DEP: Protecting water or gas?

Last month, Pennsylvania Environmental Protection Secretary Michael Krancer testified before Congress on what he called the "unbiased real facts" of shale-gas exploration. Speaking before the House Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, he gave four examples of "suspect science" on the safety of hydraulic fracturing to release natural gas. One of the examples he discussed at length was our study at Duke University.

Our study with two coworkers, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in May, found no evidence that fracturing fluids had contaminated drinking water, but it did find evidence of higher methane, ethane, and propane concentrations in some drinking-water wells near drilling sites.

When our paper came out, Krancer wasted no time in dismissing it, saying, "The bottom line is, it was biased science by biased researchers."

That was baffling to us. The Department of Environmental Protection's stated mission is "to protect Pennsylvania's air, land, and water from pollution and to provide for the health and safety of its citizens through a cleaner environment." Wouldn't that include taking the time to understand what scientific results like ours mean, where they might apply, and what should be done in response? Instead, Krancer quickly set out to, as he put it, "refute" our study and others.

Some have a different view of our work. Our paper went through rigorous peer review before publication. In his testimony, Krancer praised the conclusions of the independent, nonpartisan U.S. Shale Gas Production Subcommittee, which the Department of Energy established to improve the safety of hydraulic fracturing. That group called our research "credible."

The secretary also said we "inexplicably declined DEP's reasonable request" to share our data and water sampling locations, which "raises credibility questions." That's simply not true.

Krancer made similar accusations when our paper came out. When we first heard them from a reporter, we were so surprised that we suggested he call his source back and make sure it wasn't a mistake. The next morning, we started calling the secretary to clear things up and see if he would be willing to collaborate. Six months and half a dozen phone calls and e-mails later, we're still waiting for a response.