An Encana Corp. official in December delivered a blistering response to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) recent draft report linking water contamination in Pavillion, WY, to chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing (fracking).

The water well testing procedures used by federal officials near Encana’s natural gas drilling sites in Pavillion were flawed, which led to results that failed to account for naturally occurring chemicals, said Encana’s David Stewart told reporters in a conference call. Stewart runs Encana’s environmental, health and safety operations in the Rocky Mountains region and he detailed the company’s complaints.

Following two years of water sampling, the EPA claimed in a draft report in early December that the groundwater in Pavillion contained chemicals that were normally used in gas production practices, such as fracking (see NGI, Dec. 12, 2011). It is the first time a federal agency has linked drinking water pollution with fracking.

Subsidiary Encana Oil & Gas USA Inc., which has developed gas wells in the Pavillion area, objected to the report and said many of the EPA’s findings were “conjecture, not factual” and “only serve to trigger undue alarm” (see NGI, Dec. 19, 2011). Stewart took the criticisms up a notch.

“EPA made critical mistakes at almost every step of the process,” he told reporters, “from the way it designed the study to the way it drilled and completed its wells, to the way it collected and interpreted its data…” EPA, he said, made the “decision to release a preliminary copy of its report without third-party review.”

Federal investigators, Stewart said, overlooked the possibility that some of the materials detected in the area groundwater were naturally occurring. Methane, for instance, often is present at shallow depths, and water wells typically extend no more than 300 feet deep. Natural gas was found in deep test water wells drilled by the EPA but that gas “was put there by nature, not by Encana,” said Stewart. EPA’s tests also found elevated levels of potassium and chloride, but Stewart countered that high concentrations of the two substances long have been found in the region by the U.S. Geological Survey.

Encana also disputes the acidity changes and man-made organic compounds found in the EPA groundwater tests, which federal regulators claimed could be linked to fracking stimulation practices. Rather, EPA may have introduced those materials when it constructed the monitoring wells since some water samples were taken when cement for the wells was curing.

“The majority of man-made organic compounds detected by the EPA are not used in hydraulic fracturing and were introduced by the EPA in the process of sampling or construction of the deep wells,” said Stewart. Only one of the EPA’s samples found those specific chemicals, he said.

Encana plans to provide more details countering EPA’s claims and make additional comments on the EPA draft report during the 45-day comment period, which ends Jan. 27, Stewart said.

Wyoming Gov. Matt Mead last month also asked EPA to cooperate in a scientific review and analysis of groundwater quality in Pavillion. In a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Mead highlighted Wyoming’s “professional expertise” and urged EPA to use “a cooperative approach” with state officials “to best serve a scientific, credible inquiry.” The governor requested that EPA be required to obtain more samples from the test water wells before a peer review process begins, citing the need for more conclusive data. He also requested that public hearings be held in the state as part of the peer review process.

“I hope we can work together to move the work surrounding Pavillion water to a more cooperative, logical and scientific approach,” Mead wrote. “The status, safety and the source of any contaminants to the water supply are issues I take seriously and I know you do too.”

Mead said he would “like to see efforts based on a cooperative, fully science-based analysis that truly serves the interests of Wyoming’s people, particularly citizens in the Pavillion area, Wyoming’s resources and industries, and the public at large.”

Jackson was asked to inform the governor about the “specific charge” the peer review panel would be given and if the peer review panel member selection would “give deference to the unique geology and hydrology of the Wind River and Fort Union formations.” Mead also asked Jackson if the panel would be expected to develop “one final consensus report” or “five independent reports.”

©Copyright 2012Intelligence Press Inc. All rights reserved. The preceding news reportmay not be republished or redistributed, in whole or in part, in anyform, without prior written consent of Intelligence Press, Inc.