Posts Tagged ‘FRAC Act’
With so much talk in Washington these days from politicians about “plans” aimed at redirecting our struggling economy and putting Americans back to work, not as much attention has been paid to the incredible economic force that America’s oil and natural gas producers continue to bring to bear in so many regions across the country.
Unfortunately though, some leaders in Washington are working to advance misguided policies that seek to severely undercut producers’ ability to safely deliver the energy resources needed to fuel our economy. Naturally, the less energy produced, the fewer jobs created – and tougher it is to make good on the promise of America’s homegrown (and growing) energy potential.
Consider the potential consequences of the FRAC Act, which could strip energy-producing states of their ability to determine the regulatory landscape associated with hydraulic fracturing – a 60-year old technology that’s used to enhance energy production in 90 percent of the nation’s oil and natural gas wells.
While some opponents of responsible American energy production contend that Washington ought to step in and brush aside the authority and expertise of the states in this area, Energy In Depth continues to provide the facts, history and data needed to better understand and appreciate the record of achievement to which state officials continue to lay claim after 60 years of successful oversight.
In today’s Bismark Tribune, EID’s Lee Fuller shares some additional insight on this record:
Here are the actual facts: Fracturing has been used safely in the United States for more than 60 years, and has never in that time been directly regulated by the EPA. For decades, that responsibility has remained with states, which continue to compile a remarkable record of oversight and enforcement.
How good? In 60 years, not a single case of groundwater contamination has been credibly tied to hydraulic fracturing. Don’t believe us? Just ask the EPA — it confirmed as much to the U.S. Senate earlier this year.
Rep. Earl Pomeroy said recently that the “regulation of hydraulic fracturing is best left to the states,” and that new efforts to turn that authority over to the federal government “will do nothing to protect drinking water and will only serve to slow down development resulting in the loss of thousands of jobs and more imported oil.”
Sen. Byron Dorgan confirms that “hydraulic fracturing is not a problem,” noting there have been “many studies” that “show that it does not contaminate groundwater,” including one by the EPA in 2004.
Thanks to the Bakken Shale, North Dakota’s unemployment rate is currently at 3.6 percent. Compare that to the national rate of 9.5 percent. And what about the North Dakota budget? Thanks to the Bakken, it currently enjoys a surplus of $500 million.
Here’s what others are saying about oil and natural gas production enabled by tightly-regulated fracture stimulation technology:
ON FRACTURING’S RECORD OF SAFETY, ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS
- Ph.D. in Geophysics says “Gas shale and hydraulic fracturing work for NY”: “No evidence directly connects injection of fracking fluid into shale with aquifer contamination. In 2004, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency released a study finding no confirmed instances of drinking water contamination by fracking fluids in the ground. This finding is not surprising as fracking fluid is pumped through heavy, steel pipe surrounded by a concrete liner to formations thousands of feet below aquifers. (Hornell Evening Tribune, 9/7/10)
- Surge in use of natural gas helping to lower emissions: “But now, thanks to greater geologic and scientific insight and developments in drilling and production techniques, producers are unlocking shale’s enormous potential. We don’t have to look overseas to realize the environmental and economic gains of relying on natural gas; huge shale gas reserves in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Pennsylvania and Appalachia are easily accessible – right here, right now. Shale gas has begun to tip the scales such that experts deem the boom a game-changer, the most significant energy innovation in years. (Houston Chronicle, 9/3/10)
ON JOB CREATION, ECONOMIC GROWTH
- Gas boom economic engine for company: “When a Texas gas company hired Michael Pascuzzi’s earth-moving business to build two water impoundments, he sat down at his desk and cried. The family-owned company had been headed for bankruptcy. ‘We were real close to throwing in the towel,’ said Nicholas Pascuzzi Jr., Michael’s father and president of their McDonald-based company, New Dominion Construction. Marcellus shale saved the company, fresh evidence of how the commercial discovery of gas in the deep shale formation boosted the economy of Western Pennsylvania during a national recession.” (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 9/8/10)
- Gov. Rendell touts Shale’s economic potential during broadcast: “There is an economic upside here that is substantial,” Gov. Ed Rendell said on the Wednesday night show, which was part of a series of PCN programming on the Marcellus Shale. (Scranton Times-Tribune, 9/9/10)
- “Atlas Energy Inc. is among those doing some hiring. The natural-gas producer, based in Moon Township, Pa., has added 160 workers this year, bringing its head count to 680. The company recently played host to a jobs fair at a Pittsburgh-area hotel, where a line to register spilled out of a ballroom and into the lobby.” (Wall Street Journal, 9/4/10)
ON EXANDED SUPPLIES OF AFFORDABLE, RELIABLE ENERGY
- Marcellus Shale production data exceeds expectations: “Marcellus Shale gas wells in Northeast and Northcentral Pennsylvania led the state in natural gas production last year, exceeding even industry predictions about the promise of the gas-rich shale, according to well production data released for the first time by the state. In the 12 months between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010, the state’s 632 producing Marcellus wells released 180 billion cubic feet of gas – an amount that more than doubles Pennsylvania’s annual natural gas production from the years before the shale exploration began. … Matt Pitzarella, a spokesman for Range Resources, which reported a total production of about 35 billion cubic feet of natural gas and 402,000 barrels of natural gas liquids last year, said the report indicates what the industry believed, “which is that it is a very large natural gas discovery and could be one of the largest anywhere when it’s all said and done. It’s just going to take time.” (Scranton Times-Tribune, 9/9/10)
- What peak oil? Why an oil glut is ahead: “Part of that surplus comes from increased oil and gas production, particularly from ongoing production in the non-OPEC countries (including the U.S., where a “shale gas boom” has created a natural-gas glut). … But as the summer driving season passes and students head back to school, awareness has gradually dawned that we may be looking at an oil surplus for years to come. (CNNMoney, 9/8/10)
- Natural gas from shale rock promises energy revolution: “A new source of energy, shale gas promises to add significantly to the world’s energy reserves. … David Spigelmyer, vice-president of government relations at Chesapeake Energy said the firm’s gas extraction takes place a mile or more underground. “Groundwater rests between 300 and 500 feet and we have multiple layers of cement and steel to protect these freshwater aquifers,” he said. (BBC, 9/8/10)
Continued>>
Sen. Casey asks Colo. congresswoman to help him make the case for jobs-killing anti-HF bill in Philadelphia paper – EID takes a closer look
U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) represents the only congressional district in Colorado where hydraulic fracturing technology is not currently used; Philadelphia represents the only major city in Pennsylvania where the geology suggests it’s likely the technology will never be used.
So of course it made perfect sense for Rep. DeGette to choose the Philadelphia Inquirer to lodge her latest broadside against the 60-year-old energy technology known as hydraulic fracturing, teaming up with FRAC Act battery mate and Pennsylvania senator Bob Casey (D) on a column that does its level best to tie onshore natural gas exploration to the oil spill in the Gulf – notwithstanding the fact that hydraulic fracturing had nothing to do with the incident offshore.
But for those who continue to oppose the generations-old, 1.1-million-served-and-counting procedure of “fracking” a well, admitting to that fact would be tantamount to letting a once-in-a-lifetime crisis go to waste. After all: Opportunities to re-write a 37-year-old statute for the explicit purpose of assigning EPA unprecedented new authority over something that’s always been regulated by the states don’t come along every day. Rep. DeGette, a perennial FRAC Act introducer, knows it – and Sen. Casey likely does too. So maybe that’s why their column on hydraulic fracturing in Tuesday’s paper includes three separate allusions to the spill in the Gulf – three references in a column that only runs 580 words.
We’ll get to the errors in that piece in just a second. But let’s start by giving credit where credit’s due: Nowhere in the op-ed do Sen. Casey and Rep. DeGette attempt to advance the notion that fracturing was previously regulated under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, but now – magically – is not. The reason, presumably, is that it’s not true. Unfortunately, that hasn’t stopped folks like Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) from peddling their own alternate reality in support of the FRAC Act.
In Hinchey’s world, EPA had been regulating hydraulic fracturing for 30 years right up until Dick Cheney rammed through legislation in 2005 that “exempted” the procedure from federal oversight. But wait, that bill had the support of nearly three-quarters of the U.S. Senate? Wait, hydraulic fracturing had never in its history been regulated under SDWA prior to 2005, or after it? Wait! Did Rep. Hinchey just tell a committee of Congress that a nurse in Colorado “died after being exposed to fracturing fluids” – even though that’s not true? Of course he did. Silly to sweat the details when no one holds you accountable for them.
Again, to their credit, the inaccuracies found in Tuesday’s DeGette/Casey column can be considered minor compared to the whoppers that Hinchey and his friends let fly just about every week. But they still should be considered. Below we identify and correct just a few:
Continued>>
Undermines the states, stifles energy development in America, asks for things we might not even own … Energy In Depth counts down the ways
Last night, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid released the text of energy legislation that reports indicate could be brought up for debate on the floor as early as this week. Unfortunately, although described as a “scaled-back” and “non-controversial” iteration of previous legislative attempts, the bill includes sections explicitly targeting the safe and steady use of hydraulic fracturing — reminiscent of language found in the so-called FRAC Act, which has yet to generate a single committee hearings or markup since first being introduced in the previous Congress.
Here’s how Energy In Depth executive director Lee Fuller characterized those provisions today:
“The entire universe of additives used in the fracturing process is known to regulators and the public, as is mandated as such under federal rules enforced by OSHA. The problem with this provision is that it has the potential to create a series of legal responsibilities that operators, and even service companies, might not be able to fulfill, especially under a scenario where folks are asked to post information that doesn’t even belong to them. The amazing thing is this provision appears to be moving ahead even as EPA and Congress continue to study the issue. It raises the question of why they’re doing the study in the first place if policymakers don’t appear to be all that interested in learning anything from it.”
Below, EID counts down the reasons that Reid’s HF provisions should be opposed by anyone who supports the economic, strategic and environmental imperative of producing shale gas resources in America:
1) Section 4301 would undermine existing state regulatory authority, be inconsistent with federal environmental laws that balance disclosure issues against confidential business information, chill technology innovation and investment related to hydraulic fracturing, and restrict the development of the nation’s enormous reserves of shale gas.
2) Section 4301 places unrealistic burdens on producers. Operators and service companies currently provide full chemical disclosure in accordance with all applicable federal and state authorities. In contrast to the assertions on which this section premised, these materials are well known to state regulators, and are generally available to members of the public upon a quick search of the Internet, or by request to the state.
Unfortunately, this section would compel producers to disclose detailed information that they may neither have nor have the legal right to disclose. Additives used in the fracturing process are manufactured by companies that determine the amount of information they can post on Material Safety Data Sheets. Service companies and producers purchase these materials from manufacturers. That use does not either provide information such as CAS registry numbers or create a legal right to disclose such information publicly. Consequently, producers could be in a position where they cannot meet these new requirements and would either be subject to $10,000/day fines under EPCRA, or limit their ability to fracture natural gas formations.
3) Section 4301 is inconsistent with federal statutes. The language is inconsistent with the key Congressional policies set up in EPCRA and other federal environmental laws for attempting to balance disclosure issues against confidential business information. For example, in EPCRA Congress recognized the need to strike a balance between reporting on additive use to local authorities and the need to protect confidential business information. However, the language does not extend these protections for valuable information related to hydraulic fracturing.
4) Section 4301 will adversely impact energy development in the U.S. with no tangible benefits to show for it. It would provide a strong disincentive to service companies to engage in further innovation with respect to the development of new fracturing solutions. The loss of these new and innovative products would greatly reduce energy production in the U.S., and ratchet up our reliance on imports. Even though state regulatory programs have effectively managed the environmental considerations associated with fracturing, companies are actively working to produce new HF systems that are even more environmentally benign than they are today. The Reid language would undermine this technology development and innovation.
5) Isn’t EPA in the middle of doing a study on this exact thing right now? In the FY2010 Appropriations bill, Congress directed EPA to undertake a study focusing on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water. In 2004, the agency published a report finding hydraulic fracturing to be a safe and well-regulated technology. Notwithstanding those findings, EPA is honoring the Congressional request to study the technology once again. Legislative efforts such as this one should wait until the results of that study are released. Otherwise, why should the time, energy and resources be spent on doing the study in the first place?
6) States’ record of enforcement/oversight proves they know how to regulate the process better than the feds. States have effectively regulated hydraulic fracturing for over 40 years with no confirmed incidents of groundwater contamination associated with HF activities. Section 4301 would undermine existing state regulatory authority, be inconsistent with federal environmental laws that balance disclosure issues against confidential business information, chill HF technology innovation and investment, and restrict the development of the nation’s shale gas resources.
Continued>>
Today marks the one-year anniversary of the introduction of the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act in the 111th Congress, a bill sponsored (but probably not authored) by Reps. Dianna DeGette (D-Colo.) and Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) While short on actual legislative text, the bill – the Senate companion to which was introduced the same day last year by Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) – aims to give regulators in Washington unprecedented authority to regulate the commonly used energy technology known as hydraulic fracturing, never mind that states have been aggressively regulating the process for more than six decades already.
So here we are one year later. And despite the fact the no committee or subcommittee of either house of Congress has acted on the bill in any discernable way since its introduction, its threat to our economy and our nation’s energy security remains very real.
The Commonwealth Foundation, a Harrisburg-based think tank, says the FRAC Act “is unwarranted,” writing this in a recent policy brief entitled “Pennsylvania’s Natural Gas Boom”:
Congress is considering a federal takeover of fracking oversight, which would only lessen Pennsylvania’s environmental protection. S. 1215, the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act, would require the hydraulic fracturing process to be monitored by the federal government under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
S. 1215 is unwarranted. Fracking occurs thousands of feet beneath aquifers, and there is no indication it causes contamination. According to DEP’s Bureau of Oil and Gas Management director, “there has never been any evidence of fracking ever causing direct contamination of fresh groundwater in Pennsylvania or anywhere else.”
Besides being unnecessary, the FRAC Act is poor policy, as it shifts responsibility away from local authorities who are better equipped to handle local situations. Pennsylvania’s regulatory agencies have made sure no water contamination in the state has occurred and should be supported as the correct regulatory bodies for protecting the state’s waterways.
The FRAC Act has lined up a few cheerleaders recently, though. In fact, there’s even a movie out now called GasLand that perpetuates tired, debunked talking points aimed at domestic energy production and the tens of thousands of jobs this industry continues to create. While the “documentary” has garnered some fanfare for its theatrics, it didn’t get quite the same reception when put under the microscope of an Energy In Depth fact-check.
But it’s not just Energy In Depth that understands how critical shale gas production, enabled by fracturing, is to our nation and to our economy. Other top opinion-leaders are speaking out, too. San Antonia Express columnist David Hendricks writes this in a recent column:
What if I told you a domestic fuel exists that emits only half the greenhouse gases of coal and can be found in abundant supply to last the United States at least 45 years?
Many of you already know what it is: natural gas. Technological advances are unlocking natural gas reserves in deep shale rock strata around the world. The more people search for new reserves, the more they find.
The United States has enough shale gas that prices can range in a comfortable zone for the next few decades.
The threat of Washington stripping energy-producing states of their ability to regulate fracturing is as real as the economic benefits this technology is bringing to regions of the country who desperately need jobs and affordable, domestic supplies of energy. Send Congress the message that responsible, heavily-regulated, job-creating American energy production is critical to our long-term security.
Continued>>
China’s rapacious appetite for economic growth, job creation and overall global dominance is no secret, nor is its playbook for achieving those goals. Affordable, stable supplies of energy – more than anything else – are the foundation of strong and competitive economies. Leaders in China understands this full-well, and is moving forward aggressively – with the help of the White House – to put their nation a path toward prosperity and unmatched growth.
While shale gas has been termed a “game-changer” in the United States, this clean-burning resource is also making waves in the global energy markets. In a report today from People’s Daily Online, under the headline “Sinopec to boost unconventional gas production capacity by 2015,” the news outlet reports this:
Sinopec Group (Sinopec), the country’s second-largest oil company, plans to increase its unconventional gas production capacity to more than 2.5 billion cubic meters annually by the end of 2015, a move in line with China’s efforts to diversify its energy mix.
Sinopec will speed up the development of unconventional gas including shale gas and coalbed methane during the central government’s 12th Five-Year Plan period (2011-15).
Development of unconventional oil and gas will become an important growth engine for the company’s business in the next five to 10 years, the company said in a statement on its website Tuesday.
The report highlights the critical role American-created hydraulic fracturing technologies will be for the Chinese to unlock their shale gas reserves and the role those resources will play in fueling its economic future:
Analysts said using more advanced foreign technology in the sector would accelerate the exploitation of China’s gas reserves.
Tight gas is natural gas contained in rock that must be fractured or broken open before it can flow easily to production wells.
Use of unconventional gas would be an effective substitute to meet China’s rising natural gas demand, said analysts.
You see, at the same time the White House is lending a hand to the Chinese to help tap their job-creating shale gas reserves, some in Congress (and other out-of-the-mainstream advocacy groups) are working to make it more difficult – or altogether impossible – for American energy resources to be safely leveraged into jobs, security and competitiveness. Hard to believe, isn’t it.
Maurice Hinchey, a senior member of the U.S. House whose district encompasses much of the Marcellus Shale along New York’s southern tier, is working feverishly – along with Rep. Dianna DeGette (Colo.) and Sen. Bob Casey (Pa.) – to effectively strip energy-producing states of their ability to regulate fracturing. Their bill – the FRAC Act – would for the first time in the history of the Safe Drinking Water Act give the EPA in Washington outright authority to regulate (not to mention permit) every aspect of the fracture stimulation process.
How come? Glad you asked. Are energy-producing states – who tightly regulated this practice – not pulling their weight? Not according to the EPA’s water regulator, and growing chorus of congressional Democrats, Republicans and governors.
Would there be any added environmental benefit should the FRAC Act become law? Afraid not.
But don’t these FRAC Act-backers just want to know what fluids are used in the process? Well, that’s already well-known, actually – 99.5 percent water and everyday playground sand, along with other additives commonly found in ice cream, gummy bears and peanut butter (scary stuff, huh).
The aim of the FRAC Act is not to make our water resources any cleaner or more secure. It’s aims is to make domestic energy production more burdensome.
China understands the benefits to stable and affordable energy supplies. If you do as well, then send Congress a message that the FRAC Act will cost jobs, increases our foreign energy dependence and put America in a weaker position in the global economy.
Continued>>
Faced with Opportunity to Get the Fact Straight on HF in Letter to EPA, Casey Strikes Out Again
WASHINGTON – Never mind that the safe and steady development of the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania is almost single-handedly responsible for keeping the state’s economic fortunes afloat at a time when the Commonwealth is shedding jobs at a faster rate than all but three states nationwide.
Never mind that this work is responsible for generating hundreds of millions of dollars for cash-strapped state and local governments, and breathing new life into industries across the state that quite simply would not exist were it not for the historic opportunity that the Marcellus has made possible.
Never mind all that. To Sen. Robert Casey (D-Pa.), the exploration of clean-burning natural gas resources in Pennsylvania represents a “highly variable and unpredictable” enterprise that threatens “health and safety of Pennsylvanians.” And in a letter sent this week to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, Sen. Casey attempts to make that case with the help of several claims, assertions and characterizations associated with the 60-year-old technology used to produce these resources that, upon closer inspection, aren’t quite as accurate as he would have us believe.
Continued>>
Pennsylvania’s junior senator, Bob Casey of Scranton, knows a thing or two about Harrisburg and state government. Before being elected to the U.S. Senate in 2006, Mr. Casey served as the state’s treasurer. And before that, he was Pennsylvania’s auditor general (whatever that is). It’s also important to note that Senator Casey’s father was a popular, two-term Pennsylvania governor. Did we mention he also ran for governor himself?
Given this long history, one would believe that Sen. Casey’s faith in state government – a government that he and his family have served, and one that is currently controlled by his fellow Democrat, Governor Ed Rendell – would be strong.
But that’s not exactly the case, is it? While he’s only been in Congress for four years – not yet a full term – it hasn’t taken Casey long to lose faith in Harrisburg, favoring unelected Washington bureaucrats over his former colleagues. That’s especially true when it comes to the 60-year old energy production technology called hydraulic fracturing.
See, Sen. Casey is the author of the FRAC Act – a bill aimed at stripping energy-producing states of their ability to effectively regulate hydraulic fracturing, handing that authority over to EPA instead for the first time ever. This technology has been used nationwide over 1 million times to produce job-creating, homegrown energy, and is used today to complete 9 out of 10 wells. And it’s never contaminated groundwater. Not once in 60 years.
And in Sen. Casey’s own state, hydraulic fracturing is the technology that is helping to unlock enormous amounts of clean-burning natural gas reserves thousands of feet below ground trapped in the tight, dense rock formation called the Marcellus Shale. We’re talking about production that’s been an economic boon for the region. In 2009, in a year when millions of jobs were shed, the Marcellus Shale created nearly 50,000 jobs alone in Pennsylvania.
E&E News’ Mike Soraghan bumped into Sen. Casey on Capitol Hill yesterday, and asked him about his legislation. Here’s what he reported, which is also posted on GrassrootsPA.com:
Casey, a Democrat, is the lead Senate sponsor of a bill that would force U.S. EPA to regulate a drilling practice called “hydraulic fracturing,” or fracking, which is now overseen solely by states. Industry groups are fiercely opposed to the bill.
“We need to start being more determined about how we deliver accountability and look at whether state regulation is enough,” Casey said in a brief interview yesterday.
What did top environmental officials in Harrisburg have to say about Sen. Casey’s apparent slap in the face?
State officials disagree with Casey’s contention that they have been too lenient, and they say Pennsylvania has the tools it needs to protect the state’s environment.
“This order is very comprehensive, multi-tiered and unprecedented,” DEP spokesman Neil Weaver said. “The implications to the company could be drastic. If they do not comply, they could be ordered to plug up to 14 of these wells.”
Weaver added, “Secretary Hanger would be more than willing to sit down and talk with Senator Casey about what we’re doing and how we’re moving forward.”
Echoing DEP’s comments, EID’s Chris Tucker adds this:
“If Senator Casey’s trying to make the case that DEP’s asleep at the switch, and that EPA bureaucrats sitting six hours away in D.C. would’ve handled this case better, he probably picked the wrong example here,” Tucker said.
Continued>>
CNBC’s Cramer on EPA’s new HF study: “Even though we can’t find a single documented case of groundwater contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing, I’m concerned this could be the beginning of process that creates more regulatory hurdles for natural gas companies, and makes it more difficult to drill in the United States.”
Cramer: “Steve Heare is the EPA’s director of drinking water protection. He recently said that the states our ‘doing a good job already regulating hydraulic fracturing,’ and he added that there is no evidence to suggest the process contaminates water … He would seem to be a knowledgeable figure. He’s the drinking water protection person at the EPA.”
WASHINGTON – Now we know why they call it “Mad” Money. Yesterday afternoon, U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y) appeared on Jim Cramer’s CNBC financial show to discuss shale gas exploration, hydraulic fracturing, and his ongoing and very active efforts to prevent clean-burning, American made shale gas resources from being produced in New York, or anywhere else.
Actually, Rep. Hinchey disputed that characterization of his intent, offered up throughout by the host. In reality, he said, he’s just interested in “making sure that drilling occurs” and that the exploration process “is not impinged upon” – notwithstanding that his bill, known as the FRAC Act, would impede efforts to safely explore for natural gas in the very best case, and outright ban those efforts in the worst (and most plausible) case.
Keep in mind, this is the same congressman who suggested to one online writer that “very substantial economic elements,” and sinister ones at that, were involved in exploiting the shale gas revolution “for their own economic advantages.” And oh yeah, this is also the fella who once famously said: “I do not think that relying on foreign oil impacts our security. I would hope…that there might be a new approach to this whole issue and that approach would essentially mean let us import as much [energy] as we possibly can.” Yikes.
That aside, let’s see how the congressman’s latest performance holds up under an EID fact check:
HINCHEY CLAIM
“A significant portion of the Clean Water Drinking Act [sic.] was repealed in 2005. And that provision in 2005 said that people who are drilling don’t have to tell anybody what they’re putting into the ground.”
FACT
The bipartisan 2005 energy bill, supported by then Sen. Barack Obama, clarified that Congress never intended hydraulic fracturing to be regulated under Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). If Congress ever intended the SDWA to extend beyond its original scope and cover the fracturing of energy wells, it certainly had plenty of chances to make that view known.
Passed in 1974, SDWA has been amended a whopping eight separate times over the past 35 years (’74, ’77, ’79, ‘80, ‘86, ‘88, ’96, ‘05), but at no time during that extended run was the concept of regulating fracturing under the Act a significant component of the debate. And that’s true even though at the time of the bill’s passage in ‘74, fracturing had already been in commercial use for 25 years.
What’s changed in 35 years? Not a whole lot on the technological side, with the notable exception of exciting advancements in horizontal drilling techniques that allow producers today to access 10 times the energy by drilling 1/10 the number of wells.
So again: Fracturing was never regulated under SDWA – and, by that definition, could never have been granted an “exemption.” How can you be exempt from something that never covered you in the first place?Dennis Lathem, executive director of the Coalbed Methane Association of Alabama, sheds some additional light on the 2005 bipartisan legislation:
“Hydraulic fracturing has never been regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The 2005 Energy Policy Act contained language clarifying this intent. The language was necessary because a federal circuit court ruled (incorrectly in my opinion) the temporary process of hydraulic fracturing is the same as the permanent disposal of wastes underground and is therefore covered by the SDWA.
“The fact is, if the language clarifying hydraulic fracturing had not been in the 2005 Energy Policy Act, every state in the union would be in exactly the same regulatory posture as they are today, except Alabama.”
Also, click HERE to view a comprehensive timeline illustrating fracturing’s long and clear record of effective regulation.
HINCHEY CLAIM
“It was one of the drillers that put 12 homes into jeopardy [in Pennsylvania], and which caused a lot of contamination of drinking water supplies.”
FACT
PA DEP: “Responding to recent concerns expressed by residents of Dimock Township, Susquehanna County, the Department of Environmental Protection has collected dozens of water supply samples in the Carter Road area and determined that nearby gas well hydro fracturing activity has not impacted local wells.” (Release, 3/27/09)
HINCHEY CLAIM
“I don’t think what I’m doing is going to cause the drilling in New York to be hesitated in any way, or stopped or done more slowly.”
FACT
The FRAC Act could give EPA outright authority to regulate fracturing in energy-producing states, stripping states of their ability to closely and effectively regulate this technology. In an editorial entitled “Power play: Fracturing plan wrong, indefensible,” The Oklahoman writes this:
“The latest power grab is an attempt to switch regulation of hydraulic fracturing from the states to the Environmental Protection Agency. … Some believe the technique poses harm to drinking water supplies. U.S. Rep. Dan Boren, D-Muskogee, disagrees and says the regulatory shift would be “disastrous for the industry.” … Legislation has been introduced in Congress to require companies to disclose the chemicals used in the process and allow the EPA to ensure compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. This is a solution in search of a problem.” (6/15/09)
HINCHEY CLAIM
“There’s a lot of examples where drilling has caused damage to drinking water supplies.”
FACT
At a recent Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) asked senior EPA and USGS officials if “Any one of you know of one case of ground water contamination that has resulted from hydraulic fracturing?” Here are the answers:
Peter Silva (EPA Water Chief): Not that I’m aware of, no.
Sen. Inhofe: Ms. Giles?
Cynthia Giles (EPA Compliance Administrator): I understand there’s some anecdotal evidence, but I don’t know that it’s been firmly established.
Sen. Inhofe: So the answer is no, you don’t know of it.
Cynthia Giles nods.
Sen. Inhofe: Alright, Mr. Larsen?
Matthew Larsen (Assoc. Director for Water, EPA): I’ll have to respond in writing, I don’t, I’m not aware of all of our studies on that topic.
Click HERE to view this exchange online.
Continued>>
EID: Boren/Murphy letter fills “factual and historical holes that were unfortunately left agape subsequent to the release of the Waxman memorandum.”
WASHINGTON – Less than a month after Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) sent letters to nine separate service companies seeking additional information on the processes and technologies involved in producing America’s enormous reserves of clean-burning shale gas, U.S. Reps. Dan Boren (D-Okla.) and Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) submitted a letter of their own this past week, reminding the chairman that shale gas is a “proven and powerful engine of economic growth – and one this Congress idles at the peril of those it represents.”
After reviewing the letter, Lee Fuller, executive director of Energy In Depth, released the following statement:
“With more attention being paid on Capitol Hill to the critical role that shale gas can play in securing our nation’s economic and environmental future, it’s natural that additional questions will be raised, and additional information will need to be provided so that lawmakers have access to all the facts, and a full appreciation of the context within which they reside. This letter from Congressmen Boren and Murphy addresses both of those needs, all while filling-in several factual and historical holes that were unfortunately left agape subsequent to the release of the Waxman memorandum.”
The following excerpts were taken directly from the Boren/Murphy letter, which can be downloaded in full here:
On Jobs:
“Consider that in just the past few years, more than 100,000 high-wage jobs have been created in Oklahoma and Pennsylvania alone, all of them tied to the responsible development of American natural gas, and every bit of that made possible thanks to the safe and steady deployment of fracturing technology.”
“At a time of unprecedented economic uncertainty, and in a year in which four million Americans lost their jobs, shale gas exploration represents a proven and powerful engine of economic growth – and one this Congress idles at the peril of those it represents.”
On Shortcomings of the Waxman Memo:
“While a number of the elements contained in your memorandum appear to be sufficiently-researched and adequately sourced, we were nonetheless disappointed to find in the eleven-page document only a single reference to the landmark 2004 study on hydraulic fracturing done by EPA, a reference that does not even acknowledge the core findings and conclusions of the actual report.”
On Relationship between Committee Investigation and EPA’s Pending Study:
“While the agency has yet to formally release details indicating the scope and methodology of that research, it seems likely that much of the information you intend to gather pursuant to your investigation will also be sought, compiled and analyzed by EPA. It’s our hope that you work does not in any way interfere with that process, and our expectation that your course of study meets the same rigorous standards of science, evaluation and peer-review as historically observed by the agency.”
On Waxman Assertion that Fracturing Solutions are Unknown:
“[C]ertainly you must know that federal law mandates that Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) be kept on-hand at every wellsite in America when chemicals are present, and further, that those sheets include an accounting of the identities of those chemicals with identified risks used in the fracturing process. Indeed, the vast majority of these information sheets can be found readily and easily on the Internet. As you indicate, a number of states today post this information in full view of the public online.”
On the Critical Role that Well Integrity Plays in Safeguarding Drinking Water:
“Unfortunately, those who support the FRAC Act appear to believe the mere existence of small amounts of chemical additives in the fracturing solution represents a circumstance sufficient for public drinking water supplies to become contaminated.
“The reality, however, is that these materials are well known to those who regulate the process, and are managed in a way that eliminates virtually any risk of those components coming into contact with shallow reservoirs bearing potable water. Wells drilled today incorporate thousands of feet (and many layers) of steel casing, and thousands of pounds of cement – every bit of that installed using a time-tested engineering process and precise instrumentation to ensure what’s happening inside the wellbore remains in complete isolation from what naturally exists outside of it.”
Click here to view the letter online.
READ MORE
Continued>>
If you’re one of the few who happen to oppose the responsible development of shale gas general, and the key technology needed to produce it — hydraulic fracturing — in particular, chances are you’ve spun yourself around one or both of the following talking points: 1) That the solutions used in the fracturing process are “secret,” and 2) notwithstanding that apparent “secrecy,” you happen to know for a fact that they’re dangerous. And further: that their mere existence equals instant water contamination.
Be honest: Do you fall into one of these categories? If so, please, read on. Turns out a recent memo to Congressman Henry Waxman – chairman of the powerful House Energy & Commerce Committee – from the co-chairs of the bipartisan House Natural Gas Caucus gives an unvarnished overview of fracturing’s long and clear record of safety and transparency. In the memo authored by Congressmen Dan Boren (Okla.) and Tim Murphy (Pa.), the duo writes this at it relates to fracturing fluids:
“[C]ertainly you must know that federal law mandates that Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) be kept on-hand at every wellsite in America when chemicals are present, and further, that those sheets include an accounting of the identities of those chemicals with identified risks used in the fracturing process. Indeed, the vast majority of these information sheets can be found readily and easily on the Internet. As you indicate, a number of states today post this information in full view of the public online.”
Shale gas development, enabled by properly-regulated hydraulic fracturing, continues to be a potent job-creation engine, even during this generational economic downturn. To that, the congressmen write:
“Consider that in just the past few years, more than 100,000 high-wage jobs have been created in Oklahoma and Pennsylvania alone, all of them tied to the responsible development of American natural gas, and every bit of that made possible thanks to the safe and steady deployment of fracturing technology.”
“At a time of unprecedented economic uncertainty, and in a year in which four million Americans lost their jobs, shale gas exploration represents a proven and powerful engine of economic growth – and one this Congress idles at the peril of those it represents.”
As for the FRAC Act – that would for the first time in U.S. history give the federal government carte blanch to regulated hydraulic fracturing – the Natural Gas Caucus co-chairmen lay out these facts:
“Unfortunately, those who support the FRAC Act appear to believe the mere existence of small amounts of chemical additives in the fracturing solution represents a circumstance sufficient for public drinking water supplies to become contaminated.
“The reality, however, is that these materials are well known to those who regulate the process, and are managed in a way that eliminates virtually any risk of those components coming into contact with shallow reservoirs bearing potable water. Wells drilled today incorporate thousands of feet (and many layers) of steel casing, and thousands of pounds of cement – every bit of that installed using a time-tested engineering process and precise instrumentation to ensure what’s happening inside the wellbore remains in complete isolation from what naturally exists outside of it.”
So what are other independent professionals, regulators and major newspapers saying about hydraulic fracturing? In a Buffalo News column today entitled “We must take full advantage of Marcellus Shale,” petroleum geologist David Copley writes this:
“Notwithstanding exaggerated fears of damage to ground water systems, the ramp-up in shale-gas production has been the best economic and environmental news in years. Thanks to the use of new drilling techniques combined with a decades-old process known as hydraulic fracturing, energy companies are now able to access deposits of shale gas that were considered out of reach a few years ago. … New York State is also beefing up its regulation of hydraulic fracturing to ensure that the risk to ground water supplies is extremely remote. In fact, there have not been any documented cases of ground water contamination from hydraulic fracturing, according to Steve Heare, director of the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Drinking Water Protection Division.
In yesterday’s Gillette (WY) News Record, Tom Doll, supervisor of the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, says “Federal regulation is unnecessary because Wyoming already closely regulates it.” This from the article:
“We feel that we should administer our rules and regulate this and we don’t need the help of the federal government in this regard,” Doll said. “We’re doing a good job.” Federal regulations on top of state regulations would cause a lot more time and money for drilling companies that is unnecessary. Strengthening Wyoming’s rule might help keep that from happening.
And today’s Houston Chronicle, under the headline “The natural gas story,” the paper editorializes that fracturing can help “create jobs, lessen dependence on foreign energy, cut our defense costs, change our balance-of-payments picture for the better and make our air cleaner.”
Continued>>
