NORTHRUP

Comments on Penn St ate St udy

Researchers at Penn State recently did a study of drinking water wells near active gas drilling sites.1 They did not find a statistically significant level of methane in the water wells tested, but this is probably due to a rather sloppy testing protocol and a lack of understanding of how methane migration occurs: 1. Only 48 of the 233 samples (21%) were checked for methane 2. Of these, only 26 water wells were actually near gas wells that had been both drilled and fracked, so only 11% were potentially representative of wells that might be subject to methane migration. Of the remainder, 16 of the water wells were near gas wells that had been drilled but not fracked. 3. The study failed to include water wells where methane was known to be a problem. 4. The tests were conducted before methane would be expected to appear in groundwater due to casing decay. Data mining. While apparently inadvertent or beyond the control of the researchers, 79% of the wells tested were not tested for methane. The 233 water wells studied were chosen as part of a process that included soliciting volunteers for the project. Thus, the possibility exists that at least some of the potential participants refused to participate on account of having signed non-disclosure agreements. The researchers acknowledge that the participants "... do not represent random samples." The wells tested were broken into two groups. Phase 1 and Phase 2 groups were defined according to whether or not pre-testing data was the result of testing done by a drilling company or testing done by the researchers. Most of the participants --185 out of 233-- were Phase 2, no pretesting before spudding by a driller. Owners collected 8%, owners paid consultants on 44% and drillers paid consultants on 48%. Measuring for methane in the 185 Phase 2 wells was not part of the study: "For the samples collected during this project, all parameters measured in Phase 1 water wells were also measured on Phase 2 water wells with the exception of methane, bromide, and oil/grease. Methane concentration was not studied due to "difficult sample protocols for homeowners." Wells where methane contamination was already in evidence were not included in the study. "Several complaints related to increased methane in Phase 2 water
1

http://www.rural.palegislature.us/documents/reports/Marcellus_and_drinking_water_201 1_rev.pdf

wells were already part of ongoing DEP investigations, and could not be evaluated because methane was not measured in Phase 2 water wells." So, for all intents and purposes, only 25 water wells were actually tested with any sort of veracity and these were by definition self-selected, newly drilled, nonproblematic wells. Aging of gas wells. Of the 42 water wells (18%) tested for methane, all were located near newly drilled gas wells: Drilling and fracking were expected to occur at each pad site during 2010. Indeed 16 of the water wells were tested before the gas wells had been fracked. Methane migration would not be expected to appear in groundwater this quickly it takes time, and would not be expected to appear in statistically significant amounts until approximately two years after the gas well was drilled, fracked and producing. The cement in the outer casing of the well shrinks over time resulting in an imperfect bond with the surrounding rock.2

This is a well-known phenomena in the industry. Casing pressure, as measured at the bradenhead gauge, is indicative of a leaking well. Elevated pressures,
2

http://www.scribd.com/doc/65704543/Casing-Leaks

generally considered over 100 psi at the gauge, would not be expected to become statistically significant until the second year, or, in the case of the Penn State study, 2012 or beyond.

Wells leak over time. Over enough time, they all will leak since the casing will deteriorate. To research this correctly, periodic measurements would need to be made of water on an annual basis. 3 Lastly, methane can be mobilized from any gas bearing sedimentary layer including layers that overlie the target zone the Marcellus or Utica. So tests would need to account for whether known intermediate zones are being drilled through. And lastly, as in the Duke study, the methane would need to be identified as being either thermogenic or organic in origin.4 In conclusion, the Penn State study, is inconclusive and grossly flawed regarding its testing for methane. It should be withdrawn. James Northrup http://www.scribd.com/northrup49

3 4

http://www.scribd.com/doc/65577477/SGEIS-Well-Construction http://www.biology.duke.edu/jackson/pnas2011.pdf