Is Range Resources Spokesman Lobbying or Lying? You Decide

A letter to the editor published on April 24 in the Washington Observer-Reporter from Range Resources' spokesman (and registered lobbyist) Matt Pitzarella stated: "Range is on record on countless occasions being in support of, and in fact lobbying for, not against, smarter and tighter regulations that adapt to new and emerging technologies."

Mr. Pitzarella’s statement is stunning because less than 24 hours earlier, every member of the state House of Representatives was lobbied to do exactly the opposite. The Marcellus Shale Coalition, speaking on behalf of Range Resources, circulated e-mails to urge a vote against my amendments to HB 302, 303 and 308. My amendments would ban open air impoundments for the disposal of hazardous wastewater from drilling operations, leading to the use of closed loop/closed containment systems instead.

Closed loop/closed containment systems should fit into anyone's definition of "new and emerging technologies," and my amendments are "smarter and tighter regulations that adapt" to those technologies. Many responsible drillers operating in Pennsylvania have abandoned wastewater impoundments already, and they are specifically discussed as a performance standard by the Center for Sustainable Shale Development, which includes Shell, Chevron, CONSOL and EQT.

It is worth noting that Range refuses to participate in this initiative to adopt industry-wide best practices.

It should also be noted that Range Resources and the Marcellus Shale Coalition combined to spend more than $1 million in just three months to lobby the Legislature to pass Act 13 last year. The Commonwealth Court deemed this law unconstitutional and we are awaiting a final decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Act 13 basically eliminates local zoning—along with local accountability—of the oil and gas industry, allowing industrial uses such as wastewater impoundments within 300 feet of any building, including a home, school, church, senior center or hospital. Anyone who says Act 13 offers “tighter regulations” is delusional, but that didn’t stop Range Resources from lobbying aggressively (very, very aggressively) for this unconstitutional law.

Last August, the DEP’s Office of Oil and Gas Management issued a draft report with recommendations for updates to drilling regulations. Section 78.58 clearly stated, “The long-term storage of production fluids in a pit presents an unacceptable risk to the environment though leaks or overtopping of the pit.” Somehow, this recommendation disappeared from the final version of the regulations. I have submitted a Right-to-Know request to determine whether Range submitted comments to the DEP requesting the regulation be removed; the DEP has yet to provide me with any information.

Since 2011, the DEP, Gov. Tom Corbett and the Marcellus Shale Coalition itself have spoken out against taking this wastewater to municipal treatments plants because of the adverse environmental impact. If this wastewater is known to impact the waterways of Pennsylvania, how is it good policy to dig an enormous hole in a residential area and let the water (and whatever volatile organic compounds it contains) evaporate into the surrounding air?

Wastewater impoundments are simply not an industry best practice; they’re little more than toxic waste dumps, and new and better technologies absolutely exist. While Range Resources, through one paid lobbyist Matt Pitzarella, specifically claimed the company lobbies in favor of smarter regulations and new technologies, Range’s other paid lobbyist through the Marcellus Shale Coalition was literally doing the exact opposite. So who is Range Resources lying to—the public audience of Mr. Pitzarella’s letter to the editor or the members of the state Legislature? 

If this logical interpretation is incorrect, or if Mr. Pitzarella's comments were in error, it would be helpful for the public and members of the Pennsylvania Legislature to know before we take up this important issue on the House floor in the coming weeks.

Like many of my colleagues, I support developing the Marcellus Shale but believe we need to do so in an honest and responsible way that will protect our communities and the people living in them. If we are truly committed to "getting it right" on Marcellus Shale, as we should be, we deserve honest and fact-based debate, not more public relations doublespeak.