Background 

2.3 Site Investigation Activities 

2.3.1 Tribal Pavillion 14-11 

2.3.2 Tribal Pavillion 42-11 

2.3.3 Tribal Pavillion 24-3 

3.0 Initial Site Characterization Results 

4.0 Planned Activities and Projects Schedule 

5.0 Community Participation 

List of Attachments 

Attachment 1 Public Participation Contact List 

Attachment 2 Public Participation Mailing List 
171 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

EnCana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc. (EnCana), is submitting this Public Participation Plan 

(PPP) to the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (WDEQ) pursuant to 

Voluntary Remediation Plan (VRP) Rules and Regulations - Title 35, Chapter 11, Article 

16 of the Wyoming Environmental Quality Act, W.S. § 35-11-1601 et.seq. (Act). The 

primary objective for developing this document is to allow the public the ability to 

participate in the VRP activities associated with three of EnCana's natural gas 

production locations that are enlisted in WDEQ's VRP program. These locations 

include: Tribal Pavillion 14-11, Tribal Pavillion 42-11, and Tribal Pavillion 24-3. 

The PPP has been developed to provide background information on the VRP sites and 

to describe the recommended approach for communicating VRP-related activities to 

interested parties. The PPP provides a: 

• Framework for community participation including voicing concerns, interests, and 

expectations for the VRP sites; 

Mechanism for dissemination of site information and for receiving public 

feedback; and 

• Means for obtaining information related to planned site assessment and 

remediation activities. 

2.0 SITE AND PROJECT HISTORY 

2.1 History ofVRP Sites 

The Pavillion Natural Gas Field is located east and north of Pavillion, WY, approximately 

15 miles west of Riverton, WY. The Pavillion area is characterized by a shallow water 

table aquifer with groundwater flow direction generally toward Five Mile Creek which 

runs west to east bisecting the Pavillion Field. Geologic features include thin 

unconsolidated alluvial and colluvial deposits of Quaternary age underlain by the 

weathered Wind River bedrock formation. 

Figure 1 provides a map showing the location of the three VRP sites, including the 

surface ownership, adjacent neighbors, and nearby roads. Agricultural land use consists 

primarily of alfalfa and grazing land. EnCana has operated the three natural gas well 

locations since acquiring the facilities from Tom Brown, Inc. in 2004. Shell Oil, or other 

predecessors, drilled and operated these natural gas well locations with the following 

spud dates: 

TP 14-11 

TP 42-11 

TP 24-3 

November 9, 1955 

August 6, 1973 

October 27,1965 

Since EnCana's predecessors operated these well locations for many years prior to 

EnCana's acquisition, this period of operations history is not known; however, it is 
172 

believed that unlined pits were used for temporary storage of drilling fluids, produced 

water, and condensate. Currently, the three locations are actively producing natural gas. 

2.2 Regulatory Background 

EnCana is participating in the VRP program, administered by the WDEQ, at these three 

locations because hydrocarbon impacts were discovered in groundwater. EnCana 

address hydrocarbon impacted soils in accordance with the Wyoming Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission (WYOGCC) cleanup guidelines. 

The current status of EnCana's VRP sites is summarized below: 

1. VRP applications for the three locations were submitted and approved by 

WDEQ on September 7,2005. 

2. EnCana has completed the public notice and comment period which ended 

on February 10, 2008. 

3. Initial site characterization activities were performed in 2007. 

4. Preliminary Remediation Agreement (PRA) between EnCana and the WDEQ 

was submitted to WDEQ on February 25, 2008 and became effective on 

March 7, 2008. 

Anticipated VRP-related activities for each of the three VRP locations include: 

1. Conduct continued site characterization activities; 

2. Complete a report on site characterization results; 

3. Evaluate remediation altematives; 

4. Complete remedy agreements; 

5. Implement remedies; 

6. Confirm that cleanup objectives have been met; and 

7. Obtain certificate of completions. 

This PPP includes: 

1. A schedule for anticipated VRP-related activities for each site. 

2. A commitment to provide the public with all soil and groundwater data. 

3. A location in Fremont County where documents will be made accessible to 

the public. 

4. A description of how the data will be made available in electronic form to the 

public. 

5. Contact information. 

2.3 Site Investigation Activities 

The initial site investigation reports for each site have been submitted to WDEQ for 

review. These reports were entitled "Report of Groundwater Hydrocarbon Impacts and 

Pavillion Pit Remediation" dated September 10, 2007 with a follow-up report dated 

October 12, 2007. The following provides brief descriptions for each VRP location. 

2.3.1 Tribal Pavillion 14-11 (API Number 049-013-06355) 
173 

The Tribal Pavillion 14-11 is located in the SW1/4 SW1/4 of Section 11, Township 3N, 

Range 2E. The elevation of the drill pad is approximately 5360 ft. The nearest perennial 

stream is Fivemile Creek runs northwest to southeast at a distance of approximately one 

mile north of the TP 14-11. The residence of Mr. and Mrs. John Middelstadt is a few 

hundred yards to the west of the facility. Figure 1 shows the TP 14-11 site and 

surrounding features. 

Site investigation activities conducted to date at the TP 14-11 have included drilling over 

thirty (30) push probe boreholes on a grid pattem to a depth of bedrock or below the 

water table. The estimated depth of groundwater on site is approximately 12 ft below 

ground surface. The range in total hydrocarbons detected in site soils during field 

monitoring was from 0 - 2000+ ppm. Discrete samples were also collected and 

submitted to Energy Laboratories for concentrations of hydrocarbons, metals, and 

salinity. 

As part of the site investigation, five groundwater monitoring wells were also installed at 

this location due to the elevated levels of hydrocarbons in the soil - groundwater 

interface. The monitoring wells were installed near the west, north, east, and south 

borders as well as directly in the center of the location. 

2.3.2 Tribal Pavillion 42-11 (API Number 49-013-20442) 

The Tribal Pavillion 42-11 is located in the SE1/4 NE 1/4 of Section 11, Township 3N, 

Range 2E. The elevation of the drill pad is approximately 5340 ft. The nearest perennial 

stream is Fivemile Creek runs northwest to southeast at a distance of approximately 

0.25 mile northeast of the TP 42-11. The nearest residence of Mr. and Mrs. Jeffrey 

Locker is located approximately 0.5 mile east of the facility. Figure 1 shows the TP 42-

11 site and surrounding features. 

Site investigation activities conducted to date for the TP 42-11 have included drilling over 

twenty pushprobe boreholes on a grid pattern to a depth of bedrock or below the water 

table. The estimated depth of groundwater on site ranges from 13 - 14 ft. below ground 

surface. The range in total hydrocarbons detected during field monitoring was from 0 -

2000+ ppm. Discrete samples were also collected and submitted to Energy Laboratories 

for concentrations of hydrocarbons, metals, and salinity. 

As part of the site investigation, three groundwater monitoring wells were installed at this 

location due to the elevated levels of hydrocarbons exhibited near the soil - groundwater 

interface. The monitoring wells were installed near the west, center, and east portions of 

the area where hydrocarbons were detected. 

2.3.3 Tribal Pavillion 24-3 (API Number 49-013-06387) 

The Tribal Pavillion 24-3 is located in the SE1/4 SW 1/4 of Section 3, Township 3N, 

Range 2E. The elevation of the drill pad is approximately 5380 ft. The nearest perennial 

stream is Fivemile Creek runs northwest to southeast at a distance of approximately 0.3 

mile northeast of the TP 24-3. The nearest residence of Ms. Zoeann Randall is located 

approximately 0.5 mile southeast of the facility. Figure 1 shows the TP 24-3 site and 

surrounding features. 
174 

Site investigation activities conducted to date for the TP 24-3 have included drilling 12 

push probe boreholes on a grid pattern to a depth of up to 10- 12 ft below ground 

surface. The depth of groundwater at this location is estimated to be about 10ft. below 

ground surface. The range in total hydrocarbons detected during field monitoring was 

from 0 - 2000+ ppm. Discrete samples were also collected and submitted to Energy 

Laboratories for concentrations of hydrocarbons, metals, and salinity. 

Three groundwater monitoring wells were also installed at this location due to the 

elevated levels of hydrocarbons exhibited near the soil - groundwater interface. The 

monitoring wells were installed near the west, center, and east portions of the area 

where hydrocarbons were detected. 

3.0 INITIAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION RESULTS 

EnCana has submitted the initial Site Investigation Reports for the three VRP sites to 

WDEQ. Additional site investigation requirements will be based upon the WDEQ's 

review of the initial reports. Although the cause of the hydrocarbon impacts is believed 

to be similar for each of the three sites, the extent of impacts varies from site-to-site. 

Initial groundwater characterization results have shown localized hydrocarbon impacts in 

the vicinity of where the unlined pits were once located. 

Site characterization results based on of existing data have shown the following: 

• Hydrocarbon impacted soil in known source areas will be cleaned up to 

meet either WYOGCC cleanup criteria or VRP cleanup levels; 

• Soil type (mainly loamy sands) and groundwater depth have been 

confirmed at each site by using pushprobe boreholes; 

• There are no known hydrocarbon impacts to the only VRP site with an 

adjacent private water well (Tribal Pavillion 14-11); and 

• Ecological receptors will be evaluated through the Ecological Risk 

Assessment per VRP Fact Sheets #14 and #19. 

4.0 PLANNED ACTIVITIES AND PROJECT SCHEDULE 

The following presents a summary of project work completed and the proposed schedule 

for 2008 and early 2009. The project schedule applies to all three VRP sites. Changes 

in schedule are likely and may occur due to certain factors that influence completion of 

each VRP-related item. These changes will be communicated to WDEQ immediately 

and to the public through a quarterly newsletter beginning on July 1, 2008. The quarterly 

newsletter will also provide VRP site-by-site progress updates to all interested parties. 
175 

Item Estimate of Completion 

Date 

Conducted Public Participation Meeting -Pavillion September 12, 2006 

Community Center 

Initatiated Site Assessment Work February, 2007 

Met with WDEQ several times to discuss VRP program' Fall,2007 

Met with landowners and WDEQ to discuss groundwater December, 2007 

results 

Conducted Public Notice Period December, 2007 - February, 

2008 

Submitted Preliminary Remediation Plan' February 25, 2008 

Submitted Public Participation Plan • February 29, 2008 

Completed Phase I Site Investigation Reports' March 7, 2008 

Public Review Period for PUblic Participation Plan April 14 - May 14, 2008 

WDEQ requests Additional Site Characterization Activities Spring, 2008 

Perform Additional Site Characterization Activities' June 1 - August 1, 2008 

Perform Field Activities to Address Impacted Soils • June 1 - August 31, 2008 

Prepare Phase II Site Investigation Report • September 15, 2008 

Submit Site Remedy Evaluation' November 1, 2008 

WDEQ Completes Draft Remedy Agreement November 21, 2008 

Conduct Public Notification Process of Remedy November 21 - January 1, 

Agreement 2009 

Final Remedy Agreement * January 1, 2009 

Implement Remedy Alternative March - May, 2009 .. * Denotes activity for review and approval by WDEQ 

*. The public will have access to all data, correspondence, and documentation 

The underlying goal of the VRP is to reach a remedy agreement between WDEQ and 

EnCana. This agreement establishes the agreed upon remedial option for each site with 

components including: 

Remedial action work plan 

Remedial action schedule 

Provisions for modifying the remedy agreement 

Any other provisions or terms necessary to support the remedy implementation 

The process for developing final reports includes: 

Submittal of draft document for WDEQ review 

Modifying document based on WDEQ comments 

Finalization of the document 

Wyoming Statute 35-11·1604(d) requires public notice prior to the WDEQ and EnCana 

entering into a remedy agreement. This process allows public review and comment on 

the proposed remedy agreement. 
176 

5.0 COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION 

EnCana has adhered to all of the VRP requirements for public notification. At least 

twenty individuals or groups notified WDEQ that they wished to be involved in the Public 

Participation Process. EnCana will continue to keep the public informed to meet or 

exceed the recommended VRP public awareness approach. 

EnCana is committed to keep all interested public informed on all aspects of the VRP 

sites activities and progress. To keep the public up-to-date on progress, a quarterly 

newsletter will be mailed to all parties on the interested party list maintained by EnCana 

and WDEQ. In addition, an easily located file of all data, correspondence, and 

documentation will be maintained at the following locations: 

• Riverton Library - 1330 West Park, Riverton, WY. 82501 

Central Wyoming Community College Library - 2660 Peck Avenue, Riverton, 

WY. 82501 

Hard copies of reports can be made available to interested parties on a special request 

basis. 

Attachment 1 provides the WDEQ and EnCana representatives contact list. Attachment 

2 provides a list of all individuals and organizations that are currently on the Interested 

Parties Mailing List. The mailing list may be modified at any time by contacting Ms. April 

Woodward of EnCana at 307-857-4600. 
177 

Slale of Wyoming Mail- Pavillion Meeting Notes 20 April 2011 Page 1 of 1 

Tom Doll <tom.doll@wyo.gov> 

Pavillion Meeting Notes 20 April 2011 

Tom Doll <tom.doll@wyo.gov> Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:00 PM 

To: Alan Hofer <ahoferI2@wyo,com>, Alan Ver Ploeg <verploeg@uwyo.edu>,Alana Cannon 

<a!ana,cannon@wy.usda.gov>, Andrea Taylor <andrea.taylor@encana,com>, Ann Stoeger <ann.stoeger@wy.usda,gov>, 

Armando Ramirez <ar0619@cwc.edu>,BobKing<bobking06@qwestoffice,net>, Brandon Kintzler 

<brandon.kintzler@encana.com>, Cathy Purves <cpurves@tu.org» Corky Vickers <corky.vickers@encana,com>, David 

Haire <dhaire@bresnan.net>, David Stewart <david,stewart@encana.com>, Deb Harris <dharri2@wyo.gov>, Deb 

Thomas <dlhomas@nemonteLnet>. Oelsa Allen <dallen@sublettecd.com>, Doyle Ward <tamraward@bresnan.net>, 

Dustin Krajewski <dustin.krajewski@aecom.com>, Fernando Roman <fernandor@wyoming.com>, George Moser 

<gmoser@seo.wyo.gov>, Gregory Oberley <oberley,gregory@epa.gov>,Jeff Locker <rlocker@wyoming.com>, Jesse 

LeClair <jessieleclair@holmail.com>, Jimmy Goolsby <jimmy@goolsbyfinley.com>, John Corra <john.corra@wyo.gov>, 

John Fenton <fenton_lndianridge@wyoming.com>, John Passehl <jpasse@wyo.gov>, John Schmidt 

<john.schmidt@encana.com>,Jolene Catron <jolene@windriveraUiance,org>,Jon Kaminsky <jkaminsk@blm.gov>, Joy 

Bannon <joybannon@wyomingwildlife,org>, Karl Osvald <karLosvald@blm,gov>, Kassel Weeks <zuguout@holmail.com>, Kathy Brown <kbrown2@wyo,gov>, Keith Guille <Keith.guille@wyo,gov>, "KEVIN FREDERICK. P,G." 

<kfrede@wyo,gov>, Kimberly Shelley <kimberly.shelley@fremontcountygovernment.org>, Kirsten Derr 

<kirsten.derr@encana.com>, Lisa Campbell <lisa.campbell@fremontcDuntygovernmenLorg>, Lisa Lindemann 

<!linde@seo,wyo.go'Y>, Louis Dickinson <Iousdrilling@hotmai!.com>, Louis Meeks <)dmeeks@wyoming.com>, Mark 

Pepper <markp@warws.com>, Melissa Fox <mpfOS03@cwc.edu>, Nathan Wiser <wiser.nathan@epa.gov>, Paul Ulrich 

<paul.ulrich@encana,com>, Rob Parker <parker.robert@epa.gov>, Ron Mellor <mellor.ron@epa,gov>, Ross Jorgensen 

<rossj@warws.com>, Ryan McConnaughey <ryan.mcconnaughey@mail.house.gov>, Sandy Tinsley 

<sandy_tinsley@enzLsenate.gov>. Scott Quillinan c::scotlyq@uwyo,edu>, Steve 6abits <;sbabits@wyoming.com>, Susan 

Hill <ork)lehil!@deeppool.com>, Tara Berg <tara.berg@fremontcountygovernment.org>, Tom Doll <tom.doll@wyo.gov>. 

Tom Kropatsch <lom,Kropatsch@wyo.gov>, gary.strong@wyo,gov 

Participants: 

Here are my notes from the April 20. 2011 Pavillion Wor1<ing Groups meeting held al ewc in Riverton. Please email 

me with any corrections or additions. I also attached a file with a well schematic and a schematic of the cementing 

process. That second attachment is from the API Hydraulic Fracturing Operations-Well Construction and Integrity 

Guidelines, API Document HF1, First Edition, October 2009, That document is available al http://www.gwpc,orgle-

![brary/documents/generaIlAPI%20Hydraulic%20Fracturingo/o20Guidance%20Document.pdf if you want to learn more. 

Please note my new email addresstom.do!i@wyo.gOY 

Thomas E. Doll, PE 

State Oil and Gas Supervisor 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

2211 King Boulevard 

Casper. WY 82604-3165 

tom.doJl@wyo.gov 

307-234-7147 

2 attachments 

::I ~g~S]aViliiOn Working Groups Meeling_CWC Riverton_20AprIl2011.pdf 

::I ~O&KGweJlSChematlc+cemenling.Pdf 

https:!/mail.googlc.com!a!\\·yo.gov/?ui=2&ik=099dc 1 bce8&Yie\\=pt&scarch~inbox&msg... 511 0/20 11 
178 

Notes from the Pavillion Working Groups Meeting held April 20, 2011 at Central Wyoming 

College in Riverton 

9:00 am to 11:45 am Pits Working Group 

1. Irrigation - Greg Oberley reported EPA GIS review for irrigation is a work-in-progress 

2. Records Search for Potential Additional Sources within 1500 foot radius - Greg reported the 

search is a work-in-progress and that access for ground truth inspection may be an issue. Greg 

is interested in reviewing air photos for 1975 and 1985 as Kirsten Oerr-EnCana reported all pits 

were replaced with tanks in the 1995-1997 timeframe. 

3. Other potential sources - Greg Oberley-EPA said a records search into septic systems, dumps, oil 

and chemical storage sites is a work-in-progress. Kathy Brown-DEQ reported that a DEQ 

database search did not identify any potential sources but she will need to do a paper records 

search to confirm. John Fenton said he needed more time to research county records and work 

with County Planning to identify potential sources. 

a. Action item: Tom Kropatsch-OGCC to coordinate a conference call to discuss sources. 

4. Areas of Public Concern - Report on Ground Truth onsite visits April 13-14, 2011 by Rob ParkerEPA, Tom Kropatsch-OGCC, Kathy Brown-DEQ, John Fenton, Andrea Taylor-EnCana 

Thanks to them for their time and effort to visit these sites over the two-day period. 

a. Reviewed spreadsheet handout that listed the 32 sites that were visited. 

1. Reviewed and discussed the ranking, actions required and the anecdotal 

comments made for each site. 

b. Discussion included a request for disclosure of landowner name for each site which 

Working Group members declined to include. 

c. GPS location which was taken at each site will be added to the spreadsheet. 

d. Action items: 

I. Additional records search is required for all 32 sites. 

2. Cuttings pits - analytical data availability? To be researched by Kathy BrownDEQ and David Stewart-EnCana. 

3. Meeting in Lander to be scheduled to review federal and tribal well records for 

information for those sites that have mid to mid-high ranking - Jon KaminskyBLM to coordinate, OGCC and DEQ to attend but other visitors will limited due 

to file area space and records confidentiality. 

12:45 pm to 2:00 pm Well Integrity Working Group 

1. Records Review - Gary Strong, OGCC, discussed his review of 169 wells drilled in the Pavillion 

area, 80 of which are wells of interest. He has 10 of these 80 left to review in detail and will 

continue that effort. 

a. Review for well integrity concentrates on the surface and production casing cementing 

jobs 

1. 46 wells of the total 169 wells were plugged. 
179 

Ii. Of the 123 remaining wells, 33 well records do not indicate or there is no clear 

evidence in the OGCC records that cement was circulated to surface on the 

surface casing or the production casing cement job. 

iii. Of the 33 wells, 11 are non-federal wells and 22 are federal or tribal wells 

1. Action - recommend that 29 producing wells have a bradenhead 

pressure test taken, that the 3 shut-in wells have a mechanical integrity 

pressure test, and 1 well be reviewed for a re-plugged. Gary StrongOGCe identified the wells on a spreadsheet. 

2. Action - recommend well files be reviewed for completion fluids used 

for well stimulation. Gary Strong-OGCC stated that pre-1986 46 wells 

were drilled with invert based mud and post-1986 123 wells were 

drilled with water based mud. He said that additional records research 

is needed to identify the select number of pre-1986 stimulations that 

may have used diesel based fluids and identify which wells used water 

based stimulation fluids. Discussion included this as an action for the 

team federal and tribal well records review in Lander with BLM. 

2. The aGCC webpage is http://wogcc.state.w-YJ!?. and well information can be found by API 

number (a unique identifier for each well); by Yo - Yo Section, Township and Range; by Operator 

Name. Search Completions and Sundries. Action - Tom Doll to provide a gas well diagram. 

3. Pathway Review- Water Supply wells: George Moser-SEa stated his research identified 33 

water supply wells with valid SEa permits, 21 of which had a Statement of Completion report 

but the majority do not note cement use. 

SEa Standards 1974 required a water supply well to have the top 10 feet at 

surface sealed. 

ii. SEa Standards 2010 require the sealing of the top of the well to prevent 

contamination. 

2:00 pm to 2:15 pm Update on WWDC Water Supply Study. John Wagner-DEQ stated that an intense 

review of available hydrogeology and water quality information has been undertaken by the WWDC 

contractor. A preliminary result is the use of groundwater in the core area has been ruled out. The 

contractor is reviewing the following water source solutions: 

1. Town of Pavillion supply and additional system requirements. 

2. Separate well or well field from outside the core area. 

3. Treated well in the core area. 

4. Treated surface water source. 

5. Individual treatments for private wells. 

6. Individual cisterns for hauled-in water from an outside source. 

Scoping meetings are anticipated in the spring to summer timeframe with the final report December 

2011. 
180 

2:15 pm to 2:30 pm EPA April, 2011 Sampling Update from Greg Oberley-EPA: 

1. Two deep monitoring wells were sampled in October, 2010, 

2, EPA is going back to old data to apply Quality Assurance (QA) to the highest level EPA standard, 

Levell, 

3, Sampling in April, 2011 and the October, 2010 sampling includes the EPA protocol on sampling 

and a QA auditor was onsite when samples were taken, 

4, The purpose of the sampling in April, 2011 was to provide a vertical profile of water quality to 

assist in demonstrating if contamination of concern is from shallow versus deep sources, 

a, Two deep (800 foot and 1,000 foot) monitoring wells were drilled in 2010, EPA used a 

handheld gas detector during the drilling of the wells, Those wells were sampled in 

October, 2010 and in April, 2011. 

b, 12 additional water supply wells at various depths from 50 feet to 750 feet were 

sampled in April, 2011. Low flow samples were taken at existing infrastructure, 

c No sampling was done at the monitoring well at the Voluntary Remediation Program 

site, 

d, Suite of chemicals to be identified from sample lab analyses included added analytes 

from prior testing lists and included glycol method and carbon isotope testing, 

e, The QA protocol is to be posted on the EPA Region 8 web page along with the listing of 

wells sampled, 

Test results may be late summer at the earliest due to the QA process which is 

extremely rigorous, 

5, Discussion of the testing included the following 

a, Elimination of bacteria sampling in April 2011 versus prior testing, 

b, Water supply well information EPA is struggling to get the data, 

6, EPA Region 8 hired a geophysicist to look at the well log data from 1O00 feet back to surface, 

Meeting was adjourned at 2:30 pm, Action - Working Groups to set the next meeting date and place, 

Thanks to Kathy Brown-DEQ for coordinating the meeting site, 
181 

HVDHAUUC FRil.CTURING OPEHATlONS-WELl CONSlf{UCHQN AND INTEGRITY GUIDELINES 

Typical Oil and! or Gas WeI! Schemalic 

II II 

CqntlUClor Ill"e 

S"dll;;!? 

1n(IlI"1etl!lI!", ~ils)r\\! 

Figure 1-Typical Well Schematic 

Casing used in oil and gas wells that will be hydraulically fractured should meet API standards, including API Spec 

SCT API casing specifications and recommended practices cover the design, manufacturing, testing, and 

transportation. Casing manufactured to API specifications must meet strict requirements for compression, tension, 

collapse, and burst resistance, quality, and consistency, The casing used in a well should be designed to withstand 

the anticipated hydraulic fracturing pressure, production pressures, corrosive conditions, and other factors. If used or 

reconditioned casing is installed in a well that will be hydraulically fractured, it should be tested to ensure that iI meets 

API performance requirements for new built casing. 

Casing and coupling threads should meet API standards and specifications to ensure performance, quality, and 

consistency, including API Spec 5B. If proprietary casing and coupling threads from a specialized supplier are used, 

these threads must also pass rigorous testing done by the supplier and should adhere to applicable subsets of the 

API qualification tests. 

5 Cementing the Casing 

5.1 General 

After the casing has been run Into the drilled hole, it must be cemented in place. This is a critical part of well 

construction and is a fully designed and engineered process. The purpose of cementing the casing is to provide zonal 

isolation between different fonmations. including full isolation of the groundwater and to provide structural support of 

the welL Cement is fundamental in maintaining integrity throughout the life of the well and part of corrosion protection 

for casing. 

Cementing is accomplished by pumping the cement (commonly known as slurry) down the inside of the casing, and 

circulating it back up the outside of the casing. Top and bottom rubber wiper plugs should be used to minimize mixing 

of cement with drilling fiuid while it is being pumped A downhole schematic of a cement Job in progress is illustrated 

In Figure 2 
182 

API GUIDANCE DOCUMENT HF1 

CemerlUflg Um! 

CaSIn\) 

Cement Slurry 

SI\HrY lS cUGulale(L weIghted, S!UIJY IS pumped down hOle 

and adjusted 

J Dovmhc!i;' 

ReClprocatmg 

Scr<1t:bt'1 

Figure 2-Cementing the Casing 

Job Finished 
183 

f=·, ( 

IS U" /' iC .. JV\ (, f 

U,.)/LEc:t'c 

WOOCC 

fftU/ 

Rerl.l<.hffi1:5 

L.i:..J '1?~ LL;~ 

\~., :J j 

, . .,J\c.uy[\\\ \J-2>OA RO 

LUC!u..E.tCaJ{l{;E'EorWs\.li::o 17,qVlLLI u,V 

TtJHA. . do II <3 VV'jo'Jov 

s 

)Cc"y/_ O.svc, IJ ~ 101 rr.. ~0V 

"""'" C!:- ! s-/;-ul).( @..wya. '7cx/ 

bol Utc7 p. c. t v <-. tr0i« .j<" t-

(.j ~', 

('14K .J\kCO"_(fhc.rf'ij Ma:!.hous&c?""v 

, '(:' ",l( 

MJ"",,~ L-.!( -,"'den! ~ptc5a:,& """.dv 

4-;J<?~f?._~z {bc-;;;"~"'''Mh·UM.L '1~/P&'cwc.colC/ 

(;12~7t"'-'1 {i:;!JJ2L!,-'7 (..I')I:{'-'\- "!'=~ 

~WI1-V 111.1/t.t;J Cro\,)i/f:a;:tc~ ,tc ,1'-. 
184 

(. 

d +\'"\a\'",~S ~ l.'t~~~'('J. 
185 

1320442 42X-11 W.H. PAUL PATENT 

1320878· 14-2O:02~8~1310 

1322255 TRIBAL PAVILLION 

1322824 PAVILLION FEE 

1322214 PAVILLION FEE 

1322060 P",V1LLlON FEE 

1322057 PAVILLION 

~~'9'321'69'5 

1320889 

1320764 

WeBs w/ Required or 

Suggested Testing. 

SE NE 11 Bradenhead test 

SE.NW 12 .3 '2 ..8i~deObead SW NW 12 3 2 8radenhead test 

NW SE 12 3 2 Bradenhead Test 

NW SW 12 3 2 Bradenh"ad Test 

NW SW 12 3 2 Bradenhead 

NE.NW 13' 3 2 8radenhead test 

.' j~lla~;l~ll!;'2l.1l~B~tl.i\iW~If~~~f 

15' 3 '.-2 .... 8raderihead Test 

15' 3 2 ······MIT 

4/19/2011 

TBI BLMlTribal 

TBI BLMlTribal 

Encana BlM! Tribal 

TBI BlM! Tribal 

Shell BLM! Tribal 

TBI WOGCC 

Shell BLMlTribal 

Palmer WOGCC 

Shell BLM! Tribal 

Shell BLMlTribal 

TBI WOGCC 

TBI BlMlTribal 

TBI BLM! Tribal 

TBI 8LMITribai 

Shell 8LMITribai 

T81 8LMITribai 

T81 8LMITnbai 

T81 8LMITribai 

T81 BLM! Tribal 

TBI BLM! Tribal 

TBI WOGCC 

T81 8LMITribai 

TBI WOGCC 

Shell WOGCC 

Shell 8LMITribai 

Encana BlMlTribal 

Encana WOGCC 

TBI WOGCC 

T81 WOGCC 

TBI WOGCC 

TBI BLMlTribal 

Shell 8LMITribai 

Shell WOGCC 

The above wells were selected because they indicated a possible annular space between surface casing and 

top of prod. casing cement. 
186 

Doll. Tom 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Cc: 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

Doll, Tom 

Tuesday, April 05, 2011 3:06 PM 

Corra, John; Steve Babits (sbabits@wyoming.com); Brown, Kathy; Jolene Catron 

(jolene@windriveralliance.org); Jimmy Goolsby (jimmy@goolsbyfinley,com); David Haire 

(dhaire@bresnan.net); Deb Thomas (dthomas@nemontel.net); Harris, Deborah; Alan Hofer 

(ahofer12@wyo.com); Ross Jorgensen (rossj@warws,com): Bob King (bobking06 

@qwestoffice.net); Dustin Krajewski (dustin.krajewski@aecom,com); Kropatsch, Tom; Lisa 

Lindemann (liinde@seo.wyo.gov); Wagner, John; Jeff Locker (rlocker@wyoming.com), Ron 

Mellor (mellor.ron@epa.gov); George Moser (gmoser@seo.wyo.gov); Gregory Oberley 

(oberley.gregory@epa.gov); Rob Parker (parker,robert@epa.gov); Passehl, John; Mark 

Pepper (markp@warws.com); Alan Ver Ploeg (verploeg@uwyo.edu); Scott Quillinan 

(scottyq@uwyo,edu); David Stewart (david.stewart@encana.com); Andrea Taylor 

(andrea.taylor@encana.com); paul.ulrich@encana.com (paul.ulrich@encana,com); Corky 

Vickers (corky.vickers@encana.com); Doyle Ward (tamraward@bresnan.net); Nathan Wiser 

(wiser.nathan@epa.gov); Kirsten Derr (kirsten.derr@encana.com); Jon Kaminsky 

(jkaminsk@blm.gov); John Fenton (fenton_indianridge@wyoming.com); Louis Dickinson 

(Iousdrilling@hotmail.com); Louis Meeks (Idmeeks@wyoming.com); Kassel Weeks (zuguout@hotmail.com); Frederick, Kevin; Gary Strong (gstron@wyo.gov) 

Guille, Keith 

RE: Next Meeting for Pavilion Working Groups 

Pavillion Meeting Agenda April 20 2011.docx 

The agenda is attached. I \vi!l fad!itatc as John Carra will not be able to attend. See YOll April 20 at the Central \Vyoming 

College, Riverton, ill the Fremont Room 15C103) in the Student Center W[- wi!! stan at 9:00 am. 

Tholfld~ f. Doll. PE 

Wyoming Oil ann Gas Supenflsor 

Wyoming all and Gas Conservation Commission 

2211 King Boulevard 

Casper, WY 8260~ 

Office: 307,234·7J47 

Cell: 307-262,8936 

[maiL tdoll@wyo,gov 

http:Uwogcc.state.wy.us 

Trlis ,,-fTl.'Ill inciudlf'g aI, <'Itt~d:lfllerlt.". to aile! !r(W'l f'10;' .. ~, (1,lflneclion wl~h 100 imnS<lcll()'1 0: :;-iDk; i;t;$In£)SS, IS SiJb?i.i!C (he Wyommg P.ubil~ qecorn'S .4t:! 1\\1';0 SlEIt setto~ 1ry-4·2D1 

!N::~'9tl ~6-4>2tl5: ami rfl(lV ~e dlsci':;se.C!C ftlfrd p1:lf!'6S Tn£' '1iunlill!Qf' I~ '!':If:fl~ ~:JI~i! II')" !nr, u!'e ,,1:f\1i ,,,,jl'h:,u;1' fr 1''1t111' rH'I1ed ,,~")';£ If 1-0\1 received tn,,:;. e-rrt.a.~ If, error, D~i'ISe 

:'l't'8:m:Jle'l!\oHr Ll~~ br &>lephal'f~ rJ lelll" (:·('1(1[, 

From: Corral John 

Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2011 1:12 PM 

To: Doill Tom; Steve Babits (sbabits@wvoming.com); Brown, Kathy; Jolene Catron (jolene@windriveralliance.org); Jimmy 

Goolsby (jimmy@goolsbyfinley,com); David Haire (dhaire@bresnan,net); Deb Thomas (dthomas@nemontel,net); Harris, 

Deborah; Alan Hofer (ahofer12@wyo,Com); Ross Jorgensen (rossj@warws.com); Bob King (bobking06©Qwestoffice,net); 

Dustin Krajewski (dustin.krajewski@aecom.com); Kropatsch, Tom; Lisa Lindemann (llinde@seo.wyo.gov); Wagner, John; 

Jeff Locker (r!ocker@wyoming.com); Ron Mellor (meUor.ron@eDa.gov); George Moser (gmoser@seo.wyo.gov); Gregory 

Oberley (oberlev.gregory@eoa.gov); Rob Parker (parker,robert@eoa.gov); Passehl, John; Mark Pepper 

(markp@warws,com); Alan Ver Ploeg (verploeg@uwyo.edu); Scott Quillinan (scottyq@uwvo,edu); David Stewart 

(david.stewart@encana,com); Andrea Taylor (andrea.taylor@encana,(om); pau!.ulrlch@encana.com 

(paul.ulrich@encana,com); Corky Vickers (corky,vickers@encana,com); Doyle Ward (tamraward@bresnan,net); Nathan 

Wiser (wiser.nathan@epa.gov); Kirsten Derr (kirsten.derr@lencana.com); Jon Kaminsky Okaminsk@blm,gov)i John 

Fenton (fenton indianridge@wyoming.com); Louis Dickinson (Iousdrillinq@hotmail,(om); Louis Meeks 

(Idmeeks@wyoming,com); Kassel Weeks (zuqu-out@hotmail.com); Frederick, Kevin 

Cc: Guille, Keith 

Subject: Next Meeting for Pavilion Working Groups 
187 

l<.t our 1,lst meeto1g It was agreed that thf' week of April:18 wou](j bp d good week sctwouie our next nWf'tlng. 1 w!!! 

not be 1'\ere Jue to a prior conlmitment Jnd John Wdgn,,">l will repte:.enl tile Tom will bt' there to !t>iHJ HlP (1IScu:,\IUm 

Tom may also want to Clcijllst the dg{'mla i:.lnd if ~o wil! communicate :'eparJtely. A P!'('s~:. rc>le{)sp will bo spnt out toddY' or 

iOl¥lorfOw 

Date: V\.iedne<;dilY, April 20, 2011 

Time: 9 AM to 4 PM. Depending on progress) the meeting could end earlier. 

location: Centrnl Wyoming College, Riverton, V..fY. ~remont Hoom (5(103) in the Student Center 

lunch: There is a tood court at the site and it wi!! be open. You !nust tise either cash or check, no credit cards Me 

accepted. The actual lunch break time and duration can be decided at the meeting. 

Draft Agenda: 

Revieliv of Assignments from the last meeting 

Pits \/I}orking Group discussion and progress report 

Well !nregrity Group discussion am! progress report 

Updates on rnonitor well,:" wat~r supply study {If t1vaiLJbleJ 

Pub!i~ comments 

Special Note to Group leads: ! encourage you to prepare a more detailed agenda for your portion of the meeting 

rnr d!l \\'ho 

HlP nl('etin~ 

on ttl!:' working groups, please inform your group leads. Tom and me of whClt items you want to cover at 
Add ? J../d 

I/r;! I 6f5 /ClCd,h,..-, 

190 

-,,:; 

" ~ ~ ~ 

~ 1: 

~ ~ 

~ " 0. :F = t c 

~ 

J 

" g 0. 

~ ~ C 

<, 

M 

~ 1 " 
191 

PavHliol1 \Norldng Groups i\rl£:etlr.g 

April 20, 2011 Riverton, vVyaming 

Potential Attendees: DEQ; J Corra, J \Vagner, k Frederick, J Pa.:.:sehl, D Harris, J O··Conner, f( Bml/in, C 

Andersen 

EPA: M Hestrn<lrkJ G Oberlev, H P<lrKeL f'J \-Viser, R ivlellor 

Enc:ana: P U!rich, D Stewart, !< Derr. C \fic:kers 

OGec: T Don, T Kropatch, G Strong, 

vVind RiV-Ef Environmental Quality Commission: D !\ragon, D Goggles, D Hair'2, S 8abits 

WGS: A Ver Ploeg, S Quiilinen 

SUlt1: J Karninsky 

SE~: L Lindemann, G Moser 

WAR'JVS: M PEpper, R Jorgensen 

9:00 AM -11:30 AM: Pits 

Review irrigJtion information maps. dJtcs, ditches {G Oberley, EPA} 

Findings from records search - addlti{)naliy id'2ntified locations \N1thin 1500' radius with pits (T Kropatsch 

OGee, J Kaminsky BLM, 0 Stewart Encar,a} 

Other potEntial sources in 1500' radius - septic, dumps, storage tanks, etc (S QuiWnan iNGS, I( Brown 

OEQ, J Fenton, P Ulrich Encana} 

Report on Ground Truth CiA's - (R Parker EPA, T Kropat5ch aGee, J FentDo, K Brown DEQ, A Taylor 

Encar:a) 

\V,Jd( p!on development for investigation of "my addition,]! po'cenUal sources 

Noon - 2:30 PI'V!: \Nel! Integrity 

Records REV!e'.,V: Sec. 1-4, 9~l3 and 15 T3f'1,R2E. john !\, G, Strong, Corky Ron M, G, ['lloser, Usa l 

WatcrwcH TOs and construction indu(jing surface seals. location in rel,tion to surfacE features, 

G.as \Vel[ Construction 

eEL Jata. Toe not.ations 

Shal!Q\iv gas, noted in 

Chemicals ReviE:\h': 

Drilling fluids, 

most pre I9S'::; \vc1!s 

tJ?sed~ all 
192 

')5 

2:30 3.:CO Pl'vl: 

on 
193 

PITS WORK GROUP 

Map the irrigated areas, when irrigation started, including ditches (Greg Oberley) 

Records Search (including landfill records) for wells that have cuttings, and production pits within circles. 

Tom K, OGCC, John K., BlM, David, EnCana 

look for other potential sources inside 1500' radius circles (Septic Systems, other historical items, 

dumps, storage tanks, equipment maintenance areas - WGS can help. 

Scott Quillinan, Kathy Brown, John Fenton & Paul Ulrich 

Ground truth community identified Sites: 

Rob Parker, EPA, Tom K. OGCC, J Fenton, Kathy Brown, Andrea Taylor, EnCana 

DRILL HOLE GROUP 

1. Universe to look at: Sec. 1-4, 9-13 and 15 T3N,R2E 

2. Records Review: John K, G. Strong, Corky V. Ron M, G. Moser, lisa l 

3. Chemicals Review: Wait until next meeting. 

4. Populate a GIS database: Greg Oberley 

5. Pathway Review: look at gas wells, H2o wells and interconnections. 

6. Well Testing - Wait 
194 

DolI. Tom 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Attachments: 

Kropatsch, Tom 

Wednesday, March 09, 201111:04 AM Doli, Tom; Strong, Gary; Nelson, Janie 

FW: Narrative associated with Community Identlfied Areas 

Letter from John Fenton discussing community identified areas. pdf 

Attached are the comments that John Fenton provided to the EPA for the "Community Identified 

Areas" (pits) at Pavillion. The pit workgroup members tasked with ground truthing these 

locations will tentatively complete the task on April 5-6, 

Tom Kropatsch 

Natural Resource Analyst 

Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 

(3a7) 234-7147 

tkropa@Wyo.gov 

-----Original Message~~---

From: Parker. Robert@epamail.epa.gov [mail to: Parker. Robert@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, March a9, 2eU 9: 22 AM 

To: Brown) Kathy; Kropatsch} Tom; Andrea Taylor; fenton indianridge@Wyoming.com 

Subj ect: Fw: Narrative associated with Communi ty Identified Areas 

All -

I apologize for this second email. The email address I had entered for John Fenton was 

incorrect. 

Rob Parker 

Site Assessment Manager, Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 

8 

Address: 1595 Wynkoop St, 8EPR-SA, Denver, Colorado S0282-1129 

Email: parker. robert@epa.gov I Direct Phone: (303) 312-6664 

Forwarded by Robert Parker/RS/USEPA/US on 03/09/2el1 09:16 AM 

From: Robert Parker/R8/USEPA/US 

To: "Brown, Kathy" <kbrown2@Wyo.gov> .. TKropaCciJwyo.gov .. Andrea 

Taylor (andrea. taylor@encana.com) 

<andrea. taylor@encana.(om> .. John Fenton 

<fenton. indianridge®wyoming. (on1> 

Date: 03/09/2011 09:13 AM 

Subj ect: Narrative assoc iated with Communi ty Identified Areas 

Kathy, Tom, Andrea, and John .. 

I have attached to this email a scanned copy of the comments provided to EPA from John 

discussing the individual areas identified by the community. I will be sure to send out the 
195 

map that was compiled showing the approximate locations of these areas. I will send the map 

using w\..-)w.transferbigfiles.com (as it is a 15 MB file that some email systems might not 

receive), 50 look for an email from that website ~·Jith a link to download the map. Please let 

me know if you do not receive this email in the next day or so, and I will try another method 

of delivery. 

I intend to bring GPS equipment to more accurately document the location information for all 

of these areas for mapping purposes. 

(See attached file: Letter from John Fenton discussing community identified ar'eas.pdf) 

I understand that a number of us were looking at meeting in pavillion the week of April 4th. 

I am hopefully optimistic) but I suspect that it might take a couple of days to visit all 32 

sites) so if we are still looking at the first ~.,..eek of April, I'd propose to schedule this 

work around April 5th and 6th. Does that pose any issues for you all? 

Thanks, 

Rob Parker 

Site Asses sment Manager, Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) Region 

8 

Address: 1595 Wynkoop St, 8EPR-SA, Denver', Colorado 802B2-1129 

Email: parker, robert@epa,gov I Di rect Phone: (303) 312 -6664 
196 

Æ