Articles Posted in Hydraulic fracturing

Published on:

Twenty-two U.S. House Democrats from Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arkansas, Utah and Idaho delivered a letter to Environmental Protection Agency Director Lisa P. Jackson, cautioning the EPA to do a “reasonable and transparent study” of whether hydraulic fracturing of wells creates risks to drinking water. EPA is required to study whether hydraulic fracturing creates risks to underground sources of drinking water under the 2010 Appropriations Act for the Department of the Interior. The producing-states Congressmen want to be sure that the EPA’s study is scientific, systematic, transparent, accurate and valid.

The EPA conducted a similar study of fracing in 2004. That study was done to investigate whether hydraulic fracturing of wells completed in coalbed methane seams posed a risk to groundwater drinking supplies. The study was in response to alleged incidents of groundwater contamination and to a judgment of a U.S. Court that, because hydraulic fracturing of coalbeds to produce methane is a form of underground injection, the EPA is required to regulate it under Part C of the Safe Drinking Water Act. That Act requires states to regulate underground injection of fluids and to develop an Underground Injection Control Program approved by the EPA. The EPA’s 2004 study of fracturing of coalbed methane wells found no evidence that any water had been contaminated by fracing of wells or that fracing posed any risk to drinking water. That study was criticized by some, including scientists in the EPA. In 2005, Congress exempted hydraulic fracturing from coverage under the Safe Drinking Water Act, in part at least based on EPA’s 2004 study.

The requirement for a new EPA study of fracing in 2010 has been driven, in my opinion, by the development of the Marcellus Shale play in Pennsylvania and New York. New York has placed a moratorium on permits for wells and has published its own draft study of risks to surface and underground water supplies caused by drilling in the area of upstate New York that provides drinking water to New York City. That study is still subject to comment and revision and has caused much controversy in New York. The New York draft study likewise concludes that hydraulic fracturing poses no risk to drinking water if properly regulated. In a related development, a bill in Congress, the FRAC Act, proposes to require companies to disclose the chemical content of frac fluids.

Published on:

Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy, and John Pinkerton, CEO of Range Resources, called for the industry to publicly disclose the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing.  A bill recently introduced in Congress, the FRAC Act, would require disclosure of frac chemicals.  (See my prior post on the FRAC Act here.)

The safety of chemicals used in fracing wells has been questioned in areas of Pennsylvania and New York, where concerns have been raised about possible contamination of drinking water. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection recently sent a notice of violation to Cabot Oil & Gas stemming from two spills of LGC-35, a lubricant used in fracing wells. One spill was reportedly between 1,000 and 2,000 gallons, the other between 5,000 and 5,900 gallons. Halliburton has reported that LBC-35 is a potential carcinogen. The Pennsylviania DEP has ordered Cabot to halt all hydraulic fracturing in Susquehanna County until the company has satisfied the DEP that it has taken necessary safety measures.  New York has imposed a moratorium on new Marcellus Shale drilling permits until it completes a study and new environmental regulations.

McClendon said that the industry needs to “demystify” fracing. “We need to disclose the chemicals that we are using and seaqrch for alternatives to the chemicals we are using.” Pinkerton said that oilfield service companies impose confidentiality agreements on producers when they contract to provide fracing operations; “It’s a little silly to be honest.” A spokesman for Schlumberger said that disclosure is limited by agreements with the firms supplying the chemicals. A spokesman for Haliburton said that the different chemical makeup of the compounds is proprietary information. “We make a significant investment in developing effective fracturing fluid systems and we are careful to protect the fruits of the company’s research and development efforts.”

Published on:

Four legislators from Colorado, New York and Pennsylvania have introduced a bill making hydraulic fracturing subject to regulation by the Environmental Protection Agency under the Safe Water Drinking Act.  Dubbed the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act, or FRAC Act (
FRAC Act.pdf), the bill would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to require companies to disclose the chemicals they use in their fracturing processes. The press release (
Press Release FRAC Act.pdf) from the legislators states that “It’s time to fix an unfortunate chapter in the Bush administration’s energy policy and close the ‘Halliburton loophole’ that has enabled energy companies to pump enormous amounts of toxins, such as benzene and toluene, into the ground that then jeopardize the quality of our drinking water.” (Benzene and toluene are not additives to frac fluid.)

An energy lobbying group, Energy in Depth, has denounced the bill as an “unnecessary financial burden” on the industry which could result in more than half of U.S. oil wells and one-third of gas wells being closed, and reduction in natural gas production of up to 245 billion cubic feet per year.

 

Continue reading →

Contact Information