CP's ongoing coverage of the natural gas industry in Pennsylvania. Email us for regular updates, or use this handy link to the Clog's "fracktrack" category.

I do not envy the Environmental Protection Administration right now.

In 2004, it conducted a study into Marcellus Shale drilling, which concluded that the “EPA did not find confirmed evidence that drinking water wells have been contaminated by hydraulic fracturing.”

That 2004 study was used to enact the so-called "Halliburton Loophole" — which exempted Marcellus Shale drillers from complying with a slew of environmental laws, including the Clean Water Act.

What you may be thinking is: If drinking water is not contaminated by hydraulic fracturing, why would gas drillers need to be exempted from environmental regulations?

It's a good question. And a whistleblower came forward from the EPA to offer an answer: the study was “scientifically unsound.”

A subsequent study by ProPublica — just to throw one example out there (because there are many) — found more like 1,000 examples of groundwater contamination from Marcellus Gas wells instead of zero.

This spring, the EPA acknowledged — or at least implied — that they may have overlooked some stuff in 2004 study. And in response, officials within the EPA have scheduled a series of four public gatherings nationwide aimed at understanding public concerns over issues related to drilling for natural gas buried a mile into the earth.

Those four locations were: Fort Worth, Texas on July 8; Denver, Colo. on July 13, Bunghamton, N.Y. on Aug. 12; and last night at the Hilton Garden Inn, about 15 miles south of Pittsburgh.

Why 15 miles south of Pittsburgh? Because there's a major boom out here. Thousands of wells are being contracted in the more rural counties outside Allegheny County, and drilling leases have been signed not only within Allegheny County (where Pittsburgh sits), but actually within the City of Pittsburgh.

Which concerns some people. Ron Gulla is one of them.

Gulla sold pieces of his land to various drilling companies years ago. He pulled in some major cash — as much as $20,000 per month in the early 1990s — and then he got hit with reality: Not only was his drinking water turning into sludge, and not only was his house beginning to smell of kerosene and gasoline and other chemicals, but his take from the Marcellus Shale wells on his rural property was depreciating alarmingly year by year. Why? Because his neighbors were also selling their mineral rights and also smelling the unpleasant odors of commerce and also washing their faces at night with stinking watery mud seeping from their faucets. In short: The bubble had burst, and all that remained was severely unclean tap water and landowners who didn't really know what they had gotten themselves into.

You see where this is going? Stories like that have ended up in outlets like CNN, the New York Times, Reuters — pretty much everywhere.

And so:

“EPA is developing a research study to examine the potential relationships between [hydraulic fracturing — the process by which Marcellus Shale is extracted from the ground] and drinking water. A key goal of the EPA study is to generate data and information that can be used to assess risks and ultimately to inform decisions.”

Part of that approach involves what the EPA calls “stakeholder input.” Which is what last night's romp was all about.

Hundreds of people signed up — some traveled from as far as Albany and Virginia — to speak publicly at the meeting about any anxiety related to Marcellus Shale drilling.

A lot of these speeches were nearly identical, but each represented some very real concerns.

Jay McDowell, for example, is a landowner with property surrounded by Marcellus Shale wells. He says: “Many businesses have managed to abuse financial, environmental and economic conditions. Day by day, they empty their residual waste trucks into the creeks and streams surrounding my home. What they are drawing out of and putting into these waters is unknown to most. As an individual, if I were to do the same, I would no doubt be arrested and pulled away from my family.”

Another example concern came from Faith Bjalobok, a local university professor, who scolded the EPA for thinking of economic concerns above environmental ones.

“My concern is the poisoning of our water and the lack of regulation,” she says. “Nothing against our local officials, but they lack the knowledge base to make regulations [for Marcellus Shale drillers]. I am calling on the EPA to impose a moratorium until an objective scientific study — not funded by the industry — can be performed. “Later, she says: “Pennsylvania has another very rich resource: our rural nature, our agriculture, and our farms. They stand to be endangered by fracking. The EPA was designed to protect the environment, not to create jobs.”

This went on and on. In total, 125 people spoke at the EPA meeting. Each had a two-minute time limit. And while most of the commentary came from folks who either lived on property that was negatively affected by Marcellus Shale drilling, or were concerned about how widespread drilling would harm the region's clean water sources, a few representatives from companies like Halliburton and the American Petroleum Institute came forward to offer their version of The Sentence,and to make points like this one, made in the conservative Pittsburgh Tribune-Review yesterday:

“[An] industry-backed study shows that drilling for Marcellus shale natural gas in Pennsylvania and West Virginia could generate $1 billion a year in taxes and indirectly support 100,000 jobs during the next decade as investments filter through the local economy.”

But most of the folks last night didn't really want to hear that.

Ned Mulcahy, an attorney with Three Rivers Waterkeeper, helped to summarize the meeting and his hopes for the EPA study, which is set to conclude in 2012:

“The EPA is on the cusp of losing all credibility as a regulatory agency,” he said. “And it has been put into a lot of minds that they are not to be trusted. But this is a chance they have to earn back some modicum of public trust. And I really do think they will do that.”

One problem, he said, is that the study is going to take two years. And so if the EPA really does have concerns about the safety of hydraulic fracturing — and if they really do want to study how Marcellus Shale wells influence the environment — shouldn't they put a moratorium on drilling until the study's complete?

Probably, but they won't. The Marcellus Shale play is a moving train.

“If they want to clean house, they can,” he said. “The EPA can make companies stop drilling if they want to.” But a more realistic expectation is that “the study will produce data that would lead regulatory decisions to be done with water protection as an utmost concern, that it would require drillers to drill in areas that have been determined to be geologically isolated, and that drilling will generally be done in ways that won't amount to human health threats.”

“And that's about the best we can hope for,” he says.

[...] Gas problems: Scenes from last night's EPA meeting in Pittsburgh … [...] 

Liberal slander. Mining and gas companies would never do anything to damage the environment and drinking water. And even if they did, well, those people can just drink tea. Drill, baby, drill.

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Rosemary Calio, Philly News Now. Philly News Now said: Gas problems: Scenes from last night's EPA meeting in Pittsburgh on Marcellus Shale drilling: I do not envy the ... http://bit.ly/ceCY3r [...]