Texas Sharon's Bluedaze

Fracking News

Are you ready for the truth about EPA versus Range Resources in Parker County water contamination case?

By

Now that all the rhetoric, the hysterical industry propaganda and the media “reports” parrotting Range’s press releases has died down, are you ready for the truth?

If you want to know the truth, you have to read. Apparently most people are not willing to read which is why I read it and turn it into bullet points for you. That way I get the subpoena and you don’t.

Here is the bottom line: The reason EPA dropped the lawsuit had nothing to do with the merits of the case.

The week before EPA dropped the case against Range Resources, the Supreme Court decided another case involving EPA, Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency.

The SCOTUS ruled that the EPA should have given the Sacketts a hearing and the ruling in the Sackett case set precedence for the Range Resources.

The EPA v. Range Resources case was dropped because of a procedure and not the merits of the case.

If you read the EPA letter–WARNING, requires reading two whole pages–you will see that Range Resources still has to comply with much of the original order.

If you read the original order–WARNING, requires reading 11 whole pages–you will have a better understanding of the merits of the case.

People keep asking me if the EPA did isotopic fingerprinting. They would know the answer to that question if they would only read these 11 pages.

They did isotopic fingerprinting and found that the gas in both water wells was thermogenic and matches the gas produced from the Range Resources wells.

I’m not coming up with any new or secret or inside information here folks. I’m just reading.

UPDATE: I changed the link from the Joint Stipulation to the EPA letter above. That is where the testing requirements are outlined.

About Sharon Wilson

Sharon Wilson is considered a leading citizen expert on the impacts of shale oil and gas extraction. She is the go-to person whether it’s top EPA officials from D.C., national and international news networks, or residents facing the shock of eminent domain and the devastating environmental effects of natural gas development in their backyards.

Comments

  1. Christine Heinrichs says

    Thanks for doing the reading for us! Keep us posted on how well Range Resources complies.

  2. Anonymous says

    OK. I read about it. It’s clear to me that this case (Sackett v. EPA), while not the same at all, did set a precedent. That precedent was a momentary weakening of the EPA. Nothing to do with the merits of the case, as you stated. When you are in an emergency situation, should you first dial 911 or do you call your lawyer and ask for a hearing? The SCOTUS managed to thread the needle on this one. But the merits will come back, eventually. The shale gas industry can run, but they can’t hide.

  3. Nomousanono says

    I’m really wondering if this is another example of how a corporate O&G company has complete control of our government that is supported by our protecting us (the peasants) and this government is funded by our taxes. There seems to be something wrong with this picture!

  4. Nick says

    So because the EPA acted without a hearing, it’s dead? Why wouldn’t they come back with a hearing this time & follow it through by the book they wrote? I agree, something just doesn’t add up here & saying it’s the oil companies paying off the EPA seems to be an uninformed cop out.

  6. Don Harper says

    If you google “Range Resources v EPA” you will find a link to the Texas Railroad Commission’s hearing on this water contamination issue, right above the link to this TxSharon blog. In the first half of the video (22 min) they clearly exonerate RR and question why the EPA did not bother to attend the hearing or present their evidence. The TRC found that the isotopic fingerprinting actually proved that the gas in the water wells did not come from RR’s gas wells, but from shallow gas deposits within the aquifer.

  7. Steve Glahn says

    It would be appropriate if you updated the 11 pages from 2010 with what the EPA did on the complaint this year..

    • TXsharon says

      What the EPA did this year is linked above in the EPA letter. I know this all seems very complicated because the majority of the reporting has been drive-by journalism and the industry spin machine is in overdrive. It is actually pretty simple. Two water wells were fine, then Range fracked and started producing gas, now they are not fine. This happens over and over and over and… everywhere they frack.

  9. mr_bill says

    David Porter, a commissioner on the Texas Railroad Commission….“Today the EPA finally made a decision based on science and fact versus playing politics with the Texas economy. The EPA’s withdrawal of the emergency order against Range Resources upholds the Railroad Commission Final Order that I signed concluding that Range is not responsible for any water contamination in Parker County. Al Armendariz and the EPA’s Region Six office are guilty of fear mongering, gross negligence and severe mishandling of this case. I hope to see drastic changes made in the way the regional office conducts business in the future – starting with the termination of Al Armendariz.”

    Apparently the Texas Railroad Commission says Range didn’t contaminate “any water” in Parker County, after all the investigation.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2012/04/26/epa-official-not-only-touted-crucifying-oil-companies-he-tried-it/

      • mr_bill says

        Well, the precious EPA backed down because they didn’t have any basis for their allegation, the RRC confirmed this, and all the anti-energy zealots found they had nothing but unfounded claims and no facts to back anything up. I don’t consider Al Almandarez to be of sound reputation, not by a long shot. It appears he mistakenly crucified himself 🙂 Don’t you just hate it when that happens!! 🙂