Protect the Southern Hills Aquifer!!!: Fracking? Process, Problems, and Regulations.

Questions To Be Addressed:

What is Fracking?

What Are the Problems?

What Regulations Govern Fracking?

***A Note: Due to the particularly sensitive and impassioned nature of this discourse, along with the tendency nowadays for people to misused and misrepresent the words of others by manipulatively fragmenting quotes and studies, I relied heavily on exact quotes. Note that sources are linked both in the text and in the complete list of Sources at the end. This is in no way an intention at "plagiarism," but rather an attempt to allow the parties highlighted (EPA, API, etc) directly speak for themselves on the subject in the same dialogue, so as to avoid any misrepresentation or misunderstanding. All sources are direct sources- meaning the EPA, the USGS, the American Petroleum Institute, the World Energy Council, and various university studies.

What is fracking?

The Promise- The American Petroleum Institute promises that "what fracking means... security, economic growth, and jobs, jobs, jobs." [1 & 2] "What is hydraulic fracturing? It's energy and opportunity- for better lives and a stronger, more energy-secure country." [2] "Why should communities allow hydraulic fracturing? Besides the energy produced with little impact on the environment, communities benefit economically. Energy development creates jobs and generates millions of dollars in royalties, taxes and other revenues to federal, state, and local governments. It provides energy for U.S. industry, helps strengthen our economy locally and nationally, and helps contribute to higher disposable incomes." [3]

"Despite the current economic difficulties, the world might be looking at the 'Golden age of gas'..." [4] There are well over a million natural gas wells in the United States, as of 2009. [5 &1] Though the scale of operations has changed with new horizontal drilling and high volume hydraulic fracturing, hydraulic fracturing technology has been used since the 1940's [3]. The Environmental Protection Agency weighs in saying: "Natural gas plays a key role in our nation's clean energy future. The U.S. has vast reserves of natural gas that are commercially viable as a result of advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies enabling greater access to gas in shale formations. Responsible development of America's shale gas resources offers important economic, energy security, and environmental benefits." [6] Fracking both makes new resources available and allows additional resources to be extracted from existing wells. [3] It's describes as just a process to "stimulate" wells in order to maximize recoveries of natural gas from highly impermeable rock formations, including coalbeds and shale formations. [7 & 8] The movement of the oil and natural gas out of the rock pores is sped up by literally cracking a path through the rocks for the hydrocarbons to gather and travel towards the well. [8 & 9] Hydraulic fracturing is used to extract both oil and natural gas, as well as "geothermal energy, and even water" in some places. [9]

"Over the past few years, several key technical, economic, and energy policy developments have spurred the increased use of hydraulic fracturing for gas extraction over a wider diversity of geographic regions and geologic formations." [7] "The enormous resources of shale gas have always been there, but it is only since the introduction of hydraulic-fracturing technology at an economically attractive price, that the gas market revolution has become a reality." [4] "The advance of drilling and well completion technologies, including hydraulic fracturing, has opened up plays in an number of different basins that were not previously considered to have economic potential." [10] Simply put, it just wasn't technologically or economically feasible to extract from these "unconventional resources" before, because the gases are highly dispersed in the rocks and they couldn't be accessed as easily as the conventional and more easily extracted resources. [8 & 11] "Unconventional gas extraction includes: deep gas (greater than 15,000 feet), tight gas, shale gas, coal bed methane, gas from geopressurized zones, and methane hydrates. Like tight gas which is extracted from sandstone and limestone deposits that have low permeability, shale gas extraction requires techniques such as fracturing and horizontal drilling that are less commonly used in conventional extraction." [12] These unconventional resources produced about 42% of total US gas production in 2007, and are forecast to reach 64% by 2020. [10] "Unconventional natural gas and oil resources in the United States are important components of a national energy program that seeks both greater energy independence and greener sources of energy." [13]

You see there's a rush going on right now, not a gold rush but a shale rush. "In its search for secure, sustainable and affordable supplies of energy, the world is turning its attention to unconventional energy resources. Shale gas is one of them. I has turned upside down the North-American gas markets, and is making significant strides in other regions. The emergence of shale gas as a potentially major energy source can have serious strategic implications for geopolitics and the energy industry." [4] The Russian Federation, by far, has the most natural gas reserves in the world, ranging from one-third to one-fourth of global reserves. Quatar, Turkmenistan, and Saudi Arabia also have significant natural gas reserves. [4] "Development of the shale gas resource is considered a major component of America's energy supplies for the foreseeable future." [13] Shale has become an increasingly important source for natural gas in the U.S. [11] But, it's only been in the last decade that natural gas production from shale grew past 2% of the total U.S. outputs. Now shale is responsible for 37% of U.S. production. [10] And shale's become particularly important to the oil and gas industry, as well as the U.S. government. The American Petroleum Institute (API), through an uncited study by IHS, theorizes that by 2035 more than 75% of natural gas will come from fracking. [1] Shale is expected to contain 750 trillion cubic feet of gas and 24 billion barrels of oil, though again no reference for these numbers is given. [14] It's estimated that 13,000 natural gas wells will be hydraulically fractured or re-fractured every year, representing the majority of new natural gas production. [5] API estimates that 75% of natural gas development in the future will involve hydraulic fracturing of shale resources. [1] Although, the API funded study claims that over 95% of wells are "routinely" fracked. [14] API mentions (without citation) a government-industry study which found that up to 80% of natural gas wells drilled in the next ten years will "require" hydraulic fracturing. API notes (without citation) that 56 million American homes use "our clean-burning natural gas" and that one-fifth of the nation's electricity come from this source. Natural gas is also responsible for powering buses and fleet vehicles, and it used to create fertilizers and plastics. [3] This study claims that if hydraulic fracturing were stopped there would be nearly 80% less wells completed, causing the country to lose 17% of its oil production and 45% of its natural gas production by 2014, and a 23% decrease in oil production and 57% decrease in natural gas production by 2018. It goes on to declare that moving to "the No Fracking scenario" would cost 2.9 million jobs.[14]But this "study" commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute and often cited in their arguments against regulation, doesn't cite any sources, or refer to where there numbers are actually coming from. Perhaps they're industry numbers, reported by API members, but no reference is given to how any of their claims are supported with facts and documentation. Facts and documentation are the basic of any good study.

Despite this, it is more than apparent that natural gas, particularly from unconventional resources, is both a major political and social issue. Geopolitically natural gas production, and consumption, is only getting more and more important. And it's because of this that governments and industries alike are diving into the "shale revolution." It's all about imports and exports. But first some quick terms- A "net importer" imports more liquid natural gas than it exports. "Total imports" include all liquid natural gas imports, with no accounting for exports. Net imports are not the same as total imports. So who's got the gas power? "Europe is, and will remain, by far the largest net importer..." [4] By 2030, continental Asia is set to become the second largest net importer, followed by the Asia Pacific region. But here's the thing, the Asia Pacific region is also expected to reach #1 in total imports by 2030, bringing in nearly half the world's liquid natural gas imports, but exporting a significant amount of liquid natural gas as well, with Indonesia, Malaysia, Australia, and Brunei producing one-third of the world's natural gas. Europe only exports a very small amount of natural gas, which does nothing to offset it's massive imports, that's why it's the top net importer but not the top in total imports. North America, amidst its "shale gas revolution," produces just enough natural gas to meet its consumption needs. Mexico and Quebec import just about as much as the U.S. and Western Canada export. Africa and the Middle East are only expected to increase production. But, by far, the Russian Commonwealth is the biggest exporter and producer of natural gas, producing about one-quarter of the world's natural gas now, with expectations of that amount growing by 45%. "Russia holds the largest natural gas reserves in the world," mostly in Siberia. [4] A state-run company controls 80% of the country's total production and 65% of the country's reserves. Africa and the Russian Commonwealth are the only regions in the world that do not import any natural gas. And then there's China, whose reserves of shale gas remain a mystery, but which is estimated to hold more than the U.S. and Canada combined. Further, in China "the possible negative impact of shale gas development on the environment is not a front line issue," as it is in North America. [4] It's thought that if China fully taps into it's shale gas potential it could change the "energy landscape" of the entire world. Currently, Shell, Chevron, and ConocoPhillips are all active in China. The United States possess the fifth largest reserves of natural gas in the world, nearly a third of which are in Texas. But it's only about 4% of the world's total reserves and that's with all the unconventional sources included. Most of these reserves contain only natural gas, and no oil. [4]

[UPDATE (5-30-14): "Although Russia is still the world’s biggest exporter of natural gas, the United States recently surpassed it to become the world’s largest natural gas producer, largely because of breakthroughs in hydraulic fracturing technology, known as fracking..." the New York Times announced in early March. With the rise of hydraulic fracturing the U.S. has moved from having "declining" amounts of natural gas, to having enough to export. Currently, most of Europe as well as the Ukraine are dependent on Russian gas exports. America hopes to undermine the influence (and power) of Putin by exporting gas to these countries instead.]

So when you look at the vehemence of either side of this debate consider that both sides consider themselves revolutions to safeguard the future, safety, and freedom of our country. It's just that one side thinks it's fighting to free the U.S. from international pressures while the other fights corporate domination. Despite any good intentions, the lines seem to be drawn in the sand. The American Petroleum Institute proclaims: "America's shale energy revolution is built on innovation that produced advanced hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling technologies and techniques. And the innovation continues, working on ways to make fracking even safer for the surrounding environment." [2] While those opposed to the expanding development fear there is no "safe" way to frack, and that their interests are not being respected nor represented by either their elected officials or the oil and gas industry.

So now you know what the EPA and the American Petroleum Industry have to say about the future of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. Now let's look at the process. Essentially, here's how fracking happens. First the land is prepared with the necessary infrastructure. Then wells are drilled, with redundant layers of cemented steel piping, with generally 1-8 wells per well pad. [12 & 15] "A site is expected to consist of only one well pad." [12] The American Petroleum Institute estimates that each well takes 3 million pounds of steel and cement to construct. [15] This process produces a variety of wastes, including drilling muds, cuttings, and produced water. [16] A fracking fluid made up of water and additives is pumped into the rocks below at a very high pressure [9], around 10,000 pounds per square inch. [12] The high-pressure fluid actually breaks the rocks, forming fissures that hasten the movement of oil and natural gas from the rock pores. [9] Fracking fissures in the shale "create paths to connect the gas to the well." [12] These cracks can extend several hundred feet away from the well. Once the rocks are cracked, a "propping agent," usually sand, is pumped into the fractures to keep them open once the pressure returns to normal. "After fracturing is complete, the internal pressure of the geological formation cause the injected fracturing fluids to rise to the surface where it may be stored in tanks or pits prior to recycling." [9] These recovered fluids, that are forced out of the ground through the wellbore, are called "flowback." [9, 8, & 11] These waters along with formation water are collectively called "unconventional oil and gas extraction waters" or "produced waters." [8] One key attribute of hydraulic fracturing activities, particularly those that involve horizontal drilling, in unconventional reservoirs is the notably larger volumes of flowback, requiring larger storage pits or tanks. [16] Flowback is mostly collected in the first 2-3 weeks of HVHF (high volume hyraulic fracturing) production. Although it can be recycled, that is only up to a point, at which impurities have accumulated to such levels that the waste must be treated and disposed. [13] "Spill prevention, response, and clean-up procedures are implemented before drilling begins and are updated as operations progress... Numerous protective measures are in place at well sites, including liners under well pads, rubber composite mats under rigs, storage tanks with secondary containment measures, and barriers to control any potential runnoff." [15] These waters contain a lot of dissolved solids, suspended solids, and salts, including organic and inorganic chemicals, metals, and naturally-occuring radioactive materials. [8] They are disposed of by either discharging into surface water or publicly owned treatment facilities, as well as injection into underground wells.[8]

What are the problems?

"Shale gas development can bring positive impacts to small towns, for example through increased employment opportunities and economic expansion. The growth of the boom town may be positively capitalized by homes in the area; while lease payments can provide a great source of income for many homeowners (and these royalties may be spent locally, helping to boost the economy). However, negative externalities associated with shale gas development can extent beyond the immediate proximity surrounding the well. Netting out these different impacts, we find statistically significant evidence of boom town positive impacts in the general vicinity of shale gas development, as evidences by property value increases from wells drilled within one year of sale. However, the long-term impacts of wells older than a year or never drilled are cause for concern, as the boom is short-lived." [17]

After reading pages and pages, of the American Petroleum Institute and the EPA bickering back and forth like snotty well-spoken children, [18] I realize they are both right and both wrong, that truths can be lies when the right facts are omitted, and that there are a lot of manipulations of information floating around concerning hydraulic fracturing. Ultimately, (for me) it comes down to the fact that "while there are valid arguments on both sides of the debate surrounding shale gas development, the question of whether the benefits outweigh the costs has not yet been answered." [17]

"Federal agencies with environmental responsibilities, state and local regulators and water-resource agencies, and citizens throughout areas of unconventional shale gas development have concerns about the environmental effects of high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF)..." [13] "Compared to conventional gas production, the scale of shale gas operations may be much larger and has the potential to create significantly greater effects on landscapes, watersheds, water supplies, and water quality." [13] Concerns have arisen over both the expansion of fracking and the associated impacts on drinking water resources, the environment, and public health. [7] Although the American Petroleum Institute insists that hydraulic fracturing poses no threat to the environment. [3] Further concerns have arisen related to potential impacts arising from improper management of wastes. [16] Meanwhile the petroleum industry proclaims "Shale Energy is the Answer," promising jobs, stimulation of the economy, and "a secure energy future," while pushing for increased access to natural resources, less federal oversight, no "punitive" taxes, and speeding up the leasing and permitting process. [15]

Although there is a wide variety of information available on exploration and production wastes, "with few known exceptions there has been no systematic examination of these wastes since the [EPA's] 1987 Report to Congress." [19] And an American Petroleum Institute survey from 1985 served as the only comprehensive estimate of waste volumes and management methods until at least 2000. [19] There are only two other studies noted as exceptions to this statement, one by the Western States Petroleum Association in March of 1993 and one by the Gas Research Institute in May of 1993. More recent studies mostly focus on the effectiveness of current management methods. [19]

So the industry studies say that fracking is absolutely safe... so what about the EPA? Well, they actually know yet. They haven't previously studied the is matter, but they are researching some impacts of hydraulic fracturing now and will soon conclude a study. "At the request of Congress, EPA is conducting a study to better understand any potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas on drinking water resources. The scope of the research includes the full lifespan of water in hydraulic fracturing." [20] "The USEPA study is collecting and analyzing new and existing data to evaluate possible impacts to both surface and groundwater... the data are provided by nine hydraulic fracturing service companies and nine well operators; and are found in publicly-available databases to better understand the products and chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids, accidental releases of chemicals, well practices, water use, and wastewater treatment disposal." [13] But analytical methods to detect chemicals commonly used in fracking fluids are still being developed through laboratory studies, as are treatments for fracking wastewaters. [13] So the scientific knowledge needed to detect and managed the compounds in these fluids is still being developed, and the most effective methods may not have yet been discovered. We're working with a learning curve, which can only be overcome by more independent research being done on the subject.

A "progress report" was released in 2012 by the EPA, but the final report isn't expected until late 2014. [20] This is the reason that the American Petroleum Industry website claims both that "EPA has yet to demonstrate any evidence of hydraulic fracturing linked to groundwater contamination" [1] and "EPA and the Ground Water Protection Council have confirmed no direct link between hydraulic fracturing operations and groundwater impacts," though no citation is given to the GWPC and the EPA report isn't even out yet. [3] Though, API doesn't indicate what study or source of information from the GWPC they took information from, The GWPC documents in it's "White Papers" outlining the "Stray Gas Incidence & Response Forum," sponsored GWPC, the Dept. of Energy, Chevron, the American Petroleum Institute and others, an incident in Ohio, in which in improperly cemented well caused natural gas to leak into the aquifer and eventually migrate into people's pipes and in a basement that at one point ignited damaging the foundation of the home. The report is clear to state that "the hydraulic fracturing job in the gas well did not cause fractures that extended from the target formation upward to the deepest aquifer. The observed gas was caused by an inadequate cement job that allowed gas to release and migrate upward... not by permanent new conduits caused by fracturing." [21] So it wasn't the cracks caused by fracking that caused the methane contamination of the groundwater, it was doing a shotty job at building the well to do hydraulic fracturing that caused the problem. (Well now, that's a relief.) These findings were used to settle a lawsuit brought by the local residents. [21] Although there is no mention of what that settlement entailed. The "White Papers" also document another case in Colorado, as well, where a faulty cement job led to methane migrating to shallow groundwater. "There are multiple potential sources of stray gas. The Pennsylvania DEP has documented cases where stray gas has been caused by deficient gas well construction practices. However, detailed geologic and geochemical investigations using chemical data and isotopic analysis show strong evidence that most of the methane observed in water wells has origins in shallower geological formations, rather than the Marcellus Shale." [21]

The "White Papers" go on to describe other examples of gas migrating into groundwater. These studies involved isotopic analysis. Isotopes are different forms of the same kind of atom (for example hydrogen, H) with slightly different masses due to the presense of additional neutron particles (in the nucleus of the atom). Common hydrogen isotopes are deuterium, ²H, and tritium, ³H. Common carbon isotopes are ¹²C, the most common, as well as ¹³C and ¹⁴C. "Isotopic ratio measurments of an element can give information about the production of the compound..." Methane is either produced by the biological decomposition of organic materials, called "biogenic methane," produced in marshes, landfills, and animal manure, or through the thermal breakdown of organic material, called "thermogenic methane," meaning that it formed by heat. It's thought that by comparing the ratios of ¹³C and ²H isotopes, the origin of different methanes can be determined. Ultimately, it was concluded that the methane found in water wells was indeed thermogenic, but that it originated from the formations above the fractured shale, rather than from the shale itself. [21] This is kind of brings us to the cruz of the scientific disagreement. Generally it seems the argument comes down to not whether a contaminant is present but the mechanism or pathway in which it got into the drinking water. [21] Without a direct path, there isn't a direct link. And although they readily admit stray gas is "prevalent in many shallow formations around the country." And they go on to say: "It is particularly prevalent and well-documented in Pennsylvania where Marcellus Shale gas well drilling has focused attention on water quality." In short, they contend that the gas has always been there, or is just appearing now (spontaneously) for other reasons, but that it's only because of the stigma around fracking that people are hyper-vigilant about their water supply and blaming the oil industry for problems that cant' be linked to the industry at all. [21]

So when the American Petroleum Institute says "EPA and the Ground Water Protection Council have confirmed no direct link between hydraulic fracturing operations and groundwater impacts," they're NOT (technically) lying; but that doesn't necessarily mean they're telling the truth either. The EPA hasn't technically weighed in on the matter, because their study is not yet complete. And GWPC confirmed that no mechanisms connecting the fracturing of shale to the appearance of stray gas in aquifers; but they also confirmed the presence of stray gas in the aquifer due to substandard drilling operations. API denounces the data announced in the EPA's "draft report" and describes EPA conclusions as "unsubstantiated." [22] API claims that EPA tainted the samples themselves with antifreeze, cement, and diesel fuels. [23] API also claims that "there are no documented cases of hydraulic fracturing contaminating groundwater, from the Marcellus Shale to California" and describes the investigations done by the EPA concerning the effects of fracking on drinking water in Wyoming as lacking "scientific rigor," and "substandard." [1 &22] API insists that aquifers are protected by drilling "away from drinking water wells" and below the level where groundwater is likely to be found.[3] Steel casings, surrounded by layers of concrete, provide a "safe barrier to protect usable water." [3] They question the validity of any larger studies EPA may do on the matter of hydraulic fracturing, namely the pending "National HF Study". API is now consulting with EPA "to clarify questions" concerning collection methods and assure "sound science" in the final report. [22] (Although a fundamental part of "sound science" is citing your sources, an apparent weakness of API.) API, along with America's Natural Gas Alliance, wanted to collaborate on the EPA study, but the EPA refused. So in response, API decided instead to launch a critical review the EPA study, including their methods and (any potential) findings. [22] API clearly states that it considers all of EPA work flawed, regardless of the particular location studied, saying "one more example of questionable science and flawed data leading to unsupported conclusions." [22] After all that hostility, API goes on to say it both "appreciates" and "recognizes" the EPA's "recognition that openness, transparency, and stakeholder [industry] involvement are all integral parts to a successful hydraulic fracturing study." [23] So essentially, the industry has entirely disavowed itself of anything the EPA has to say as far as science goes and expects to be at the table for all research on hydraulic fracturing. And the meek and toothless EPA phrases every regulation as a suggestion and selling their suggestion as nifty money-making schemes.

[UPDATE (5-30-14): Here are the EPA "Pavillion" study and the American Petroleum Institute's report in response to the EPA findings.]

The EPA's had their science questioned before. The White Papers describe a more controversial case from Texas in 2010, in which stray gas was found in water wells. The methane in the water sample was found to be thermogenic; both the EPA and the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC), which regulates the state's oil and gas industry, agreed. "Both agencies agreed that the gas in the water wells and the Barnett Shale were thermogenic in origin. Based upon isotopic analysis, EPA issued a controversial endangerment order, requiring installation of alternative water supplies for several local residents." [21] But the RRC wasn't content and proceeded "to conduct a more thorough investigation by requiring Range Resources to perform mechanical integrity tests, interviewing local water well drillers and residents about the historic occurence of natural gas in area water wells, assessing stratigraphy and structure on the local aquifers, and collecting gas samples for compositional analysis. Based upon broader lines of evidence, the RRC concluded that there was no pathway or driving mechanism to explain how gas could migrate from wells developed by Range Resources..." [21] Further examination of nitrogen isotopes, as well as nitrogen and carbon dioxide content, "did provide clear geochemical evidence of different origins. There was sufficient evidence to show that gas occurred naturally in the aquifer prior to the completion of the Range Resources wells. As a result of the evidence, the RRC hearing examiner found in March 2011 that Range Resources' natural gas wells should be allowed to continue to produce as the wells were not causing or contributing to contamination of any Parker Country domestic water wells. EPA has since withdrawn its endangerment order. This case illustrated the importance of conducting thorough investigations before reaching conclusions in support of enforcement actions." [21] No mention is given as to whether they really figured out where the methane was coming from or whether the RCC just stopped at vindicating the oil producers. And (theoretically) had they discovered that the methane were produced from the fractured shale, and the EPA had failed to act immediately, given evidence, had they not mandated that alternative water supplies be provided at the earliest possible moment to local residents, but instead waited weeks or months for more information, it would have been, to say the least, scandalous. [21]

Nonetheless, the beleaguered EPA lists several different "well known" potential impacts that hydraulic fracturing can have on the environment, including [6]:

Stress on groundwater and surface waters.
Contamination of groundwater and surface waters.
Contamination of the surrounding land around wells.
Releases of hazardous pollutants and greenhouse gasses.

The environmental concerns that the United States Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.) lists related to hydraulic fracturing echo many of the EPA worries, including [13]:

The availability and use of both ground and surface waters.
The movement and effects of "stray gas" (defined as methane found where it isn't wanted) on overlying aquifers.
Contamination of surface and groundwaters by flowback, formation fluids, and waste
The effects of the construction of drill pads, roads, and pipelines on nearby watersheds and streams.

The American Petroleum Institute added [26]:

Seismic activity.

Other concerns expressed from local communities include:

Transportation impacts, including increased traffic and road damage.
Potential health effects of contamination causing low birth weights in babies.
Impacts of hydraulic fracturing development on local housing markets.

Essentially these break down to the eight following categories:

Stressed Waters

Many opponents of fracking fear that the vast amount of water needed for the operation will cause shortages in the available surface water, from rivers and lakes, or from groundwater, accessed from underground aquifers through wells. [6] "Consumptive loss of water over many decades by conventional or unconventional oil and gas development, among other consumptive uses, has yet to be quantified." [13] That means little is know of the long term impact, but generally, local or state governments regulate the amount of water operators, and any other users of the common water source, are allowed to remove, per a particular time frame. This is true for any industry. Shortages in available local water sources seem to be dealt with by trucking in water from other sources, which may exacerbate any negative transportation impacts.

Fluids Contaminating Groundwater or Surface Water

The EPA lists "underground drinking water and surface water contamination resulting from spills, faulty construction, or other causes" in its list of concerns, as well as "surface water discharges and underground disposal injection wells causing adverse impacts." [6] "Water is an integral component of the hydraulic fracturing process." [27] The EPA estimates that the petroleum industry generates 150,000 cubic meters (or 260,000 metric tons) of water waste, sludges, and contaminated equipment. For every 1 barrel of oil produced, 10 barrels of produced water will also be extracted. The amount varies by location. [30] The largest volume of waste produced by oil and gas extraction is "produced water." [28] The wastewaters produced by fracking activities contain dissolved and suspended solids (mainly iron and chlorides), fracking fluid additive chemicals, metals, and (naturally occurring) radioactive materials. [6 & 29] "It should be noted that the toxicity characteristics list of contaminants does not include all the possible toxic constituents that may be found in oil and gas wastes." [19]

Dissolved and Suspended Solids.
Hydraulic Fracking Fluid Additives.
Naturally-Occuring Radioactive Materials (NORM).

[UPDATE (5-26-14): Additional chemical additives used in the fracking process and in preparation and maintenance of the wells provided by FracFocus.]

Natural Gas Contamination of Groundwater

Methane is the primary compound found in "natural gas." [24] "Methane dissolved in water is not toxic when ingested by humans." [21] But dissolved methane can gas out once it reaches the surface, once the concentration of methane in the air reaches 5% (per volume) then combustion is possible. [21] The GWPC acknowledges the presence of thermogenic methane in groundwater, but it doesn't link the methane to "hydraulic fracturing." [21] A number of recent studies have come out of Duke University's Nicholas School of the Environment pertaining to hydraulic fracturing operations. [32, 33, & 36] One study analyzed 141 wells in the Appalachian Plateaus of Pennsylvania, examining natural gas concentrations and proximity to shale gas wells. The study detected 82% of these drinking water wells (115 wells) contain elevated methane levels, and on average 59 of these homes had 6 times "background" levels of methane in their wells. Ethane was 23 times more abundant in wells that were less than 1 kilometer from a shale gas well. The concentrations of this ethane were found to be determined by only one statistically significant factor, distance from the shale gas well. "Overall, our data suggest that some homeowners living <1km from gas wells have drinking water contaminated with stray gas." [33] And they determined that the methane gas didn't come from methane producing bacteria in the aquifer, but rather from faulty, inadequate, and imperfect steel casing and seals which could lead to salts and metal contamination in left unchecked. This study echoed the GWPC in linking the contamination to faulty well construction.[33]

Possibly the most controversial (and promising) of these Duke studies, the "Osborn et al." study linked methane found in aquifers to the shale below the aquifers, using isotope concentrations of ¹³C and ²H, as well as comparing the amounts of methane, ethane, propane, and "higher-chain" hydrocarbons. [34] Methane is naturally occurring to some extent in groundwater; they detected it in 85% of their samples, regardless of whether they were or were not near hydraulic fracturing wells. What they found was that methane increased by about 17 times in the areas with active drilling. [34] These concentrations were well within the hazardous range. And the concentrations of the ¹³C and ²H isotopes they found in CH₄ (methane), C₂H₆ (ethane) and C₃H₈ (propane) indicated that the hydrocarbons found in the aquifers of active drilling areas were not produced by bacteria in the aquifer. But in non-active areas, the methane found in the groundwater, while at much lower concentrations, was predominantly biologically produced. And generally these non-active areas didn't have any higher-chain hydrocarbons present. They found no evidence that produced water or fracturing fluids had migrated to the aquifers. "We conclude that greater stewardship, data, and- possibly- regulation are needed to ensure the sustainable future of shale-gas extraction and to improve public confidence in it use." [34] "Our results show evidence for methane contamination of shallow drinking-water systems in at least three areas of the region and suggest important environmental risks accompanying shale-gas exploration worldwide." [34] "Because of our groundwater results and the litigious nature of shale-gas extraction, we believe that long-term, coordinated sampling and monitoring of industry and private homeowners is needed. Compared to other forms of fossil-fuel extraction, hydraulic fracturing is relatively poorly regulated at the federal level. Fracturing wastes are not regulated as a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, fracturing wells are not covered under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and only recently has the Environmental Protection Agency asked fracturing firms to voluntarily report a list of the constituents in fracturing fluids based on the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act." [34]

In response to a letter objecting to their study's findings, the authors write: "In summary, we agree with Davies that our 'data showed that contamination occurred, but the association with hydraulic fractures remains unproven.' Any assertion that hydraulic fracturing is unrelated to contamination remains equally unproven. We stand by what we wrote: 'More research is needed across this and other regions to determine the mechanism(s) controlling the higher methane concentrations we observed." [35] In response to a letters (criticisms) of the study, the authors again replied: "An assertion, and misconception, in both letters is that, because we found small amounts of mixed biogenic [bacteria-made] and thermogenic [slate] gas in 85% of groundwater samples, the thermogenic gas we observed near shale-gas wells occurred naturally." [35] They go on to point out that their data showed that gas levels increased with proximity to gas wells, and that the gasses found near these wells indicated they were from slate not bacteria. "Not all 'thermogenic' methane is the same," however there are natural methane seeps. [35] But the methane produced by these naturally occurring leaks and the methane from shale have different isotopic signatures. The authors criticize their critics for depicting the methane found in their sample as naturally-occurring (ie., not from the shale), when isotopically the two methanes have been shown to be unrelated. In response to one of the letters, which denied the link between shale-gas development and methane migration but offered not alternative explanation for the data observed, the authors lambast the critic for holding up the new "industry best practices" as an assurance that shale-gas resources are being developed safely and environmentally responsibly. The authors reply tersely: "The increased standards he refers to in Pennsylvania were implemented in 2011. As a scientist, surely he would want to test the effectiveness of the new regulations before concluding that they 'ensure success.'" [35] And then they cite Pennsylvania's move to strengthen their Oil and Gas Act again in 2011. They end with a sentiment, already expressed here. "We agree with the writers of both letters that more data will be helpful..." [36]

Damage to the local Environment

"When natural gas is produced, some of the gas escapes the well and may not be captured by the producing company. These gasses can pollute the air and as a result threaten public health." [24] EPA lists: "volatile organic compounds, hazardous air pollutants, and greenhouse gasses being released" as a concern of hydraulic fracturing operations. [6] "There have been well-documented air quality impacts in areas with active natural gas development, with increases in emissions of methane, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs)." [6] These contribute to smog formation and some compounds, like benzene and hexane, are carcinogenic."When burned for energy, natural gas emits fewer greenhouse gases than other fossil fuels." [3] And although methane still produces carbon dioxide when burned, it's considered a "clean fuel" because it's 'more clean,' with "comparatively lower emissions of carbon dioxide, sulfur oxides, and nitrogen oxides." [15] It's a greenhouse gas, which is about 20 times stronger than carbon dioxide. [24] That means methane holds 20 times as much warmth in the atmosphere (as a comparable amount of carbon dioxide) when it is leaked.

Seismic Activities

API concedes that several well known "induced" seismic occurrences have occurred, in Ohio, Arkansas, and Texas. [26] Because of the problems and deficiencies with treating flowback, much of these flowback waste end up injected into underground wells. But seismic activity in Ohio and Arkansas has been linked to these wells. "UIC well operators, state regulatory agencies, and the USEPA have been re-evaluating the capacity of these disposal wells to handle wastes in a manner that will avoid induced seismic activity in the future." [13] These seismic impacts are reliant upon the geology of the particular location. [26] But API insists that "hydraulic fracturing does not cause earthquakes," noting that the vibrations produced were not of a noticeable size, and caused no injuries or damage. [15]

[UPDATE (5-26-14): Read this entry from the Department of the Interior News, from Deputy Secretary Hayes, pertaining to induced seismic activity caused by injection wells.]

Transportation Concerns

The transportation impacts of a large number of large trucks carrying water, wastes, and natural gas through the local community is often mentioned as concerning. The oil and gas industry has begun using pipelines to avoid the habitat impacts that building roads for transportation of drilling products and wastes from the drill site requires. [13] Other practices followed by oil and gas producers include strategically timing when trucks will be using local roads (traveling during the slowest times) and accessing roads that are designed to carry heavy equipment (instead of smaller roads that can be damaged). The producers make "road-use agreements" with local municipalities that outline these transportation plans. [13]

Low Birth-weights

In a Cornell University study exploring the statistical relationship between the proximity of mothers primary residence to drilling sites and the birth weight of their children, relating the impacts to drinking water contamination from hydraulic fracturing. [31] This study examined mothers who lived about 2.5 km from wells, finding a link between low birth weight and well proximity up to 3.5 km. "These results suggest that shale gas wells are associated with reduced average birth weight among infants born to mothers living within a 2.5 km radius from a shale gas well..." [31] There are many social, economic, and other factors influencing these numbers however, including which women get pregnant and what their lives are like. The study didn't actually interact with any of these women or children; it got its numbers from health officials and industry information on well locations, along with the used GIS mapping to determine how far the mother's primary place of residence (from her hospital forms) was from the nearest well. [31] But, this evidence is entirely circumstantial. Further, living close to a well can have other environmental impacts leading to health impacts, unrelated to groundwater contamination. [31]

The concerning part about this study is that for a statistical analysis it has no clear overall statistics, no significant figures or correlation values except for when it comes to correlating extenuating factors like the mother's age, race, education, economic situation, or other factors, like smoking, in relation to the health of their baby. A series of number packed tables can be found at the end of the study, but little discussion of the actual numbers and statistical significance is included in the text. A value of "21,646 infants born within 2.5 km of a permit or exiting well" in 2010 is given while explaining the financial cost of these impacts, and in a later table the sample size for each demographic is given but no total number is given to compare and clarify. [31] There is also no apparent control group, meaning there's not reference given to the prevalence of low birth-weight babies in areas without shale drilling, although there is data given that indicates little difference in birth outcomes between mother's whose homes are served by groundwater and those that access public water supplies. [31] These are the kinds of deficiencies that allow industry to shoot down most independent studies on hydraulic fracturing. More studies, and more rigorous studies are absolutely necessary on almost all aspects of this issue.

The Housing Market

In a Resources for the Future Discussion Paper published in late 2013 studied the impact of shale gas development on the housing market of the local areas. [17] "Access to a safe, reliable source of drinking water is an important determinant of a property's value. Even a perceived threat to that access can have detrimental effects on housing prices." [17] "As groundwater contamination can cause severe economic hardship on homes without access to piped water, the perception that a nearby shale gas well will cause irreversible harm to an aquifer can drop property values by affecting buyers' willingness to pay for proximity to shale gas wells." [17] But this is just an impact on whether people will purchase these properties, "neighborhood characteristics are not found to have changed in an economically significant manner with the introduction of shale gas." [17] "Results indicate large negative impacts on nearby groundwater-dependent homes, while piped-water-dependent homes exhibit smaller positive impacts... wellbores increase property values, but these effects diminish over time." [17] What this means is that homes that are served by groundwater, usually with individual wells, are negatively affected by gas shale development in up to 1.5 km from the home site. "Although data are not available to measure the impact of actual groundwater contamination, the perception of these risks is large, causing important, negative impacts on groundwater-dependent properties near wells." [17] "The 'boom' may be followed by a 'bust' if benefits from shale gas development are only temporary." [17] Property valued can also be depressed by undrilled permits. "Local public goods might be expanded during boom times at considerable cost only to be left underutilitzed when wells are capped or abandoned." [17]

This study analyzed how home buyers choose a house based on both the characteristics of the property and the location, called a hedonic analysis. "Measuring the impacts of shale gas activity on property values is therefore one way to quantify its effects (either real or perceived)." [17] There have been only a handful of other studies in this area. They identified "adjacency effects" that impacted all properties regardless of water source; these impacts included local air, light and noise pollution, as well as alterations in landscape and "visual disamenities." But there were positive adjacency effects as well, most obvious being royalties, payments, and taxes incurred. "Vicintity effects" were identified as those that impacted houses within a broadly defined area around the well, including increased traffic congestion, road damage from heavy transport trucks, along with increased demand for local services and goods, and increased local employment. There data was based off of the transaction records of all the properties sold in 36 counties in Pennsylvania, as well as 7 bordering New York counties, between the beginning of 1995 and April of 2012. These records indicated both the transaction price, as well as all the particular specifics about the property, like size, and number of bedrooms and such. They had 1.38 million of these house sales to examine. They did not include sales with no listing price, the top and bottom 1% of listing prices, and any houses sold more than once in a single year. After culling the data, they had 1.2 million home sales left to analyze, 1.12 million of which were designated as "single family residences," "rural home sites," "duplexes," or "townhouses." They further eliminated any houses that were new or "made-to-order", leaving them with 1.04 million home sales, of which only 799,767 had all the property characteristic information available. (So the final sample size was 799,767 homes.) From the EPA, they received information on 6,260 wellbores located in 3,167 well pads throughout the region, along with information to determine when drilling at each site began and how long/how much was produced from each site. They determined the number of wells visible and not-visible but present around each home, based on a 5 foot tall observer. [17]

"Results show that newly drilled bores positively impact property values for homes within 1.5km and 2km, while old bores have an insignificant, negative impact. At a very close distance, 1km, there is no positive effect felt from newly drilled wells..." [17] "These results suggest that the broad economic impacts of shale gas development are felt when new wellbores are being drilled in the vicinity-- drilling requires an influx of workers, which can boost the local economy. We find some evidence that production may lead to extra economic activity. However, leaving an area cleared without actually drilling on it or an un-fulfillment of expectations, as indicted by undrilled permits can produce a disamenity that is felt in a broader region." [17]

So what happens when drilling stops in the area? "Wells that were drilled more than a year earlier have little to no effect on property values." [17] So, any positive impact is short lived. "Thus, benefits from shale gas development appear to come quickly with the influx of drilling activity, and then fade once drilling is done, providing evidence of a boom-bust cycle." [17] "Shale gas development causes a temporary boom in the economy, likely through increased in-migration and increased employment and economic activity caused by drilling activities. However, after a year has gone by, the boom diminishes and permitted pad that were never drilled can have detrimental impacts on property values." [17] "While it is clear that the perceived risk of groundwater contamination is negatively impacting property values, homes that have piped water may in fact benefit from being adjacent to drilled and producing wells... " [17] But location matters, "even homes with piped water are better of being slightly farther from a well, as long as they are able (i.e., not to far away) to capitalize on lease payments." [17] The positive affect on property values only lasts for about the first year of drilling, as that is the most profitable period generally. The amount of lost value for the nearby groundwater-dependent homes is greater than the gain to the nearby pipe-serviced homes. "These losses, when multiplied by the number of affected houses, may be quite important in terms of property tax revenues for local governments, which could potentially justify costly regulation to diminish groundwater contamination risk." [17] That means though hydraulic fracturing may be beneficial in the short-term, it can be detrimental in the long-term. "Benefits to the broader housing market from prominent drilling in the vicinity appear to be focused in areas with a lot of contemporaneous drilling, while areas without will likely see drops in property values." [17] So when the drills stop, the benefits end. And now unfortunately, to add insult to injury, it seems that some major national mortgage lenders as well as insurance providers are refusing to make loans or issue policies on properties in close proximity to shale gas wells. [17]

What regulations govern fracking?

"Compared to other forms of fossil-fuel extraction, hydraulic fracturing is relatively poorly regulated at the federal level. Fracturing wastes are not regulated as a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, fracturing wells are not covered under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and only recently has the Environmental Protection Agency asked fracturing firms to voluntarily report a list of the constituents in fracturing fluids based on the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act." [34]

"Federal, state, regional and local agencies, along with the gas industry, are striving to use the best science and technology to develop these unconventional resources in an environmentally safe manner." [13] "[EPA's] focus and obligations under the law are to provide oversight, guidance and, where appropriate, rulemaking that achieve the best possible protections for the air, water and land were Americans live, work and play. The Agency [EPA] is investing in improving our scientific understanding of hydraulic fracturing, providing regulatory clarity with respect to existing laws, and using existing authorities where appropriate to enhance health and environmental safeguards." [6] "EPA strongly believes that the management of E&P wastes should occur in a manner that prevents releases of hazardous constituents to the environment, particularly releases that may impact groundwater and surface water resources." [16] "EPA protects people's health and safeguards communities by assuring compliance with the nation's environmental laws by taking enforcement action when laws are violated. Every three years, EPA sets national enforcement initiatives to focus civil and criminal enforcement resources and expertise on serious pollution problems affecting communities." [37] The current initiatives, selected with state and public input, include [37]:

Reducing air pollution from the largest sources.
Cutting hazardous air pollutants.
Ensuring energy extraction activities comply with environmental laws.
Reducing pollution from mineral processing operations.
Keeping raw sewage and contaminated stormwater out of the nation's waters.
Preventing animal waste from contaminating surface and ground water.

The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 established the waste management hierarchy. [28] This hierarchy is to first reduce the source of the waste, then recycle what is produced, followed by treatment and finally disposal. EPA has urged State regulatory programs to adopt this hierarchy as well. [19] EPA espouses that toxicity reduction and reclamation are the most readily applicable courses of action, accompanied by significant source reductions. [19] Although the American Petroleum I claims that "federal statutes regulate every step of the hydraulic fracturing process," the regulation they cite only really include worker safety under OSHA, spill reporting under the Clean Water Act and the Superfund program, along with discharge and injection requirements under the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. [2] "EPA targets enforcement to ensure compliance with laws and regulations, with an emphasis on correcting violations with significant potential harm to human health and the environment.. EPA works with state and local governments to respond to incidents, encourage diligent accident prevention, and provide effective and prompt response when emergencies occur." Located throughout the country, in regional offices, the agency provides "guidance and grants to state regulators, perform inspections, conduct enforcement actions, and issue permits and information request letters, in order to ensure that existing laws are effectively implemented." [6] You see it really all rests in the hands of the states, but several federal regulations do (at least partially) apply.

Clean Water Act (CWA)

"The Clean Water Act (CWA) effluent guidelines program sets national standards for industrial wastewater discharges based on best available technologies that are economically achievable. Except in limited circumstances, effluent guidelines for oil and gas extraction prohibit the on-site direct discharge of wastewater from shale gas extraction into waters of the U.S." [6] The CWA specifies the design requirements for hydraulic fracturing operations that minimize the threat to groundwater. [2] "In addition states or [the] EPA have authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate discharge or produced waters from hydraulic fracturing operations." [27]

"In partnership with the states, EPA is examining the different disposal methods employed by industry to ensure that there are regulatory and permitting frameworks in place to provide safe and legal options for disposal of flowback and produced water." [6] A common method for disposing of shale gas extraction waste products is by injecting them into underground wells, to be stored indefinitely. Companies re-use some of the wastewater, to re-inject during hydraulic fracturing, but a "significant" amount will need to be disposed of. "However, no comprehensive set of national standards exists at this time for the disposal of wastewater discharged from natural gas extraction activities." [6] Some wastewater is brought to public or privately-owned wastewater treatment facilities, although many of these facilities are "not properly equipped to treat this type of wastewater." [6] It wasn't until 2011 that the EPA announced that it would develop standards for handling these wastewater discharges. But it took a step back two years later, when "in August 2013, [the] EPA proposed to limit the scope of the rulemaking to standards for wastewater discharges from shale gas extraction..." [6]

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

"The [Clean Water Act] CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants by point sources into waters of the United States, except in compliance with certain provisions of the CWA.." [12] Section 402 of the CWA establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") program, under which EPA, or an authorized state agency, may issue a permit allowing the discharge of pollutants into water of the U.S. When developing effluent limitations for an NPDES permit, a permit writer must consider limits based on both the technology available to control the pollutants (i.e., technology-based effluent limits) and limits that are protective of the water quality standards of the receiving water (i.e., water quality-based effluent limits). [12] "Water quality-based discharge limits are based on federal or state water quality criteria or standards, that were designated to protect designated used of surface waters, such as supporting aquatic life or recreation." [28] These standards vary state to state and site to site depending on the particular body of water receiving the discharge. [28]

The NPDES governs the responsibility shared by the EPA and the states when it comes to implementing treatment and disposal of shale gas extraction wastewaters [6]; it is the program that permits most other oil and gas field exploration, drilling, production, well treatment, and well completion activities [42], but not fracking. The Oil and Gas Extraction (O&G) effluent guidelines were last amended in 2001 [42], before this new fracking boom began [2]. But frackers are not required to obtain the NPDES permit unless they're directly pumping waste into a lake or river (surface waters). Stormwater and surface run-off don't require any permit as long as there hasn't been a "reportable quantity spill or the discharge causes or contributes to a water quality violation." [6] "This regulation exempted from NPDES permit requirements stormwater discharges of sediment from construction activities associated with oil and gas exploration, production, processing, or treatment operations or transmission facilities unless the relevant facility had a discharge of stormwater resulting in a discharge of a reportable quantity of oil or hazardous substances." [43] Generally exempted wastes are those wastes produced during "primary field operations," and not those created during maintenance or transportation. [28] "Since oil and gas extraction is not discharged in many states, water quality and human health issues associated with discharges under NPDES permits have not been extensively examined." [12]

Direct or surface discharges from unconventional oil an gas extraction are regulated by the NPDES program, requiring a permit and treatment prior to discharge or injection. [9 & 8] "Although... Marcellus Shale gas extraction may be considered "unconventional" gas extraction, the wastestreams generated by the process used in such extraction, such as hydraulic fracturing, were considered and covered by the effluent guideline... Accordingly, the discharge prohibitions in 40 CFR Part 435, Subpart C, apply to Marcellus Shale gas extraction." [12] "The effluent guidelines at 40 CFR 435, Subpart C establish best practicable control technology currently available (BPT) requirements for onshore facilities: 'there shall be no discharge of waste water pollutants into navigable waters from any source associated with production, field exploration, drilling, well completion or well treatment (i.e., produced water, drilling muds, drill cuttings, and produced sand).' During the issuance process for the guidelines, EPA identified different technologies that operators can use to comply with this technology-based regulation (e.g., underground injection, use of pits/ponds for evaporation)." [12] The technology-based requirements for direct discharges from oil and gas extraction facilities into surface waters are found in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 435..." [12]

"In addition to direct discharges, wastewaters may be indirectly discharged into waters of the U.S. through sewer systems connected to publicly owned treatment works (POTW) that discharge directly to waters of the U.S. or by being introduced by truck or pretreatment of wastewater introduced to a POTW including prohibiting introduction of wastes that interferes with, passes through or are otherwise incompatible with POTW operations... EPA has developed other nationally applicable pretreatment standards under section 307(b) in its General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of Pollution (Pretreatment Regulations)..." [12] Indirect discharge into treatment facilities (i.e. through the sewer) is subject to "General Pretreatment Regulations," usually requiring some treatment to assure discharge is within certain chemical ranges. [8] These regulations apply to the users of all publicly owned treatment works (water treatment facilities) indirectly discharging into the system. Materials that "pass through" the POTW must (alone or collectively) not exceed the NPDES permit of the POTW. [12] Users of the POTW can not introduce any "pollutants" that interfere or pass through the system untreated or unchanged. "Section 307(d) of the Act prohibits discharge in violation of any pretreatment standard. 33 U.S.C. 1317(d)." [12]

Re-using the fluid can cut down on the amount of water used, the amount of waste produced and discharged into surface waters or injection wells, but the storage of these waters between uses can be problematic. Some operators use surface storage tanks or pits to store, temporarily, the fluids used in hydraulic fracturing for re-use or to await disposal. "States, tribes, and some local governments have primary responsibility for adopting and implementing programs to ensure proper management of these waste." [6]

Safe Water Drinking Act (SWDA)

"Several statutes may be leveraged to protect water quality, but the EPA's central authority to protect drinking water is drawn from the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)." The protections provided by the SDWA are excercized through the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. This program regulates subsurface emplacement of fluid. [27] Wastewater treatment facilities generally handle these pre-dischargeable water. "Underground injection of flowback is regulated by either EPA Underground Injection Control (UIC) program or a state with primary UIC enforcement authority." Or at least it was until 2005, when Congress passed the Energy Policy Act and removed hydraulic fracturing activities from regulated injections. [9] The most recent language added to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provided exclusions to the UIC authority [27], most notably excluding hydraulic fracturing from the requirement to obtain an UIC permit unless diesel was used in the process. [41] The definition of "underground injections" exclude "underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities." If diesel fuel is used in the process, prior authorization must be obtained by the UIC program. [27] "While this guidance undergoes public notice and comment, decisions about permitting hydraulic fracturing operations that use diesel fuels will be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the facts and circumstances of the specific injection activity and applicable statues, regulations and case law, and will not cite this draft guidance as a basis for decision." [41] The American Petroleum Institute, through a study they commissioned, claim that UIC compliance would mean one-fifth less wells drilled, $84 billion lower GDP, and 635,00 fewer jobs. In fact any "fluid restrictions" would depress the GDP and cost jobs, they claim (without citation). [14]

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

In July of 1988, EPA determined that oil and gas exploration and production wastes didn't warrant being regulated as hazardous substances under Subtitle C of RCRA, but that rather they would be better controlled by improving the existing State and Federal regulations. [19] "wastes generated during the exploration, development, and production of crude oil, natural gas, and geothermal energy are categorized by EPA as 'special wastes' and are exempt from federal hazardous waste regulations under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)." [38] This included production water and drilling muds, often produced in high volume, as well as other wastes. EPA has worked on strengthening a number of guidelines including discharge limits offshore, injection control, and waste regulation. In March 1993, EPA clarified these exemptions, specifying some wastes as exempt and others as non-exempt. [19] "Most States have adopted the Federal exemption from hazardous waste regulation for exploration and production wastes." [19]

"EPA received a petition from Earthjustice and 114 other groups on Aug. 4, 2011, requesting that EPA issue TSCA Section 4 and 8 rules requiring toxicity testing and reporting of health and safety studies on oil and gas exploration and production chemicals..." Hazardous wastes under RCRA are subject to rigorous record-keeping standards, and not allowed to be accumulated for more than 90 or 180 days depending on the amount of wastes produced. These hazardous materials are governed "cradle-to-grave," [26] meaning there is essentially no way to get rid of them financially. In responses dated Nov. 2 and Nov. 23, 2011, EPA informed the petitioners that the Agency is not granting the request to require toxicity testing because the petition does not satisfy the required TSCA statutory requirements for additional testing." [6 & 38] It did notify the petitioners that it would begin a public dialogue regarding the design and scope of TSCA reporting requirements. [40] Currently (as of 5-9-14) the EPA is seeking public comments on the types of information that should be reported and disclosed under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), and approaches for obtaining this information on the chemicals being used in hydralic fracturing. The process is intended to to facilitate transparency and public disclosure of chemicals using in fracking, without duplicating existing reporting requirements. The notice is expected to be published by the Federal Register any day now, and the comment period will extend until 90-days from the date of publication. The regulations.gov link will allow submission of comments to "docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2011-1019," make sure this ID is included. [6]

[UPDATE (5-27-14): The notice has been published in the Federal Register. The deadline for public comment is August 18, 2014.]

Clean Air Act (CAA)

"[The] EPA, the Department of the Interior, other federal agencies and states are working to better characterize and reduce these air emissions and their associated impacts... EPA also administers Clean Air Act regulations for oil and natural gas production, including regulations on reporting greenhouse gas emissions." [6] "The EPA's [previously] existing air toxics standards for oil and natural gas production, and the standards for natural gas transmission and storage were issued in 1999." [5] New regulations were put into affect in 2012 by the EPA requiring operators of hydraulic fracturing wells to "use cost-effective technologies and practices to capture natural gas that might otherwise escape," so that this fuel can ultimately be sold. [24] These new federal rules regarding air pollution promise to make a profit for the companies. "Together these rules will result in $11 to $19 million in saving for the industry each year" and a 95% decrease in emissions. [24] Of course API detests these regulations, regardless, claiming the restrictions will directly cause a 52% loss in hydraulic fracturing operations, costing 11% of natural gas production. [25]

A further concern is "orphaned" or abandoned wells, which are a potential "stray gas" threat. [13] Wells are mostly productive in the first year or two. [17] And when production stops some operators skip town. Tens to hundreds of thousands of wells left unattended and unmonitored after production has ceased. [13] "This issue has been and will continue to be addressed by the gas industry and by the states regulating oil and gas development." [13]

State Regulation

State agencies regulating oil and gas may have their own regulations for hydraulic fracturing. [27] "Effective hydraulic fracturing regulation can only be achieved at the state level as state regulations can be tailored to geological and local needs." [2] The American Petroleum Institute emphatically insists that "states have a long a successful history of regulating oil and gas activities, and are best placed to tailor laws precisely for local geology and hydrology. State regulators continually review their regulations through collaborative efforts with industry and also with public-private partnerships like FracFocus©, the State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations (STRONGER) and the Groundwater Protection Council (GWPC)." [15]

The Future...

So what's the future of hydraulic fracturing regulation? "Environmental regulatory agencies are beginning to embrace comprehensive, multi-statute solutions to facility permitting, compliance assurance, education/outreach, research, and regulatory development issues." [28] These new policies are driven by the central concept that pollutants released into one environmental medium (air, water, or land) will affect the others. "Environmental strategies must actively identify and address these interrelationships by designing policies for the 'whole' facility." [28] It's only with a more "holistic" and knowledgeable approach that we can tailor regulations to suit this unique industry.

[UPDATE (5-29-14): It should be noted that the "shale revolution" isn't just a dirty ploy from "Big Oil", it's American energy policy. Along with the industry, this has been adopted by the President of the United States. He addressed the great benefit of natural gas production in the State of the Union address. "One of the reasons why [America is closer to energy independence] is natural gas – if extracted safely, it’s the bridge fuel that can power our economy with less of the carbon pollution that causes climate change. Businesses plan to invest almost $100 billion in new factories that use natural gas. I’ll cut red tape to help states get those factories built, and this Congress can help by putting people to work building fueling stations that shift more cars and trucks from foreign oil to American natural gas. My administration will keep working with the industry to sustain production and job growth while strengthening protection of our air, our water, and our communities." So this is a bigger story than just some greedy capitalists trying to con the world into poisoning itself. This is adopted energy policy. And that's something bigger and harder to change, though not impossible once the big picture problem is addressed. The President also said, "The shift to a cleaner energy economy won’t happen overnight, and it will require tough choices along the way." And now those tough choices begin. (State of the Union address 2014 [full text])]

Knowledge is Power.

Sources:

1. American Petroleum Institute- Policy Issues- Hydraulic Fracturing. Available at: http://www.api.org/hydraulicfracturing

2. American Petroleum Institute- "Hydraulic Fracturing: Unlocking America's Natural Gas Resources." Available at: http://www.api.org/policy-and-issues/policy-items/hf/~/media/Files/Oil-and-Natural-Gas/Hydraulic-Fracturing-primer/Hydraulic-Fracturing-Primer-2014-lowres.pdf

3. American Petroleum Institute- Policy Issues- Hydraulic Fracturing Q & A's. Available at: http://www.api.org/policy-and-issues/policy-items/hf/hydraulic-fracturing-qa

4. World Energy Council- World Energy Resources 2013 Survey. Section/Pages (in order of citation) 3.2; 15; 14; 3.12- 3.17, 3.56, 3.62 & 3.68-69; 7. Available at: http://www.worldenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Complete_WER_2013_Survey.pdf
5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Overview of Final Amendments to Air Regulations for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry: Fact Sheet. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/pdfs/20120417fs.pdf

6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Natural Gas Extraction- Hydraulic Fracturing. Available at: http://www2.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing

7. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Water- Hydraulic Fracturing- Fracturing Under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/hydraulic-fracturing.cfm

8. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Water- Oil & Gas Extraction- Unconventional Extraction in the Oil and Gas Industry. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/oilandgas/unconv.cfm

9. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Hydraulic Fracturing- Hydraulic Fracturing Background Information. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydrowhat.cfm

10. American Petroleum Institute- Policy Issues- Facts about Shale Gas. Available at: http://www.api.org/policy-and-issues/policy-items/exploration/facts_about_shale_gas

11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Hydraulic Fracturing- The Process of Hydraulic Fracturing. Available at: http://www2.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing/process-hydraulic-fracturing

12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- "Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale: NPDES Program Frequently Asked Questions." Dated March 2011. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/hydrofracturing_faq.pdf

13. US. Geological Survey (in cooperation with US. Dept. of Energy)- "Water Resources and Shale Gas/Oil Production in the Appalachian Basin- Critical Issues and Evolving Developments." Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2013/1137/pdf/ofr2013-1137.pdf

14. American Petroleum Institute (in collaboration with IHS Global Insight)- "Measuring the Economic and Energy Impacts of Proposals to Regulate Hydraulic Fracturing. Available at:
http://www.api.org/~/media/Files/Policy/Exploration/IHS_GI_Hydraulic_Fracturing_Exec_Summary.pdf

15. American Petroleum Institute- "Shale Answers" (brochure) (in collaboration with EnergyFromShale.org). Available at: http://www.api.org/~/media/Files/Policy/Hydraulic_Fracturing/Shale-Answers-Brochure.pdf

16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Non-Hazardous Wastes- Special Wastes- Crude Oil and Natural Gas- Proper Management of Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Wastes. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/oil/hydrofrac.htm

17. Muehlenbachs, Lucija, Elisheba Spiller and Christopher Timmins. "The Housing Market Impacts of Shale Gas Development." Published in Resources for the Future Discussion Paper No. 13-39-rev. January 2014. Available (for download) at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2374481

18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Email and written correspondence between Matthew Todd of API Regulatory and Scientific Affairs and Peter Tsirigotis, Director of Sector Policies and Program Division of the U.S. EPA, concerning "Oil and Natural Gas Sector Consolidation Rulemaking Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0505." Available at: http://www.epa.gov/airquality/oilandgas/pdfs/20120725apiletter.pdf

19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Associated Waste Reports Executive Summary." January 2000. http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/oil/execsum.pdf

20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- EPA's Study of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas and It's Potential Impact on Drinking Water Resources. Available at: http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy

21. Ground Water Protection Council. "A White Paper Summarizing the Stray Gas Incidence & Response Forum." October 2012. Pages: 7-10; 17-20; 25-26; 24; 36-37; 39. Available at: http://www.gwpc.org/sites/default/files/stray%20gas%20white%20paper-final.pdfpg

22. American Petroleum Institute- Policy Issues- API's Review Shows Flaws in EPA Pavillion Groundwater and Monitoring Report. Available at: http://www.api.org/policy-and-issues/policy-items/hf/api-reviews-of-usgs-reports-on-epa-pavillion-groundwater-monitoring

23. American Petroleum Institute- Comments of API and ANGA on EPA's Request for Information to Inform Hydraulic Fracturing Research Related to Drinking Water Resources. Available at: http://www.api.org/policy-and-issues/policy-items/hf/comments-api-anga-to-epa

24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Newsroom- EPA Issues Updated, Achievable Air Pollution Standards for Oil and Natural Gas/ Half of Fractured Wells Already Deploy Technologies in Line with Final Standards, which Slash Harmful Emissions while Reducing Cost of Compliance. Released 4/18/2012. Available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/c742df7944b37c50852579e400594f8f%21OpenDocument

25. American Petroleum Institute- Newsroom- Study: EPA Air Emissions Rules Could Cause Substantial Slowdown in Drilling, Reduce Revenue to Government. Available at: http://www.api.org/news-and-media/news/newsitems/2012/mar-2012/study-epa-air-emissions-rules-could-cause-slowdown-in-drilling-reduced-govt-revenue.aspx

26. American Petroleum Institute (in collaboration with America's Natural Gas Alliance and the American Exploration and Production Council)- Injection Wells & Induced Seismicity. Available at: http://www.api.org/~/media/Files/Policy/Hydraulic_Fracturing/UIC-amd-Seismicity_APR2013-low-res.pdf

27. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Water- Hydraulic Fracturing- Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing Under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydroreg.cfm

28. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Profile of the Oil and Gas Industry: EPA Office of Compliance Sector Notebook Project." October 2000. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/sectors/notebooks/oilgas.pdf

29. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Water- Monitoring and Assessment- 5.8 Total Solids. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/type/rsl/monitoring/vms58.cfm

30. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Radiation Protection- Oil and Gas Production Wastes. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/radiation/tenorm/oilandgas.html

31. Hill, Elaine L. "Shale Gas Development and Infant Health: Evidence from Pennsylvania." (Working Paper from the Charles H. Dyson School of Applied Economics and Management at Cornell University. WP 2012-12 Revision December 2013). Available at: http://dyson.cornell.edu/research/researchpdf/wp/2012/Cornell-Dyson-wp1212.pdf

32. Warner, Nathaniel R., et al. "Impacts of Shale Gas Wastewater Disposal on Water Quality in Western Pennsylvania." Research performed as part of the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University. Published by the American Chemical Society. Available at: http://sites.nicholas.duke.edu/avnervengosh/files/2011/08/EST_impacts-of-shale-gas-wastewater.pdf

33. Jackson, Robert B., et al. "Increased stray gas abundance in a subset of drinking water wells near Marcellus shale gas extraction." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States. Vol. 110 No. 28. June 2013. Available at: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/28/11250.full

34. Osborne, Stephen G., et al. "Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States. Vol. 108 No. 20. May 2011. Available at: http://sites.nicholas.duke.edu/avnervengosh/files/2011/08/pnas2011_fracking1.pdf

35. Jackson, Robert B., et al. "Reply to Davies: Hydraulic fracturing remains a possible mechanism for observed methane contamination of drinking water." Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States. Vol. 108 No. 43. Octover 2011. Available at: http://sites.nicholas.duke.edu/avnervengosh/files/2011/08/PNAS-2011-Jackson-E872.pdf

36. Osborne, Stephen G., at al. "Reply to Saba and Orzechowski and Schon: Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States. Early Edition. (2011) Available at: http://sites.nicholas.duke.edu/avnervengosh/files/2011/08/PNAS-2011-ReplytoComments.pdf

37. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Enforcement- National Enforcement Initiatives. Available at: http://www2.epa.gov/enforcement/national-enforcement-initiatives

38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Special Wastes- Crude Oil and Natural Gas Wastes. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/industrial/special/oil/index.htm

39. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Response letter from Stephen A Owens, Assistant Administrator, to Deborah Goldberg, of Earthjustice, concerning "TSCA Section 21 Petition Concerning Chemical Substances and Mixtures Used in Oil and Gas Exploration or Produciton." Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/EPA_Letter_to_Earthjustice_on_TSCA_Petition.pdf

40. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Chemical Information Collection and Data Development (Testing)- Section 21 Petitions Filed with EPA since September 2007- "Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Chemicals and Mixtures" section. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/oppt/chemtest/pubs/petitions.html#petition10

41. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Newroom- "EPA Releases Draft Permitting Guidance for Using Diesel Fuel in Oil and Gas Hydraulic Fracturing/ Guidance Will Clarify Means of Compliance with 2005 Amendments of the Safe Water Drinking Act." Dated: 5/4/2012. Available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/79c090e81f0578738525781f0043619b/1224e5cd2897669f852579f400697788%21OpenDocument

42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Water- Oil and Gas Extraction- Oil and Gas Extraction Effluent Guidelines. Available at: http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/oilandgas/index.cfm

43. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)- Regulation of Oil and Gas Construction Activities. Last Update: March 2009. Available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/oilgas.cfm

Protect the Southern Hills Aquifer!!!

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

Fracking? Process, Problems, and Regulations.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Save the Southern Hills Aquifer!