By EDWARD CROSS
Kansas Independent Oil & Gas Association President

More often than not, activists’ comments and media accounts continue to get it wrong when it comes to the issue of injection wells and induced seismicity. Whether this frustrating pattern is due to a deliberate mischaracterization of the facts or if an honest lack of understanding of the issue is to blame, the unfortunate byproduct in both instances is a misinformed public. The information provided by activists and media often confuses the public with assertions that are out of context and need more information for a complete and informed discussion. So, it is worth examining some of these claims to see just how much they diverge from reality.

Regarding seismic activity in Kansas, here are some facts. Prior to 2015, there were very few seismic monitors in Kansas. Therefore, very few seismic events were recorded. When the State Task Force on Induced Seismicity was formed in 2014, one of the first things they did was install additional seismic monitors in south-central Kansas. When you install more monitors, you will almost assuredly measure more seismic activity. With these new monitors installed, more seismic events were recorded (most which are not felt earthquakes). But, that is not to say these events were not occurring prior to 2015, only that they were now being recorded.

The Kansas oil and gas industry has taken the issue of induced seismicity very seriously. The Kansas Geological Survey, Kansas Corporation Commission and Kansas Department of Health & Environment are devoting significant resources to analyzing seismicity causes. Industry has supported these efforts to provide assurance that an improved understanding of seismic issues is available to all. These efforts are producing results. The latest data (September 13, 2018) shows a 41% decrease in seismic activity in Kansas since January 2015.

Let’s look at the injection well application notice issue. Here are the facts. Between October 2008 and February 2018, about 4,300 injection well applications were reviewed by the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC). From these reviews, 1,007 applications regarding 2,111 wells were issued injection permits after operators published notice of the permit application with a 15-day notice instead of the required 30 days. The average time between KCC’s receipt of an injection well permit application and issuance of the permit during that 2008-2018 period was about 90 days. Only 29 applications, or 2.88% of the 1,007 applications, were issued a permit in less than 30 days. It should be noted that 21 of the 29 applications were issued at 28 or 29 days, probably allowing for mailing time.

The injection wells permitted in the 2008-2018 period met the regulatory requirements, protected usable water and correlative rights and helped prevent waste. The discrepancy between the notices published by the operators and the legal protest timeframe is a harmless error that did not violate any KCC regulation. The law is clear that such discrepancies were not fatal defects to the KCC’s jurisdiction or authority to approve the injection applications. Finally, there is no evidence that any person’s due process rights were affected by the publications.

The KCC’s September 6th Order saying no action shall be taken by the KCC against the subject permits in the docket was very pragmatic and appropriate. Arguments by those who called for the KCC to revoke the permits offered no real evidence and used weak logic.

Mischaracterizing oil and gas activity has been and continues to be a common practice and strategy of activist groups across the nation.  This pattern of accusation without scientific evidence is intended to create public anxiety about oil and gas production and to discredit effective regulatory programs.  Activists across the country commonly assert that the oil and gas industry is under-regulated or even unregulated.  These are false assertions.  Examination of the issues demonstrates its mendacity.

Nevertheless, they continue tactics to denigrate and demean current state regulatory programs.  This is a tired, worn-out, unsuccessful strategy and we now see this happening in Kansas.

We continue to see activist groups attempt to advance political agendas by using fear. Fear has become a principal means of directing public opinion away from the facts, and in the case of injection wells and earthquakes, it is occurring with a well-known and historically acceptable process associated with recovering oil and gas from the earth. Fear of the unknown is primal and instinctive and is part of all of us. I cannot, and will not, criticize the fear of those who are afraid of what they do not know.

Rather, I applaud those who raise relevant questions and want answers concerning activities they do not understand. My criticism is reserved for those who exploit and pander to fear by repeatedly citing unproven anecdotes to advance political agendas.

Several recent studies and reports have found very few injection wells have been linked to induced seismicity, and the risk from these wells is low.

The most recent comprehensive study based on data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and peer-reviewed studies found that less than one percent of injection wells across the nation and in Kansas have been linked to induced seismicity.

The USGS states in its Myths and Misconceptions regarding induced seismicity that “Most injection wells are not associated with felt earthquakes.”

A report conducted by StatesFirst, an initiative of the Ground Water Protection Council and Interstate Oil & Gas Compact Commission, took a comprehensive look at potential induced seismicity associated with injection wells. The report finds that seismicity linked to oil and gas development is rare; that the risk associated with these rare occurrences are minimal; and that understanding of induced seismicity is growing and mitigation techniques are proving effective. The report also notes that a “vast majority of earthquakes are tectonic, or attributable to natural causes.”

The EPA says Class II injection wells are “a viable technique for subsurface storage and disposal of fluids when properly done.” There is extensive information available on the EPA’s website, which describes how Class II wells “protect drinking water resources” and “prevent surface contamination of soil and water.” A separate section of EPA’s website describes all injection wells, not just the Class II variety, as a “safe” option for disposal.

The bottom line is these studies and more confirm what have long been true – that seismicity induced by injection wells is rare and certainly not a widespread issue. Despite misleading claims exaggerating risks and incorrectly linking seismicity to injection wells, the risk of induced seismicity from injection wells is small, rare, and manageable.

The problem with activist and media reports on injection wells and induced seismicity is they work backward from a conclusion. They try to support their ideas by cherry-picking and misrepresenting data and information to suggest a problem, conveniently ignoring crucial details that would provide a more complete representation of the issues discussed. Their condemnations do not hew to strict scientific precision, but instead are hyperbole, heated rhetoric, and non-verifiable statements of subjective opinion. The reality is this. State regulators, in conjunction with the EPA, carefully oversee injection wells with tight regulations and high operating standards.

Activists and media have the responsibility of reporting and clarifying the facts regarding injection wells and induced seismicity. The facts are readily available. Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

Neither fear-mongering nor unproven anecdotes can conceal or deny that Class II injection wells are safe and well-regulated.

Let’s not be afraid of injection wells.

Edward Cross is president of the Kansas Independent Oil & Gas Association.

To err is human — but, it would seem, corrections are not seen by many as divine.

Inevitably, when journalists in all kinds of mediums start fresh each day, sometimes assembling the equivalent content of a paperback book, mistakes will be made.

Once upon a time — ironically, in a time when a free press was held in higher public esteem though mistakes were made — corrections were made less frequently and, at least in newspapers, often placed in lesser-read spaces.

As first thought, efforts to correct errors more quickly and prominently should bring both praise and satisfaction from news consumers — and for some, it does. But for others, the mere existence of corrections (and let’s count the lesser cousin, “clarifications” too) are signs of media malfeasance, proof that so-called “fake news” exists or is grounds for online versions of public floggings.

There’s no question that news operations should be called out when mistakes are made. Social media has made that calling much easier and much louder.

Case in point: The New York Times’ correction in print editions after the Emmy Awards, noting “A picture caption … using information from a photo agency, misidentified a woman presenting the award for outstanding lead actress in a comedy series. The woman was Angela Bassett, not Omarosa Manigault Newman.” An earlier tweet from the Times said that while the caption error was first made by Getty, the photo provider for the image, it was a mistake that should have been spotted and corrected by the Times.

The Twittersphere lit up as critics slammed the newspaper and its website for sins ranging from embarrassing carelessness to the much more serious reminder of the error’s racial overtones. One online post asked, “Do all dark-skinned black women look the same to your editors??”

There is value to be found in considering the full spectrum of those criticisms, particularly if we can avoid simple social media “piling on” that can distract from that value.

But from photo captions and factual errors to plagiarism and invented sources, what other profession fixes missteps so quickly, so publicly and so thoroughly? Answer: Few come to mind, if any.

While examples are available from any number of news outlets that make corrections quickly and publicly, for this discussion, let’s stick with corrections the Times published Sept. 18:

• “The Here to Help column on Friday about three books on the sexism women face in Hollywood misstated the year that ‘Bossypants’ was published. It was 2011, not 2018.
• “An article on Monday … gave an incorrect title for Jens Stoltenberg of NATO. He is the organization’s secretary general, not its general secretary.
• “An article on Sunday … misspelled the surname of the European Union’s Brexit negotiator. He is Michel Barnier, not Bernier.
• “An article on Monday … misidentified the winner of a game between the Los Angeles Rams and the Arizona Cardinals. The Rams won by a score of 34-0.”

None of these corrections — save perhaps the last one, for Cardinals fans — involved an earth-shattering mistake. None rose to the level of whatever fluid description applies today to the highly politicized “fake news.” Clearly, mistakes of facts, not of motives; more oversight than heinous skullduggery.

Yet, even as such corrections take place daily, in pages and online, from news organizations large and small, those who would weaken, restrict or even do away with a free press find traction in such open admissions. Better to continue in a combined effort to make news reports as accurate as possible — and perhaps to extend such self-reviews to social media posts.

Another case in point, yet again from the Times, from its Sept. 19 report about “Debunking Five Viral Rumors about Christine Blasey Ford, Kavanaugh’s Accuser” — in each of the five cited rumors, the newspaper reported, misinformation was conveyed online by a variety of individuals or groups, noting the misidentification and errors remained, days later, uncorrected or without factual support.

An unfortunate truth about the unprecedented Age of Information in which we now live is the huge amount of misinformation or outright fabrication that now clogs the systems bringing us news and information. So let’s end with a very proactive step by the Times in which, on Sept. 17, it invited the public to join its efforts to avoid misinformation.

The item, “If You See Disinformation Ahead of the Midterms, We Want to Hear From You,” says that “as November’s midterm elections approach, The New York Times is looking for examples of online ads, posts and texts that contain political disinformation or false claims and are being deliberately spread on internet platforms to try to influence local, statewide, and federal elections.”

“Times journalists are hoping to use your tips to advance our reporting. If you see a suspicious post or text, please take a screenshot and upload it” using a form provided by the newspaper.

Making corrections in a very public way will not restore all public confidence in a free press — that may be better achieved by not making mistakes in the first place — but fixing errors and taking proactive steps to sort out deliberate misinformation ought to be encouraged, not weaponized.

Gene Policinski is president and chief operating officer of the Freedom Forum Institute. He can be reached at [email protected], or follow him on Twitter at @genefac.