OKC firms push back on groups’ claim of EPA favor

Three environmental groups on Tuesday sent a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency, asking the new leadership to address what they say appears to be preferential treatment shown to three Oklahoma City-based oil and natural gas companies.

The Oklahoma companies said they are continuing to work with the EPA, and the agency said the environmental groups’ letter contains “significant factual errors and omissions.”

The letter from the Environmental Integrity Project, Sierra Club and Environment Texas said six companies faced investigation for similar air pollution violations, but that Texas-based Noble Energy, Colorado-based PDC Energy and Kansas-based Slawson Energy were fined a combined $9.55 million while Oklahoma City-based Devon Energy Corp., Chesapeake Energy Corp. and Gulfport Energy Corp. have not been fined.

“We respectfully request that you exercise your authority and demonstrate that Oklahoma corporations are not subject to a more relaxed ‘rule of law’ than the one that applies to their competitors,” the letter states.

In an interview with The Oklahoman, Environmental Integrity Project Executive Director Eric Schaeffer said it is possible the Oklahoma companies received preferential treatment because of their relationship with former Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, who resigned as EPA administrator earlier this month.

“It does look like different

treatment for Oklahoma companies,” Schaeffer said. “It could also be that this is the way EPA is going to handle or not handle oil and gas cases here on out. You might see something similar for a non-Oklahoma company in the next few months. It might be a coincidence that all three are from Oklahoma.”

Whatever the reason, Schaeffer said the EPA should continue to look at the three Oklahoma companies.

“This is a fixable problem,” he said. “EPA’s already taken three cases and brought them across the finish line with other companies. Those companies are doing just fine. They’re still out there drilling and making money. Doing environmental enforcement cases is not the apocalypse. It’s saying ‘You

tripped up. Pay the penalty, fix the problem and move on.’”

Schaeffer served as head of enforcement at EPA in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

EPA spokesman John Konkus downplayed the environmental groups’ findings.

“EPA will continue to make enforcement decisions based on the facts and circumstances of each case,” Konkus said. “We have seen the EIP report and would observe that it contains significant factual errors and omissions that EPA is not at liberty to correct because of the enforcement confidential nature of our impartial work.”

Comparing the cases

The environmental groups, however, said their report is based entirely on pubic records.

“So if there were an error, they could certainly correct it by pointing

to the public record,” Tom Pelton, spokesman for the Environmental Integrity Project, said in a statement Wednesday morning. “The fact that they refuse to specify any alleged errors in our report makes me doubt their complaint has substance.”

In the six cases cited by the environmental groups, the EPA investigated the companies for air pollution violations. The three out-of-state companies were fined a combined $9.55 million and agreed to $146 million in cleanup projects and environmental mitigation efforts. But with Devon, the EPA on Feb. 22 issued an administrative order that imposed no civil penalties and required no environmental mitigation projects. Chesapeake and Gulfport were notified of the violations in December 2016, but EPA so far has taken no action.

EPA cited Devon for a series of wells and storage

tanks the company bought in south Texas’ Eagle Ford basin in February 2014. Devon spokesman John Porretto said the company began an environmental audit of the facilities when the sale closed.

“Upon completion of that audit less than four months later, Devon self-reported noncompliance with air-emission regulations to the TCEQ (Texas Commission on Environmental Quality),” Porretto said in a statement. “The company has cooperated with EPA’s Region 6 professionals in Texas since December 2015 to implement numerous remedies while also compiling a detailed list of best practices for Devon and others to follow.”

As part of the effort, Devon crews installed updated field components, including tank hatches, pressure-relief valves and tanks with improved designs and better materials, Porretto

said.

“The company’s efforts to increase the sophistication of our data collection and management have brought about more effective equipment-maintenance programs,” he said.

The company also installed infrared camera and remote sensors to help make sure the equipment is working, he said.

“The time, effort and investments Devon made to ensure compliance of our Eagle Ford assets was taken into consideration by the EPA in reaching the settlement agreement,” Porretto said.

Schaeffer, however, said that while Devon crews made upgrades and improvements, EPA checks several months later found flares that were not lit, allowing methane and other gasses to escape into the atmosphere.

The EPA in December 2016 notified Chesapeake and Gulfport that

they were under investigation for emissions such as unlit flares and tanks that allowed gas to leak into the air.

“It’s possible EPA has referred those cases to the Justice Department and is planning to do something, but we don’t know that,” Schaeffer said. “Enough time has passed that we thought it was good to start raising questions.”

Gulfport spokesman Paul Heerwagen said the company is continuing to work with the EPA.

“Upon receiving a Finding of Violation from the EPA in late 2016, the company has provided a response disputing the EPA’s Finding of Violation,” he said in a statement. “To date, no enforcement action has been pursued by the EPA.”

Chesapeake spokesman Gordon Pennoyer declined to comment, citing the ongoing matter that hasn’t been resolved.