Senate Republicans take aim at Obama gas ‘fracking’ regulations

TheHill.com
By Ben Geman
 03/29/12 09:36 AM ET

Senior Senate Republicans are floating legislation that would slam the brakes on Obama administration efforts to expand regulation of the controversial oil-and-gas drilling method called “hydraulic fracturing” on federal lands.

Sen. James Inhofe (Okla.), the ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, is the lead sponsor, and the seven other backers include Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), the top GOP member on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

The bill is unlikely to advance but will provide Republicans another rallying point for allegations that President Obama’s Interior Department and Environmental Protection Agency have an overzealous agenda that will stymie development.

The bill introduced Wednesday requires that only states may regulate hydraulic fracturing — or “fracking” —– on federal lands within their borders.

“States better understand their unique geologies and interests,” Inhofe said when introducing the measure.

Fracking involves high-pressure injections of water, chemicals and sand into rock formations to open up seams that enable trapped gas to flow.

The bill arrives ahead of a planned Interior Department proposal that would require disclosure of chemical ingredients used in fracking on public lands, and also create new requirements regarding well integrity and wastewater management.

Continue reading...

..........................................

To think that each state can 'regulate' its own rules that are supposed to prevent adverse impacts from the fracking industry is ludacris! What's to regulate when they are Federally exempt? To remove local governance from cities and counties only creates a fascist, iron-fist for the oil and gas Governors to continue to play  'back-door Romeo' with the industry. If America is an immoral environment, it is because the government has no regulations that mitigate special interest and kick-backs to politicians from the Oligarchy. Get it yet?

EPA Releases Draft Findings of Pavillion, Wyoming Ground Water Investigation for Public Comment and Independent Scientific Review

Media Contacts

EPA Headquarters: Larry Jackson, 202-564-0236, 202-564-4355; jackson.larry@epa.gov

EPA Region 8: Richard Mylott. 303-312-6654; mylott.richard@epa.gov

EPA Releases Draft Findings of Pavillion, Wyoming Ground Water Investigation for Public Comment and Independent Scientific Review

(Denver, Colo. –December 8, 2011) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today released a draft analysis of data from its Pavillion, Wyoming ground water investigation. At the request of Pavillion residents, EPA began investigating water quality concerns in private drinking water wells three years ago. Since that time, in conjunction with the state of Wyoming, the local community, and the owner of the gas field, Encana, EPA has been working to assess ground water quality and identify potential sources of contamination.

EPA constructed two deep monitoring wells to sample water in the aquifer. The draft report indicates that ground water in the aquifer contains compounds likely associated with gas production practices, including hydraulic fracturing. EPA also re-tested private and public drinking water wells in the community. The samples were consistent with chemicals identified in earlier EPA results released in 2010 and are generally below established health and safety standards. To ensure a transparent and rigorous analysis, EPA is releasing these findings for public comment and will submit them to an independent scientific review panel. The draft findings announced today are specific to Pavillion, where the fracturing is taking place in and below the drinking water aquifer and in close proximity to drinking water wells – production conditions different from those in many other areas of the country.

Natural gas plays a key role in our nation’s clean energy future and the Obama Administration is committed to ensuring that the development of this vital resource occurs safely and responsibly. At the direction of Congress, and separate from this ground water investigation, EPA has begun a national study on the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources.

“EPA’s highest priority remains ensuring that Pavillion residents have access to safe drinking water,” said Jim Martin, EPA’s regional administrator in Denver. “We will continue to work cooperatively with the State, Tribes, Encana and the community to secure long-term drinking water solutions. We look forward to having these findings in the draft report informed by a transparent and public review process. In consultation with the Tribes, EPA will also work with the State on additional investigation of the Pavillion field.”

Findings in the Two Deep Water Monitoring Wells:

EPA’s analysis of samples taken from the Agency’s deep monitoring wells in the aquifer indicates detection of synthetic chemicals, like glycols and alcohols consistent with gas production and hydraulic fracturing fluids, benzene concentrations well above Safe Drinking Water Act standards and high methane levels. Given the area’s complex geology and the proximity of drinking water wells to ground water contamination, EPA is concerned about the movement of contaminants within the aquifer and the safety of drinking water wells over time.

Findings in the Private and Public Drinking Water Wells:

EPA also updated its sampling of Pavillion area drinking water wells. Chemicals detected in the most recent samples are consistent with those identified in earlier EPA samples and include methane, other petroleum hydrocarbons and other chemical compounds. The presence of these compounds is consistent with migration from areas of gas production. Detections in drinking water wells are generally below established health and safety standards. In the fall of 2010, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry reviewed EPA’s data and recommended that affected well owners take several precautionary steps, including using alternate sources of water for drinking and cooking, and ventilation when showering. Those recommendations remain in place and Encana has been funding the provision of alternate water supplies.

Before issuing the draft report, EPA shared preliminary data with, and obtained feedback from, Wyoming state officials, Encana, Tribes and Pavillion residents. The draft report is available for a 45 day public comment period and a 30 day peer-review process led by a panel of independent scientists.

For more information on EPA's Pavillion groundwater investigation, visit: http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/index.html

Hydraulic Fracturing, or "Fracking," Colorado Legislative Council Publication

Number 11-8 A Legislative Council Publication July 25, 2011


HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
by Lauren Ris

Hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," is a method
used by oil and gas operators to increase or open up
production on wells that would otherwise be
inaccessible. Oil and gas operators now use fracturing
on most wells in Colorado. Critics, however, express
concerns about the safety of this practice and its
potential impacts on groundwater and air quality. This
issue brief explains the fracturing process, federal and
state regulations, and an Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) study of its risks.

Background

Fracturing process. Hydraulic fracturing involves
pumping a mixture of water, sand, and chemicals into
wells under high pressure to crack open tight
formations, thereby facilitating the flow of gas and oil
to the surface. The chemicals maximize the water
pressure, opening up cracks in the geologic formation.
Sand in the water keeps these cracks from collapsing
and allows the gas to flow to the surface.
When the process is finished, most of the fluid is
removed from the well lines, but some remains. The
remaining fluid is either dumped into a lined, open pit
to evaporate, is reinjected underground, or is trucked to
a disposal site.

Fracturing materials. Fracturing fluids are
primarily a mix of water and sand (99.5 percent). The
remaining 0.5 percent is comprised of chemicals and
lubricants, the exact recipes of which are proprietary
information held by the oil and gas companies and are
not made public.

According to the Ground Water Protection
Council, a nonprofit comprised of state regulatory
agencies, a typical fracture treatment will use low
concentrations of 3 to 12 additive chemicals,
depending on the formation being fractured. Each
component serves a specific purpose. For example,
water-based fracturing fluids mixed with
friction-reducing additives, called slickwater, allow
fracturing fluids and sand to be pumped to the target
zone at a higher rate than if water alone were used.
Biocides prevent microorganism growth, while oxygen
scavengers, and other stabilizers prevent corrosion of
metal pipes, and acids remove drilling and mud damage
within the near-wellbore area. The website
www.fracfocus.org is a joint project of the Ground

Chemical inventories
Public health and safety rules
Drinking water protection rules
Regulations and  Laws
Review of COGCC rules
Federal Law
Safe Drinking Water Act
EPA study

Continue reading...



.

EPA: Diesel and drinking water don't mix

Your vehicle may run on diesel fuel, but would you put it in your drinking water?

Submitted by Gwen Lachelt on Fri, 07/01/2011 - 17:58 

 EARTHblog

In 2005, Congress exempted fracking operations from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act unless fracking fluids contain diesel. Companies are supposed to receive authorization from the EPA if they plan to use diesel in fracturing fluids. But, guess what? Even though a Congressional investigation revealed that companies are using diesel in at least 19 states, no company has ever sought permission to use diesel. They just do it.

What’s so bad about diesel fuel? Diesel contains benzene and other cancer-causing chemicals. In some cases, companies are fracking directly into underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). Using industry data, the EPA reports that even in cases where the smallest amounts of diesel were injected, the benzene levels exceeded water quality standards.

Bottom line? EPA must require full disclosure of chemicals used in fracturing operations, prohibit injection of diesel fuels into USDWs and refuse to permit any fracking where benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylenes (BTEXs) exceed drinking water standards. Thanks to Lisa Sumi, our crackerjack science and research advisor, we submitted hard-hitting comments to the EPA this week as part of the agency’s process to develop permitting requirements for companies that use diesel in hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) operations.

Why There Is Gas In The Water

Posted on 01/18/2011 by guest

Americans should be able to drink what comes out of their taps without worrying that it will make them sick. So why would anyone insert a loophole into the Safe Drinking Water Act that subverts that basic right?
If you can’t guess the answer, a quick history refresher should tip you off.

In 2005, Congress passed an Energy Act that included (thanks to meddling by former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney) an exemption for hydraulic fracturing (fracking) from the protections of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Clean Air Act. It’s called the “Halliburton loophole” and it’s a whopper.

Fracking, which I wrote about in August, involves injecting a pressurized mix of water, sand, and highly toxic chemicals directly into gas-rich shale formations. If you combine fracking with horizontal drilling (something that Halliburton pioneered shortly before getting its loophole), you can get exponentially more gas from shale formations, which means exponentially more profit. The U.S. has some very, very big shale formations so, even by Halliburton standards, we’re talking about a lot of money.
Back in 2005, the industry argued that fracking was so safe and so harmless, that regulation simply wasn’t necessary. It’s hard to imagine they really believed it. Chemicals used in fracking fluid are known to cause everything from cancer to depression of the central nervous system. Moreover, the chemicals underneath the earth’s surface that may be released due to gas drilling are also known to be harmful to human health and the environment.
But just for the sake of argument, let’s take a leap of faith and assume that the industry is correct and that gas drilling and fracking really don’t pose a significant threat to anyone’s water supply. If that’s the case, then why doesn’t the industry want to operate under the same rules as everyone else? Why are most companies refusing to reveal what’s in the fluid, let alone agree to safeguards?

The Halliburton Loophole perfectly represents the outsized arrogance of the big energy companies during a time when oil men were running the country. For the natural gas industry, a gold-rush mentality without common-sense safeguards to protect water quality and human health, has produced a litany of horror stories and safety violations — not to mention a popular uprising of citizens whose water supplies have been poisoned.
Times truly have changed, however, since the days when Dick Cheney held his secret meetings with energy execs and a compliant Congress opened the Halliburton Loophole. A bill widely known as “the FRAC Act” has been introduced in both the House and Senate, and if Congress passes it, the Halliburton Loophole will close. The fossil-fuel lobby, so far at least, is vehemently opposed.

I just don’t get that. Yes, we need to use natural gas as our country makes the transition from the dirtiest energy sources (coal and oil) to clean and renewable sources like wind and solar. And yes, if we want that gas, we will have to drill for it. But no, we can’t compromise when it comes to protecting our drinking water. People shouldn’t have to fear that their wells will be poisoned and communities will be destroyed. We need to close the Halliburton Loophole.

This post appears courtesy of the Sierra Club

The Word Obama Forgot to Say

Michael Brune

Executive Director, The Sierra Club

Posted: November 12, 2010 03:15 PM

A couple months ago, I was out in Dimock, PA, meeting with community members who've been affected by reckless natural gas drilling in and around their town. I was also there to tape an interview with Lesley Stahl, for an episode of 60 Minutes that will air this Sunday.

Dimock has become an unfortunate poster child of dangerous gas extraction, and after spending some time there, it's easy to understand why. Many residents have expressed alarm at how their drinking water has turned brown and made them sick soon after gas drilling started. The water is now too poisonous for most residents near drilling operations to use for drinking or bathing; it will be at least a couple years until a pipeline is built to transfer water from a safe location. Moreover, highly flammable, greenhouse-gas-intensive methane that is believed to have been released from gas drilling or hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") caused one Dimock resident's well to spontaneously combust one day. Methane released from a gas-drilling site has been observed bubbling up in the Susquehanna River, miles away. And while sitting in the front yard of another Dimock resident, I could hear methane gurgling constantly out of a special vent recently installed in their own well.

Concerns about natural-gas extraction have been on the rise not just in Dimock, but in places across the country, from West Virginia to Texas to Wyoming. And yet even given these important issues, natural gas still has a relatively lighter footprint than coal or oil. Gas is not a clean fuel, but it can be cleaner.

So it was with great interest that I heard Obama talking about natural gas last week. In a press conference the day after the election, someone asked if there were issues he might be willing to collaborate on with the new Congress. "We've got, I think, broad agreement that we've got terrific natural gas resources in this country," the president replied. "Are we doing everything we can to develop those?"

Uh oh. Look, I can only imagine the pressures that the president is under on a daily basis. And I can sympathize with the unique challenges the president faces of needing to speak accurately and precisely on a wide variety of topics with the media ready to pounce on any minor nuance or particular slip-up. But what did concern me about the president's statement was a single word that I didn't hear. I hope his question about natural-gas resources omitted that word unintentionally: "Are we doing everything we can to develop those responsibly?"

Clearly, we are not. Not when fracking is exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Air Act, parts of the Clean Water Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, as well as our country's hazardous waste and cleanup laws.

It's important to acknowledge that just because natural gas is cleaner than other fossil fuels -- especially coal -- does not mean we should give the industry a free pass. The exploration, production, transportation, and burning of natural gas is an inherently dirty business that disrupts local communities and pollutes the environment. There are thousands of documented cases of air and water pollution violations and human health and safety hazards. If natural gas is to be part of the mix that displaces dirtier energy sources like coal and oil, these have to be addressed.

Courtesy of HUFFPOST GREEN

Free Pass for Oil and Gas: Environmental Protections Rolled Back as Western Drilling Surges: Oil and Gas Industry Exemptions

Many of the nearly 270,000 oil and natural gas wells drilled in the West since 1980 have employed hydraulic fracturing, a process that involves the underground injection of tens of thousands to six million gallons of water per well. The water is laced with toxic chemicals and sand or other material known as “proppant.”

The fluid creates fractures in underground formations and the proppant holds these fractures open, allowing oil and gas to flow up the drilling pipe (EPA Fracturing Final 2004 ES-11, Schein 2008, Burnett and Vavra 2006). EPA considered hydraulic fracturing as exempt from the Safe Drinking Water Act following the act’s passage in 1974 (LEAF v. EPA 1997, EPA Fracturing Final 2004).

The act sets standards and requires permits for the underground injection of hazardous substances so that these materials do not endanger Underground Sources of Drinking Water (SDWA 2008).


According to 2005 Congressional testimony by the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, a group that represents governors from oil and gas producing states, hydraulic fracturing is used in 90 percent of all oil and natural gas wells drilled in the U.S. (IOGCC Carrillo 2005).


Hydraulic fracturing has recently been associated with water contamination and human health problems. Last summer, the federal Bureau of Land Management documented benzene contamination in water wells in Sublette County, Wyoming, the site of one of the nation’s largest natural gas fields.

Hydraulic fracturing is common in Sublette County (Lustgarten 2008). It was not clear what caused the contamination, but benzene is injected underground in hydraulic fracturing, and the extraction process also causes naturally occurring deposits of benzene to surface (Hess 1998, EPA Final 2004 4-11). What makes the situation so alarming is that there is no other likely source for the benzene in rural Sublette County other than natural gas operations.

Also last year, a nurse in Durango, Colorado almost died after being exposed to hydraulic fracturing chemicals (Hanel 2008).

In a draft 2002 report, EPA reported that at the point of injection, nine hydraulic fracturing chemicals violated water quality standards (EPA Fracturing Draft 2002). This assertion was edited out before the final report was published. The published report did note that fracturing fluids are likely to remain underground and are “likely to be transported by groundwater supplies” (EPA Fracturing Final 2004).

In a 1997 case involving hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane (CBM) wells, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Safe Drinking Water Act’s underground injection standards applied to hydraulic fracturing. EPA conducted a study and, in a report that was heavily criticized by an internal whistle-blower and others, concluded that “the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into CBM wells poses little or no threat” to drinking water (EPA Fracturing Final 2004 ES-16).

The agency suggested that it was up to states with primary authority to enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act to set standards for any hydraulic fracturing that might threaten underground sources of drinking water (EPA Fracturing Final 2004 ES-17). In 2005, Congress exempted most hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act but said the act would apply to fracturing with diesel fuel (SDWA Exemption 2005).

Environmental Working Group

Fracking:

This Website is a Crash Course In Fracking, Zusman, Neil , (2010)

This website is a crash course in fracking. At the top and bottom of these pages are links to annotated information about fracking by subject, with each page listing sorted alphabetically. Fracking (fracing, hydraulic fracturing), or hydrofracking, is a method of mining for natural gas which greatly increases the efficiency of extracting shale gas from the ground. Geological experts claim that shale beds in New York, particularly the Marcellus Shale, contain more natural gas than previously estimated.

Can we benefit by this new source of natural gas without it affecting our water and lifestyle? The diagram below, provided by Energy in Depth, an Oil and Gas Industry website, portrays a clean, quiet, well site. The reality however, as seen in the diagram provided at the bottom of this page by The Colorado Independent and Pro Publica is different.

Hydraulic fracturing uses millions of gallons of water, chemicals and lubricants. Where does all this water come from? The contents of the underground injection fluids used in fracking is a trade secret. In 2005, fracking was exempted from regulation by the Safe Drinking Water Act (1974) leaving it up to the states to monitor and regulate a rapidly increasing number of fracked wells.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was criticized in 2004 by Weston Wilson, an EPA scientist for "bad science" in this Fracking Study which led the EPA to mislead Congress to pass the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (PDF, 511 pages, 3.1MB).

Acts of Congress are often designated as public laws when they are intended to protect all members of society in areas of interaction not limited to contract and tort laws. Most U.S. Consumer Protection laws are written as Acts of Congress. Consumer Protection laws are a form of government regulation that protect the interests of consumers.

Section 322 of this Law amended the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to exempt all fracturing fluids except diesel from EPA regulations.

Read the New York Times editorial, 11/3/2009, on the Halliburton Loophole.

Federal regulators currently do not have access to a full accounting of the types and quantities of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids. On February 18, 2010 the Congressional Energy and Commerce Committee sent letters to eight companies in the fracking business requesting information on the chemicals used in fracturing fluids and the potential impact of the practice on the environment and human health. On March 18, 2010 the EPA announced that it is re-allocating $1.9 million for a comprehensive study of hydraulic fracturing. On April 7, the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) met for two days to provide advice on EPA’s Office of Research and Development (ORD) proposed approach to be used to frame the hydraulic fracturing study design and the areas that will be addressed by research relevant to hydraulic fracturing. Public comments were included but will not be permanently online.

The Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act was introduced on 6/9/2009 in the Senate to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act and reverse the hydraulic fracturing exemption. Debate on this legislation is expected later in 2010.

This legislation will not prohibit mining and drilling companies from operating, however it will remove their exemption under the Safe Drinking Water Act which allows companies to keep secret the chemicals and toxins they use in this process. Businesses involved in hydraulic fracturing projects can still continue to use a combination of water and sand or ceramic beads to increase oil and natural gas production.

This website, Fracking Resource Guide annotates evidence, opinions, and observations on whether or not the potential economic benefits for the companies doing business in the Marcellus Shale outweigh the potential harm to our other public and private interests.

Almost all of the links lead to free internet resources. There are also references to scholarly books and journal articles that your local or school librarian can help you locate. You'll find background information on fracking from reliable authors; links to companies; expert opinions; public opinions for and against fracking; government reports, politics, pending legislation and regulations; legal issues, and press reports. Use the menu at the top and bottom of these pages and the search box to navigate these resources.

Editor's Note: If we bust the myths about global warming and fossil fuels - the growing scarcity of our oil supply, and can replant lots of trees, by Freeman Dyson's estimates, a trillion, to remove all the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere now, with a lot more needed by 2050, as India, China, Brazil, etc. industrialize; then we only have to worry about methane from gas flares, and the melting of the tundra permafrost to prevent humanity from reaching the "tipping-point" of our destruction. The Earth will undoubtedly survive, but we won't. Global Warming must be addressed by all governments, NGO's, citizen activists, and corporations. Drilling Isn't Safe. (Neil Zusman, 2010-11-21.)

Safe Drinking Water Act should cover hydraulic fracturing

Protect our drinking water: close the Halliburton Loophole in the Safe Drinking Water Act

Bruce Baizel & Dusty Horwitt, 6/9/2009

View the publication (pdf)

MYTH:
States have adequate authority over hydraulic fracturing without federal oversight.

FACT:
While states are not prohibited from setting standards for hydraulic fracturing, only Alabama has adopted specific protections, and these were court-ordered in 1997. Other states merely address pieces of the fracturing process such as well casing requirements. Colorado alone sets standards for chemical disclosure. A strengthened Safe Drinking Water Act is essential to protect drinking water across the nation.[1]

MYTH:
Removing the Safe Drinking Water Act exemption would either shut down drilling for natural gas or mandate a burdensome permitting process.

FACT:
The oil and gas industry already complies with the SDWA when it injects fracturing fluids for disposal, but not when it injects those same fluids when drilling an oil or gas well. Under the act, the industry has already obtained approval for more than 150,000 injection wells including wells used to inject waste fluids from drilling such as fracturing fluids to ensure that these fluids do not pollute underground sources of drinking water (USDWs).[2] Oil and gas injection wells under the SDWA must be tested to ensure that they do not leak and must be monitored to check for contamination. Existing wells must not "initiate new fractures [or] propagate existing fractures in the confining zone adjacent to the USDWs." New wells "shall be separated from any USDW by a confining zone that is free of known open faults or fractures."[3] Both industry and EPA have years of experience operating with these standards.

Legislation to close the fracturing loophole would not require significant new federal standards, environmental impact statements, or additional individual permits for each well. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards already exist for underground injection activities, and current EPA rules allow a state to incorporate hydraulic fracturing into the existing permitting process for each well.

If hydraulic fracturing were covered by the SDWA, operators who plan to fracture using nontoxic fluids or to fracture in formations isolated from drinking water sources would face little regulatory burden. In some states, operators already have to provide information on whether fracturing will be used and a brief description of the fracturing process. Where state regulations would have to be changed, it would take between 6 and 9 months for a rulemaking process. New rules could be phased in over a period of months, as has been done for many other rules.

For more information:
Lauren Pagel, 202-887-1872x207
Dusty Horwitt 202-939-9133
halliburton.earthworksaction.org

---

Endnotes

1. Wiseman, H., "Untested Waters: the Rise of Hydraulic Fracturing in Oil and Gas Production and the Need to Revisit Regulation", 20 Fordham Env. L.Rev. 115 (Spring 2009). Professor Wiseman is a Visiting Assistant Professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
2. Environmental Protection Agency. Technical Program Overview: Underground Injection Control Regulations, Office of Water 4606, EPA 816-R-02-025, Revised July 2001, p. 7, 61. Personal communications with EPA and Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, June 3, 2009.
3. Id. at 14, 17; 40 CFR §§ 144-146. EPA Inventory of Class II UIC Wells, 2009.