Beaver Island Michigan

NOT Wikipedia!

Perhaps the Community Center can obtain a copy of the movie "Gasland" for public viewing. Here's a link to the trailer on Wiki, I mean YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8

Better yet, Why not get some real experts in the field of geology, ng drilling, engineers, state agencies who monitor the NG industry etc. You know, real experts who can talk about the over 1 Million NG well drilled and fraked over the past 60 years. Or we could just do what ever the most recent eco documentary de jour tells us too. Who knows maybe we should just cap all NG wells in the world right now to prevent Armageddon. I'd be happy to stop by and help you disconnect all energy created from ANY fossil fuel from your house right now if that will comfort your guilty soul.

All of Michigan's natural gas production is located in the lower peninsula. Currently, the Antrim "play" is the most active play in Michigan with about 9700 wells producing gas from the Antrim formation in 2010. So there are 9700 wells right now and what is the major problem with "considering" the possibility of NG on Beaver Island?



http://www.dleg.state.mi.us/mpsc/gas/about1.htm

We are going to have a community forum in good time but everything that I am finding out indicates a great future with natural gas for the island. Frank, I don't know how you got so smart, I remember attending the same school! It is very difficult to run a business on this island and I, like many would like to see something that benefits us all in the end, this could be it. I agree with Adam, I believe I am talking with a well qualified man on the subject and as the information becomes available it will be posted, this is pre chicken or egg status. I can hardly understand your negative approach to the matter? You must care about the islands' future? Let's not down something before it gets a fair audience, that is all you are doing. This isn't a Michael Moore movie, its a small community that could use a lift, believe me!

Debunking GasLand

Tags: documentary, GasLand, natural gas, Sundance
09.June.2010admin81 Comments

Josh Fox makes his mainstream debut with documentary targeting natural gas â?? but how much of it is actually true?

For an avant-garde filmmaker and stage director whose previous work has been recognized by the â??Fringe Festivalâ?￾ of New York City, HBOâ??s decision to air the GasLand documentary nationwide later this month represents Josh Foxâ??s first real foray into the mainstream â?? and, with the potential to reach even a portion of the networkâ??s 30 million U.S. subscribers, a potentially significant one at that.

But with larger audiences and greater fanfare come the expectation of a few basic things: accuracy, attention to detail, and original reporting among them. Unfortunately, in the case of this film, accuracy is too often pushed aside for simplicity, evidence too often sacrificed for exaggeration, and the same old cast of characters and anecdotes â?? previously debunked â?? simply lifted from prior incarnations of the film and given a new home in this one.

â??Iâ??m sorry,â?￾ Josh Fox once told a New York City magazine, â??but art is more important than politics. â?¦ Politics is people lying to you and simplifying everything; art is about contradictions.â?￾ And so it is with GasLand: politics at its worst, art at its most contrived, and contradictions of fact found around every bend of the river. Against that backdrop, we attempt below to identify and correct some of the most egregious inaccuracies upon which the film is based (all quotes are from Josh Fox, unless otherwise noted):

Misstating the Law

(6:05) â??What I didnâ??t know was that the 2005 energy bill pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney exempts the oil and natural gas industries from Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Superfund law, and about a dozen other environmental and Democratic regulations.â?￾

* This assertion, every part of it, is false. The oil and natural gas industry is regulated under every single one of these laws â?? under provisions of each that are relevant to its operations. See this fact sheet for a fuller explanation of that.

* The process of hydraulic fracturing, to which Fox appears to be making reference here, has never in its 60-year history been regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). It has, however, been regulated ably and aggressively by the states, which have compiled an impressive record of enforcement and oversight in the many decades in which they have been engaged in the practice.

* Far from being â??pushed through Congress by Dick Cheney,â?￾ the Energy Policy Act of 2005 earned the support of nearly three-quarters of the U.S. Senate (74 â??yeaâ?￾ votes), including the top Democrat on the Energy Committee; current Interior secretary Ken Salazar, then a senator from Colorado; and a former junior senator from Illinois named Barack Obama. In the U.S. House, 75 Democrats joined 200 Republicans in supporting the final bill, including the top Democratic members on both the Energy & Commerce and Resources Committees.

(6:24) â??But when the 2005 energy bill cleared away all the restrictions, companies â?¦ began to lease Halliburton technology and to begin the largest and most extensive domestic gas drilling campaign in history â?? now occupying 34 states.â?￾

* Once again, hydraulic fracturing has never been regulated under SDWA â?? not in the 60-year history of the technology, the 36-year history of the law, or the 40-year history of EPA. Given that, itâ??s not entirely clear which â??restrictionsâ?￾ in the law Mr. Fox believes were â??cleared awayâ?￾ by the 2005 energy bill. All the bill sought to do was clarify the existing and established intent of Congress as it related to the scope of SDWA.

* Interest in developing clean-burning natural gas resources from Americaâ??s shale formations began to manifest itself well before 2005. The first test well in the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania, for example, was drilled in 2004. In Texas, the first wells in the prolific Barnett Shale formation were spudded in the late 1990s. But even before natural gas from shale was considered a viable business model, energy producers had been relying on hydraulic fracturing for decades to stimulate millions of wells across the country. The technology was first deployed in 1948.

* The contention that current energy development activity represents the â??largest â?¦ drilling campaign in historyâ?￾ is also incorrect. According to EIA, more natural gas wells were developed in 1982 than today. And more than two times the number of petroleum wells were drilled back then as well, relative to the numbers we have today. Also, while it may (or may not) be technically true that fracturing activities take place in 34 states, itâ??s also true that 99.9 percent of all oil and gas activity is found in only 27 U.S. states (page 9, Ground Water Protection Council report)

(32:34) â??The energy task force, and $100 million lobbying effort on behalf of the industry, were significant in the passage of the â??Halliburton Loopholeâ?? to the Safe Drinking Water Act, which authorizes oil and gas drillers exclusively to inject known hazardous materials, unchecked, directly into or adjacent to underground drinking water supplies. It passed as part of the Bush administrationâ??s Energy Policy Act of 2005.â?￾

* Not content with simply mischaracterizing the nature of existing law, here Fox attempts to assert that the law actually allows energy producers to inject hazardous chemicals â??directly intoâ?￾ underground drinking water. This is a blatant falsehood. Of course, if such an outrageous thing were actually true, one assumes it wouldnâ??t have taken five years and a purveyor of the avant-garde to bring it to light.

* The subsurface formations that undergo fracture stimulation reside thousands and thousands of feet below formations that carry potable water. These strata are separated by millions of tons of impermeable rock, and in some cases, more than two miles of it.

* Once again, to characterize the bipartisan 2005 energy bill as having a â??loopholeâ?￾ for hydraulic fracturing requires one to believe that, prior to 2005, hydraulic fracturing was regulated by EPA under federal law. But that belief is mistaken. And so is the notion that the 2005 act contains a loophole for oil and natural gas. As stated, hydraulic fracturing has been regulated ably and aggressively by the states.


(1:32:34) â??Diana DeGette and Maurice Hincheyâ??s FRAC Act [is] a piece of legislation thatâ??s one paragraph long that simply takes out the exemption for hydraulic fracturing to the Safe Drinking Water Act.â?￾

* Here Fox is referring to the 2008 iteration of the FRAC Act, not the slightly longer (though equally harmful) 2009 version of the bill. The legislation does not, as its authors suggest, â??restoreâ?￾ the Safe Drinking Water Act to the way it was in 2004. It calls for a wholesale re-writing of it.

* Hereâ??s the critical passage from the FRAC Act: â??Section 1421(d)(1) of the Safe Drinking Water Act is amended by striking subparagraph (B) and inserting: (B) includes the underground injection of fluids or propping agents pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil and gas production activities.â?￾

* Why would you need to â??insertâ?￾ new language into a 36-year-old statute if all you were looking to do is merely â??restoreâ?￾ it?

Misrepresenting the Rules

(1:00:56) â??Because of the exemptions, fracking chemicals are considered proprietary â?¦ The only reason we know anything about the fracking chemicals is because of the work of Theo Colborn â?¦ by chasing down trucks, combing through material safety data sheets, and collecting samples.â?￾

* With due respect to eminent environmental activist and former World Wildlife Fund staffer Theo Colborn, no one has ever had to â??chas[e] down a truckâ?￾ to access information on the materials used in the fracturing process.

* Thatâ??s because thereâ??s actually a much easier way to obtain that information: simply navigate to this website hosted by regulators in Pennsylvania, this one from regulators in New York (page 130; it will take a few moments to download), this one for West Virginia, this one maintained by the Ground Water Protection Council and the U.S. Department of Energy (page 63), and this one on the website of Energy In Depth.

(1:03:33) Dr. Colborn: â??Once the public hears the story, and theyâ??ll say, â??Why arenâ??t we out there monitoringâ??? We canâ??t monitor until we know what theyâ??re using. Thereâ??s no way to monitor. You canâ??t.â?￾

* According to environmental regulators from Josh Foxâ??s home state of Pennsylvania, â??Drilling companies must disclose the names of all chemicals to be stored and used at a drilling site â?¦ These plans contain copies of material safety data sheets for all chemicals â?¦ This information is on file with DEP and is available to landowners, local governments and emergency responders.â?￾

* Environmental regulators from Foxâ??s adopted state of New York also testify to having ready access to this information. From the NY Dept. of Environmental Conservation (DEC) information page: â??The [state] is assessing the chemical makeup of these additives and will ensure that all necessary safeguards and best practices are followed.â?￾

* According to the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC), â??[M]ost additives contained in fracture fluids including sodium chloride, potassium chloride, and diluted acids, present low to very low risks to human health and the environment.â?￾ GWPC members include state environmental officials who set and enforce regulations on ground water protection and underground fluid injection.

Mischaracterizing the Process

(6:50) â??[Hydraulic fracturing] blasts a mix of water and chemicals 8,000 feet into the ground. The fracking itself is like a mini-earthquake. â?¦ In order to frack, you need some fracking fluid â?? a mix of over 596 chemicals.â?￾

* As it relates to the composition of fluids commonly used in the fracturing process, greater than 99.5 percent of the mixture is comprised of water and sand. The remaining materials, used to help deliver the water down the wellbore and position the sand in the tiny fractures created in the formation, are typically components found and used around the house. The most prominent of these, a substance known as guar gum, is an emulsifier more commonly found in ice cream.

* From the U.S. Dept. of Energy / GWPC report: â??Although the hydraulic fracturing industry may have a number of compounds that can be used in a hydraulic fracturing fluid, any single fracturing job would only use a few of the available additives [not 596!]. For example, in [this exhibit], there are 12 additives used, covering the range of possible functions that could be built into a fracturing fluid.â?￾ (page 62)

* In the documentary, Fox graphically depicts the fracturing process as one that results in the absolute obliteration of the shale formation. In reality, the fractures created by the procedure and kept open by the introduction of proppants such as sand are typically less than a millimeter thick.

(50:05) â??Each well completion, that is, the initial drilling phase plus the first frack job, requires 1,150 truck trips.â?￾

* Suggesting that every well completion in America requires the exact same number of truck trips is absurd. As could be guessed, the number of trips required to supply the well site with the needed equipment and personnel will vary (widely) depending on any number of factors.

* As it relates to a source for Foxâ??s identification of â??1,150 truck trips,â?￾ none is given â?? although it appears he may have derived those numbers from a back-of-the-envelope calculation inspired by a chart on page 6-142 of this document from NY DEC. As depicted on that page, the transportation of new and used water supplies, to and from the wellsite, account for 85 percent of the trips extrapolated by Fox.

* Unrepresented in this chart is the enormous growth in the amount of produced water that is currently being recycled in the Marcellus â?? with industry in Pennsylvania reusing and recycling on average more than 60 percent of its water, according to the Marcellus Shale Coalition.

* According to GWPC: â??Drilling with compressed air is becoming an increasingly popular alternative to drilling with fluids due to the increased cost savings from both reduction in mud costs and the shortened drilling times as a result of air based drilling.â?￾ (page 55)

(51:12) â??Before the water can be hauled away and disposed of somewhere, it has to be emptied into a pit â?? an earthen pit, or a clay pit, sometimes a lined pit, but a pit â?? where a lot of it can seep right back down into the ground.â?￾

* The vast majority of energy-producing states â?? 27 in total, including all the ones to which Fox travels for GasLand â?? have explicit laws on the books governing the type of containment structures that must be used for temporarily storing flowback water. A number of producers today choose to store this water in steel tanks, eliminating all risk of that water re-entering the surrounding environment.

* GWPC (May 2009) â??In 23 states, pits of a certain type or in a particular location must have a natural or artificial liner designed to prevent the downward movement of pit fluids into the subsurface. â?¦ Twelve states also explicitly either prohibit or restrict the use of pits that intersect the water table.â?￾ (page 28-29)

* GWPC (April 2009): â??Water storage pits used to hold water for hydraulic fracturing purposes are typically lined to minimize the loss of water from infiltration. â?¦ In an urban setting, due to space limitations, steel storage tanks may be used.â?￾ (page 55)

Flat-Out Making Stuff Up

(53:36) â??The Pinedale Anticline and the Jonah gas fields [of Wyoming] are directly in the path of the thousand year old migration corridor of pronghorn antelope, mule deer and sage grouse. And yeah, each of these species is endangered, and has suffered a significant decline of their populations since 2005.â?￾

* 0 for 1: Three species of the pronghorn antelope are considered â??endangered,â?￾ none of which are found anywhere near the Pinedale Anticline. Those are: the Sonoran (Arizona), the Peninsular (Mexico), and the Mexican Pronghorn (also of Mexico). According to the Great Plains Nature Center: â??The great slaughter of the late 1800s affected the pronghorns â?¦ Only about 12,000 remained by 1915. Presently, they number around one million and the greatest numbers of them are in Wyoming and Montana.â?￾

* 0 for 2: Only one species of mule deer is considered â??endangeredâ?￾: the Cedros Island mule deer of Mexico (nowhere near Wyoming). The mule deer populations are so significant in Wyoming today that the state has a mule deer hunting season.

* 0 for 3: The sage grouse does not currently have a place on the endangered species list, according to the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) â?? and â??robust populations of the bird currently exist across the stateâ?￾ of Wyoming, according to the agency. Interestingly, FWS recently issued a press release identifying wind development as a critical threat the sage grouseâ??s habitat.

* That said, producers in the area have taken the lead on efforts to lessen their impact and reduce the number of truck trips required to service their well sites. As part of that project, operators have commissioned a series of independent studies examining additional steps that can be taken to safeguard the Anticlineâ??s wildlife.

(31:32) â??In 2004, the EPA was investigating a water contamination incident due to hydraulic fracturing in Alabama. But a panel rejected the inquiry, stating that although hazard materials were being injected underground, EPA did not need to investigate.â?￾

* No record of the investigation described by Fox exists, so EID reached out to Dr. Dave Bolin, deputy director of Alabamaâ??s State Oil & Gas Board and the man who heads up oversight of hydraulic fracturing in that state. In an email, he said he had â??no recollectionâ?￾ of such an investigation taking place.

* That said, itâ??s possible that Fox is referring to EPAâ??s study of the McMillian well in Alabama, which spanned several years in the early- to mid-1990s. In 1989, Alabama regulators conducted four separate water quality tests on the McMillian well. The results indicated no water quality problems existed. In 1990, EPA conducted its own water quality tests, and found nothing.

* In a letter sent in 1995, then-EPA administrator Carol Browner (currently, President Obamaâ??s top energy and environmental policy advisor) characterized EPAâ??s involvement with the McMillian case in the following way: â??Repeated testing, conducted between May of 1989 and March of 1993, of the drinking water well which was the subject of this petition [McMillian] failed to show any chemicals that would indicate the presence of fracturing fluids. The well was also sampled for drinking water quality, and no constituents exceeding drinking water standards were detected.â?￾

* For information on what actually did happen in Alabama during this time, and how itâ??s relevant to the current conversation about the Safe Drinking Water Act, please download the fact sheet produced last year by the Coalbed Methane Association of Alabama.

(1:28:06) â??Just a few short months after this interview, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection suffered the worst budget cuts in history, amounting to over 700 staff either being fired or having reduced hours and 25 percent of its total budget cut.â?￾

* DEP press release, issued January 28, 2010: â??Governor Edward G. Rendell announced today that the commonwealth is strengthening its enforcement capabilities. At the Governorâ??s direction, the Department of Environmental Protection will begin hiring 68 new personnel who will make sure that drilling companies obey state laws and act responsibly to protect water supplies. DEP also will strengthen oil and gas regulations to improve well construction standards.â?￾

Recycling Discredited Points from the Past

Weston Wilson (EPA â??whistleblowerâ?￾): â??One can characterize this entire [natural gas] industry as having a hundred year history of purchasing those they contaminate.â?￾ (33:36)

* Mr. Wilson, currently on staff at EPAâ??s Denver office, was not part of the team of scientists and engineers that spent nearly five years studying hydraulic fracturing for EPA. That effort, released in the form of a landmark 2004 study by the agency, found â??no evidenceâ?￾ to suggest any relationship between hydraulic fracturing and the contamination of drinking water.

* Wilson has a well-documented history of aggressive opposition to responsible resource and mineral development. Over his 35-year career, Mr. Wilson has invoked â??whistleblowerâ?￾ status to fight dam construction in Colorado, oil and gas development in Montana, and the mining of gold in Wyoming.

* Wilson in his own words: â??The American public would be shocked if they knew we make six figures and we basically sit around and do nothing.â?￾

Dunkard Creek: Fox includes images of dead fish along a 35-mile stretch of Dunkard Creek in Washington Co., Pa.; attributes that event to natural gas development. (01:23:15)

* Foxâ??s attempt to blame the Dunkard Creek incident on natural gas exploration is contradicted by an EPA report â?? issued well before GasLand was released â?? which blamed the fish kill on an algal bloom, which itself was fed by discharges from coal mines.

* EPA report: â??Given what has been seen in other states and the etiology of this kill, we believe the toxin from this algae bloom led to the kill of fish, mussels, and salamanders on Dunkard Creek. â?¦ The situation in Dunkard Creek should be considered a chronic exposure since chloride levels were elevated above the criteria for long periods of time.â?￾ (issued 11/23/09)

* Local PA newspaper calls out Fox: â??One glaring error in the film is the suggestion that gas drilling led to the September fish kill at Dunkard Creek in Greene County. That was determined to have been caused by a golden algae bloom from mine drainage from a [mine] discharge.â?￾ (Washington (Pa.) Observer-Reporter, 6/5/10)

Mike Markham: Fox blames flammable faucet in Fort Lupton, Colo. on natural gas development

* But thatâ??s not true according to the Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC). â??Dissolved methane in well water appears to be biogenic [naturally occurring] in origin. â?¦ There are no indications of oil & gas related impacts to water well.â?￾ (complaint resolved 9/30/08, signed by John Axelson of COGCC)

* Context from our friends at ProPublica: â??Drinking water with methane, the largest component of natural gas, isnâ??t necessarily harmful. The gas itself isnâ??t toxic â?? the Environmental Protection Agency doesnâ??t even regulate it â?? and it escapes from water quickly, like bubbles in a soda.â?￾ (Abrahm Lustgarten, ProPublica, 4/22/09)

Lisa Bracken: Fox blames methane occurrence in West Divide Creek, Colo. on natural gas development.

* That assertion has also been debunked by COGCC, which visited the site six separate times over 13 months to confirm its findings: â??Stable isotopes from 2007 consistent with 2004 samples indicting gas bubbling in surface water features is of biogenic origin.â?￾ (July 2009, COGCC presentation by Margaret Ash, environmental protection supervisor)

* Email from COGCC supervisor to Bracken: â??Lisa: As you know since 2004, the COGCC staff has responded to your concerns about potential gas seepage along West Divide Creek on your property and to date we have not found any indication that the seepage you have observed is related to oil and gas activity.â?￾ (email from COGCCâ??s Debbie Baldwin to Bracken, 06/30/08)

* More from that email: â??These samples have been analyzed for a variety of parameters including natural gas compounds (methane, ethane, propane, butane, pentane, hexanes), heavier hydrocarbon compounds including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), stable isotopes of methane, bacteria (iron related, sulfate reducing, and slime), major anions and cations, and other field and laboratory tests. To date, BTEX compounds have not been detected in any of the samples.â?￾

Calvin Tillman: Fox interviews mayor of DISH, Texas; blames natural gas development, transport for toxins in the air, benzene in blood.

* Tillman in the press: â??Six months ago, nobody knew that facilities like this would be spewing benzene. Someone could come in here and look at us and say, â??You know what? Theyâ??ve sacrificed you. Youâ??ve been sacrificed for the good of the shale.â??â?￾ (Scientific American, 3/30/10)

* A little more than a month later, Texas Dept. of State Health Services debunks that claim: â??Biological test results from a Texas Department of State Health Services investigation in Dish, Texas, indicate that residentsâ?? exposure to certain contaminants was not greater than that of the general U.S. population.â?￾ (DSHS report, May 12, 2010)

* More from the agency: â??DSHS paid particular attention to benzene because of its association with natural gas wells. The only residents who had higher levels of benzene in their blood were smokers. Because cigarette smoke contains benzene, finding it in smokersâ?? blood is not unusual.â?￾

It is probably a good idea to watch the movie. I have heard and read plenty about fracking from reputable sources, and the majority of it has been extremely negative.
Some of the links provided here show productive an non-disasterous examples of the technique, which is good to see, but please keep perspective in mind - who is writing each story and whose voices are being heard?
The dangers involved and potential (immense!) harm caused are irreversible.
I have not seen Gasland yet, and it is not a Michael Moore film - but I would think it is a good idea for anyone pushing/considering the idea of fracking near their home to expose themselves to the story. I suspect that an overwhelming majority of the land leasing parties had not been shown both ends of the field, instead focused on the idea of getting bills paid down and some extra for gifts and maybe the next few slow seasons.
There is just so much risk involved. I think there was mention of an alternate method of gathering the resources - maybe a professional in the field could provide more info about the different possible processes?

As a property owner on Beaver Island I don't need to watch a film or read a study to know that there is a risk, however small, of contamination associated with fracking. So for me to take this risk and support this process, what have I got to gain that is worth losing everything I've got invested here? Free oil, free gas, a percentage of the profits; what's in it for me?

AEW

I assume you didn't write the very long document you just posted.

I have seen documents like it in the past. It has no attribution and it is seems to have been prepared by a PR firm.

It reminds me of the types of documents that were circulated in the past to debunk the findings about the dangers of smoking.

A natural gas well under BI may be a great solution, specially if it is a regular well like the one Rich described. A well using fracking may still be a good solution but we need to look objectively at the possibilities and weigh the pluses and minuses without all the political baggage.

I agree completely John, lets get experts. We need Geologist, Engineers, NG Producers, and the State folks who monitor the industry. Not Documentaries that we can ask questions to and get answers OR a sunshine fluff piece from the NG Industry on how having a Natural Gas well in your Community will make us more handsome and better lovers!

An "Energy Audit" of the Island would be a good thing for us to have. This way as we talk about other energy possibilities we know how many BTUs or KWs etc we need to create or substitute with alternative sources. We need to know how much Fuel oil, Propane, Diesel, Gas, and Kilowatts of electricity we consume in a year by the month.

We have people here with solar and wind on their homes. It would be nice to have them present some real world data on how it has worked for them and what they have learned. I would love to see a series of energy seminars from people of all industries viable to the Island come and make informational presentations.

If Natural Gas can be done SAFELY on our Island and it is cost effective it could offer a great benefit. The possibilities include: Electrical Power generation, Home Heating, Hot Water, Cooking, Vehicle conversion to NG, Road Commission vehicles could be converted to run on NG, Heck, maybe we could even power the ferry with NG one day.

I am glad we are talking about this, sorry for getting a bit crotchety, I quit smoking 7 days ago and the homicidal rage from nicotine withdrawals pop in my head now and then still. I will try to behave!

Adam E. Wirth
The really edgy guy down on Mrs Reddings trail

If I may suggest, try calling the Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council (they have done a lot of work on this subject) or checking out the series on fracking in the Petoskey News-Review that we did on this subject the first week of July.

Beaver Island Is Mentioned in pg 18 -19. The Island may not be a good area to recover NG at all.

http://certmapper.cr.usgs.gov/data/noga ... prov63.pdf

Be careful.
See web site of Dont Frack Michigan

New York Times Article
March 3, 2011
Pressure Limits Efforts to Police Drilling for GasBy IAN URBINA
When Congress considered whether to regulate more closely the handling of wastes from oil and gas drilling in the 1980s, it turned to the Environmental Protection Agency to research the matter. E.P.A. researchers concluded that some of the drillersâ?? waste was hazardous and should be tightly controlled.

But that is not what Congress heard. Some of the recommendations concerning oil and gas waste were eliminated in the final report handed to lawmakers in 1987.

â??It was like the science didnâ??t matter,â?￾ Carla Greathouse, the author of the study, said in a recent interview. â??The industry was going to get what it wanted, and we were not supposed to stand in the way.â?￾

E.P.A. officials told her, she said, that her findings were altered because of pressure from the Office of Legal Counsel of the White House under Ronald Reagan. A spokesman for the E.P.A. declined to comment.

Ms. Greathouseâ??s experience was not an isolated case. More than a quarter-century of efforts by some lawmakers and regulators to force the federal government to police the industry better have been thwarted, as E.P.A. studies have been repeatedly narrowed in scope and important findings have been removed.

For example, the agency had planned to call last year for a moratorium on the gas-drilling technique known as hydrofracking in the New York City watershed, according to internal documents, but the advice was removed from the publicly released letter sent to New York.

Now some scientists and lawyers at the E.P.A. are wondering whether history is about to repeat itself as the agency undertakes a broad new study of natural gas drilling and its potential risks, with preliminary results scheduled to be delivered next year.

The documents show that the agency dropped some plans to model radioactivity in drilling wastewater being discharged by treatment plants into rivers upstream from drinking water intake plants. And in Congress, members from drilling states like Oklahoma have pressured the agency to keep the focus of the new study narrow.

They have been helped in their lobbying efforts by a compelling storyline: Cutting red tape helps these energy companies reduce the nationâ??s dependence on other countries for fuel. Natural gas is also a cleaner-burning alternative to coal and plentiful within United States borders, so it can create jobs.

But interviews with E.P.A. scientists, and confidential documents obtained by The New York Times, show long and deep divisions within the agency over whether and how to increase regulation of oil and gas drillers, and over the enforcement of existing laws that some agency officials say are clearly being violated.

Agency lawyers are heatedly debating whether to intervene in Pennsylvania, where drilling for gas has increased sharply, to stop what some of those lawyers say is a clear violation of federal pollution laws: drilling waste discharged into rivers and streams with minimal treatment. The outcome of that dispute has the potential to halt the breakneck growth of drilling in Pennsylvania.

The E.P.A. has taken strong stands in some places, like Texas, where in December it overrode state regulators and intervened after a local driller was suspected of water contamination. Elsewhere, the agency has pulled its punches, as in New York.

Asked why the letter about hydrofracking in the New York City watershed had been revised, an agency scientist involved in writing it offered a one-word explanation: â??politics.â?￾

Natural gas drilling companies have major exemptions from parts of at least 7 of the 15 sweeping federal environmental laws that regulate most other heavy industries and were written to protect air and drinking water from radioactive and hazardous chemicals.

Coal mine operators that want to inject toxic wastewater into the ground must get permission from the federal authorities. But when natural gas companies want to inject chemical-laced water and sand into the ground during hydrofracking, they do not have to follow the same rules.

The air pollution from a sprawling steel plant with multiple buildings is added together when regulators decide whether certain strict rules will apply. At a natural gas site, the toxic fumes from various parts of it â?? a compressor station and a storage tank, for example â?? are counted separately rather than cumulatively, so many overall gas well operations are subject to looser caps on their emissions.

An Earlier Reversal

The E.P.A. also studied hydrofracking in 2004, when Congress considered whether the process should be fully regulated by the Safe Drinking Water Act.

An early draft of the study discussed potentially dangerous levels of contamination in hydrofracking fluids and mentioned â??possible evidenceâ?￾ of contamination of an aquifer. The reportâ??s final version excluded these points, concluding instead that hydrofracking â??poses little or no threat to drinking water.â?￾

Shortly after the study was released, an E.P.A. whistle-blower said the agency had been strongly influenced by industry and political pressure. Agency leaders at the time stood by the studyâ??s findings.

â??It was shameful,â?￾ Weston Wilson, the E.P.A. whistle-blower, said in a recent interview about the study. He explained that five of the seven members of that studyâ??s peer review panel were current or former employees of the oil and gas industry.

â??The study ended up being the basis for this industry getting yet another exemption from federal law when it should have resulted in greater regulation of this industry,â?￾ Mr. Wilson added.

Some E.P.A. scientists say this pattern may be playing out again in the national study of hydrofracking that Congress will consider as it decides whether drillers will have to operate under stricter rules.

Internal documents from early meetings, obtained through public-records requests filed by The Times and provided by E.P.A. officials who are frustrated with how research is being handled, show agency field scientists demanding that certain topics be included in the study. And earlier versions of the research plan indicate that many of those topics were to be included.

For example, the study was to consider the dangers of toxic fumes released during drilling, the impact of drilling waste on the food chain and the risks of this radioactive waste to workers.

But many of these concerns, cited by field scientists in earlier documents as high priorities, were cut from the current study plan, according to a version of it made public on Feb. 8.

Earlier planning documents also called for a study of the risks of contaminated runoff from landfills where drilling waste is disposed and included detailed plans to model whether rivers can sufficiently dilute hazardous gas-well wastewater discharged from treatment plants.

These topics were cut from the current study plan, even though E.P.A. officials have acknowledged that sewage treatment plants are not able to treat drilling waste fully before it is discharged into rivers, sometimes just a few miles upstream from drinking water intake plants. While the current study plan clearly indicates that the agency plans to research various types of radioactivity concerns related to natural gas drilling, this river modeling, which E.P.A. scientists say is important, has been removed.

In interviews, several agency scientists and consultants, who declined to be named for fear of reprisals, said the study was narrowed because of pressure from industry and its allies in Congress, and budget and time constraints.

Brendan Gilfillan, an agency spokesman, said that the plan remained broad and that the agency had taken additional steps to investigate the impacts of drilling, including recently issuing a subpoena against the energy services company Halliburton to force the company to provide fuller disclosure about its drilling operations.

Federal scientists also say the national study is being used to squelch other research by the E.P.A. on hydrofracking. At a January meeting in Washington, Jeanne Briskin of the E.P.A.â??s Office of Research and Development informed regional directors that the national study would be the only forum for research on hydrofracking.

This meant, these scientists said, that some projects under way in regional offices would probably have to be halted.

â??That may impact our plans to pursue some of the other research,â?￾ wrote Ron Landy, regional science liaison of E.P.A. Region 3, in an e-mail to another agency official in January in which he complained about the new directive.

He suggested that until the directive was lifted, his staff should keep quiet about its continuing hydrofracking research and instead emphasize its work on coal to superiors. â??I think we can go ahead, but keep the focus on mining, and prepare for moving these efforts into hydraulic fracking once these limitations are lifted,â?￾ Mr. Landy wrote.

Though the E.P.A. has emphasized the importance of openness and public involvement in the study, internal e-mails show agency officials expressing concern about the reaction if the public were to learn of the narrowing scope of the study. In those e-mails, these officials strongly discourage putting anything in writing about the study unless it is vetted by managers.

One e-mail, forwarded to The Times by David Campbell, director of the E.P.A. Region 3 Office of Environmental Innovation, described the instructions he had been given by the agencyâ??s regional administrator, Shawn M. Garvin.

â??He could not have been more adamant or clear about the development of any documentation related to our efforts on Marcellus,â?￾ Mr. Campbell wrote last December, referring to the Marcellus Shale, a gas-rich rock formation that stretches under Pennsylvania and other states. â??His concern is that if we spell out what we think we want to do (our grandest visions) that the public may have access to those documents and challenge us to enact those plans.â?￾

Mr. Gilfillan, the E.P.A. spokesman, said the e-mail exchange â?? which was shown to him for comment â?? did not reflect the agencyâ??s efforts to understand the impacts of natural gas extraction better.

But in interviews, agency scientists and lawyers said Mr. Garvinâ??s office had been most resistant to stepping up its regulatory role in Pennsylvania.

These scientists and lawyers said that high-level agency officials in Washington had made it clear in meetings that some of the resistance to more rigorous enforcement was also coming from members of the environmental and energy staff at the White House.

Clark Stevens, a White House spokesman, rejected these assertions and argued that the Obama administration had taken â??unprecedented stepsâ?￾ to study the impact of natural gas drilling.

Support in Washington

In its efforts to oppose new federal regulations, the oil and gas industry has found strong allies in Congress to lobby the agency about its current research.

â??I am confident this study, if truly focused on hydraulic fracturing,â?￾ wrote Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, last April to the E.P.A. administrator, Lisa P. Jackson, â??will prove the process indisputably safe and acceptable.â?￾

In September, Senator James M. Inhofe, also a Republican from Oklahoma, wrote to agency officials to offer his guidance about who should be allowed to review the research. â??We caution against potential panelists who have been longtime critics of hydraulic fracturing,â?￾ he wrote in a letter.

Over their careers, the two lawmakers from Oklahoma, a major drilling state, have been among the Senateâ??s top 20 recipients of oil and gas campaign contributions, according to federal data.

The oil and gas industry has not hesitated to convey its views to the agency about the study now under way, frequently quoting the language used in 2010 by a Congressional committee, which urged the E.P.A. â??to carry out a study on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water.â?￾

In one comment submitted to the agency, Chad Bradley, a lobbyist for Chesapeake Energy, criticized the E.P.A., saying it was going beyond its â??mandateâ?￾ from Congress, adding new topics resulting in â??mission creep.â?￾

Virtually all of the companies echoed his comments.

But Representative Maurice D. Hinchey, Democrat from New York, who wrote the original language, said his words were being taken out of context. He added that the E.P.A. had full jurisdiction to study other risks from hydrofracking, like air quality or toxic waste being discharged into rivers.

â??The language I authored does not at all limit the scope of the E.P.A.â??s study, rather it sets forth the minimum that Congress expects,â?￾ he added. â??Any assertion otherwise by industry is a blatant attempt to misrepresent Congressâ??s intentions.â?￾

The argument over the scope of the study will affect whether certain exemptions for the oil and gas industry will remain intact.

These exemptions have led to conflicting impulses in Washington for a long time. For example, Carol M. Browner, the E.P.A. administrator in the Clinton administration, has argued both for and against these sorts of exemptions.

â??Whatever comes out of the ground, you donâ??t have to test it, you donâ??t have to understand whatâ??s in it, you can dump it anywhere,â?￾ she told â??60 Minutesâ?￾ in 1997, discussing exemptions for toxic wastes from the oil industry, which also apply to natural gas drillers.

â??Thatâ??s how broad the loophole is,â?￾ Ms. Browner added at the time (her office declined to answer questions about those comments). â??Thereâ??s nothing like it in any environmental statute. Congress should revisit this loophole.â?￾

And yet, Ms. Browner, who has announced that she is stepping down as President Obamaâ??s top adviser on energy and climate change, has also strongly supported natural gas drilling over the years. For example, she helped ensure in 1995 that hydrofracking would not be covered by certain parts of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Exemptions Stymie E.P.A.

The natural gas drilling boom is forcing the E.P.A. to wrestle with questions of jurisdiction over individual states and how to police the industry despite its extensive exemptions from federal law.

In Wyoming, for example, the agency is investigating water-well contamination in an area of heavy drilling, even though some E.P.A. officials said in interviews that because of industry exemptions, the agency might not have jurisdiction for such an investigation.

In Texas, after an aquifer was contaminated, E.P.A. officials in December ordered a drilling company to provide clean drinking water to residents despite strong resistance from state regulators who said the federal action was premature and unfounded.

The stakes are particularly high in Pennsylvania, where gas drilling is expanding quickly, and where E.P.A. officials say drilling waste is being discharged with inadequate treatment into rivers that provide drinking water to more than 16 million people.

Drillers throughout the country are watching Pennsylvania to see whether the federal agency will overrule the stateâ??s decisions on how to dispose of drilling waste. The central question on this issue: Should drillers in Pennsylvania be allowed to dump â??mystery liquidsâ?￾ into public waterways?

Under federal law, certain basic rules govern sewage treatment plants. At their core, these rules say two things: operators have to know what is in the waste they receive, and they have to treat this waste to make it safe before discharging it into waterways.

But in Pennsylvania, these rules are being broken, according to some E.P.A. lawyers. â??Treatment plants are not allowed under federal law to process mystery liquids, regardless of what the state tells them,â?￾ explained one E.P.A. lawyer in an internal draft memo obtained by The Times. â??Mystery liquids is exactly what this drilling waste is, since its ingredient toxins arenâ??t known.â?￾

This fact has led to a heated fight within the E.P.A. Some agency lawyers say the state is not policing treatment plants properly in some instances and is acting beyond its authority in others â?? allegations that state officials reject.

These lawyers are calling for the E.P.A. to revoke, at least temporarily, Pennsylvaniaâ??s right to give treatment plants operating permits to handle drilling waste. Last year, state regulators created their own pretreatment standards for plants handling this waste, even though the regulators lacked federal permission to do so, agency lawyers say.

E.P.A. scientists working on the agencyâ??s national hydrofracking study have also emphasized that sewage treatment plants are not, technically speaking, treating the waste.

For example, when one agency scientist wrote in a draft plan for the national study that wastewater could be â??discharged to surface water after treatment to remove contaminants,â?￾ another scientist corrected the statement in the margin.

Using the federal definition of treatment, the second scientist wrote, â??we really donâ??t fully treat the waste.â?￾

Nevertheless, the E.P.A. Region 3 office, which oversees Pennsylvania, has staunchly resisted calls from agency lawyers to order the state to stop issuing permits to treatment plants handling drilling waste.

â??The bottom line is that under the Clean Water Act, dilution is not the solution to pollution,â?￾ the enforcement lawyer wrote. â??Sewage treatment plants are legally obligated to treat, not dilute, the waste.â?￾

â??These plants are breaking the law,â?￾ the lawyer said. â??Everyone is looking the other way.â?￾