Steve Lipsky has a problem. His potable water is
flammable. On-fire flammable.
In 2009, Range drilled and fracked two gas wells approximately 2,000 feet from Lipsky’s home. Later that year, Lipsky says he started noticing that the water from his well was slimy and fizzy. The next year he began trucking in his family’s water for about $1,000 a month. The methane levels in his well have risen to concentrations nearly three times higher than what’s considered explosive, according to recent test Lipsky helped pay for.
He created a
video about it, which you can see below.
It all seemed pretty obvious.
In December 2010, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an emergency administrative order requiring Range to fix the situation. The next day, the Railroad Commission of Texas, a state agency that regulates the oil-and-gas industry, said it would hold a hearing on wells in the area.
There you go. The wheels of regulation and justice begin to turn. This is the right way to solve our issues. There's a problem though—
the Railroad Commission of Texas. Here's some
history of their hard-hitting work regulating oil and fracking companies:
In fiscal 2012, the Railroad Commission “performed more than 118,000 oil-and-natural-gas-facility inspections, identified about 55,000 violations … and assessed $1.9 million in penalties,” according to the Sunset Commission, a legislative commission that evaluates Texas state agencies. Its report says the Railroad Commission pursued more than 250 “formal enforcement actions,” suggesting that the average penalty per enforcement action was about $7,600, while most identified violation resulted in no fine.
The chairman of said commission?
Barry Smitherman. He just lost his Republican primary for attorney general of Texas.
From his website:
Barry Smitherman is a proven leader with strong conservative values that stands up to the federal government to defend Texans and the Texas Constitution. He has substantial experience in both the private and public sectors. As Texas Attorney General, Barry will use his conservative values and experiences to enforce our laws and secure our border. He is a passionate fighter for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [...]
Smitherman has repeatedly stood up to President Barack Obama and his job-killing policies, suing Obama’s Environmental Protection Agency seven times to protect jobs and energy for our families, and future generations of Texans.
Needless to say, the Commission dropped the case against Range. Range, in turn, is suing Lipsky for
defaming the company. They say that video you were watching above was doctored by Lipsky in order to get lower land taxes. Lipsky has tried to point out that lowering ones land taxes doesn't mean anything if your land has no potable water—since no one wants to buy land without drinking water.
Well, Lipsky's lawsuit against Range was thrown out of court in 2012 by Judge Trey Loftin. Loftin subsequently lost his re-election as a judge. Turns out running on:
Loftin's campaign mailers circulate, crowing about how he shoved Obama's anti-energy agenda right up the EPA's ass -- and, by extension, up Steve Lipsky's ass.
Is not always the winning platform. Now Lipsky is fighting the defamation suit and arguing his First Amendment right to
freedom of speech.
The case won’t be heard until December, but environmentalists are already drawing parallels between it and other incidents across the U.S. in which hydraulic fracturing companies and anti-fracking activists have butted heads. Lipsky’s supporters say his case adds to a growing list of instances that show governments and courts are too quick to kowtow to industry demands. But if he wins, they say, it could embolden the anti-fracking movement across the country by letting activists know they’re free to badmouth fracking companies without fear of retribution.
The freedom of speech is very important here since in many of these cases the fracking and gas industries pay out a settlement but stipulate a wide ranging gag order.
Like really wide-ranging. Meet the Hollowich's. They sued Range for contaminating their land. Range agreed to pay them $750,000 if they dropped their suit and:
They also agreed to a broad gag order, which raises several First Amendment issues for the books (and which prompted Stephen Colbert to hilariously quip last week "paying for silence is catching on like tapfire"). The gag, according to the transcript, bars the entire family, including two children aged 7 and 10, "from ever commenting on anything to do with fracking or Marcellus Shale." (The Marcellus Shale is a huge rock formation in the eastern United States that contains a lot of untapped natural gas.)
UPDATE:
There is some discussion about the veracity of Lipsky's account. The fact that his motion was thrown out. Here is some more information:
The Railroad Commission’s tests found Lipsky’s water contained 8.6 milligrams per liter of methane, not quite the federal limit of 10. Yet separate tests by a researcher at the University of Texas-Arlington found 83 milligrams per liter in the water, an incredibly high count.
“What we can say right now is that those are dangerous -- that's a dangerous level," Zac Hildebrand told WFAA.
In response, the Railroad Commission told WFAA “the Commission is aware of elevated methane concentration levels." An agency spokeswoman said the "sampling and test results were focused on the source of the methane gas" and not on measuring methane levels.
"For whatever reason, they do not want to have on their record the true levels that I have," Lipsky said.
The agency measured the chemical content of gas in Lipsky’s water and that of two nearby gas development wells, known as the Butler and the Teal. The state found that “the evidence is insufficient” to connect the two samples.
Yet the test data indicates that the “chemical signature,” or isotopic analysis, of the Barnett Shale gas is 46.52, while Lipsky’s water is 46.63, obviously a close match.
"The methane and ethane numbers from the Butler and Teal production are essentially exactly the same as from Lipsky's water well,” earth scientist Geoffrey Thyne told WFAA after reviewing the results. “It tells me that the gas is the same, and that the gas in Lipsky's water well was derived from the Barnett formation."
Soil scientist Bruce Payne also reviewed the testing data, and he agreed that Lipsky’s water was tainted by fracking in the area.
"The gas from [Lipsky’s well] is coming from the Barnett and it's coming nearly straight from the Barnett," Payne said.