As communities across the country continue to speak out against a proposed plan in Congress to impose unprecedented new restrictions on the safe, already well-regulated process of hydraulic fracturing, a new study released this week by IHS Global Insight and the American Petroleum Institute(API) sheds new light on what those communities can expect if those efforts ultimately prove successful.

“Hydraulic fracturing has been safely and effectively used for more than 60 years now, but at no point has this technology been as directly tied to jobs, revenue and U.S. energy security as it is today,” said Lee Fuller, policy director for Energy In Depth. “The study released this week underscores that point in clear and compelling detail, and strengthens the suggestion that when it comes to imposing extraordinary new regulations on this common and increasingly critical energy technology, we better look before we leap.”

The report, the second in a series of three studies commissioned by API examining the critical role that hydraulic fracturing plays in delivering a secure energy future, projects the potential impacts – broken down by state – assuming three separate (and plausible) scenarios under which EPA could regulate fracturing activities.

First scenario: Expansion of Underground Injection Control (UIC) program to include the EPA regulation of hydraulic fracturing

Under this scenario, hydraulic fracturing and the materials related to the process would in effect be treated the same way as the law treats hazardous wastes for the purposes of permanent disposal.  Including hydraulic fracturing activities in this category of regulation violates both the intent and design of the law, and as such, could result in the following impacts:

Second scenario: New restrictions on materials used in fracturing a well

Although water and sand comprise 99.51% of the materials used in a typical frac job, efforts to hand over the job of regulating this crucial technology to EPA could also lead to new restrictions on the types and quantities of additives used by operators to alter the surface tension of the fracturing fluids.

Under that scenario, the IHS report predicts that states such as Wyoming and Louisiana would be hardest hit:

Third scenario: Elimination of hydraulic fracturing

Although characterized by its authors as a “commonsense” effort to promote new reporting and disclosure requirements on operators who use fracturing technology, the actual text of the FRAC Act of 2009 fails to align with that description.

In spirit and in letter, H.R. 2766 is about EPA regulation, not disclosure – with section 2(a) of the billclearly amending the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 to include the regulation of hydraulic fracturing under its portfolio. With SDWA regulation comes EPA permit-authority over the process, a prospect that then-EPA administrator Carol Browner admitted was unnecessary in 1995.

According this scenario, the IHS study suggests the following impacts would follow:

More resources and materials from Energy In Depth:

• API Press Release: Duplicative hydraulic fracturing rules could imperil U.S. economy

• Graphic: How Far Down Do We Frac?

• Fact Sheet: New Federal Regulations Will Cost Americans Jobs, Revenue, and Security

• EPA Study: Study to Evaluate the Impacts to USDWs by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs

• Browner Memo: Letter of Support for Hydraulic Fracturing from Carol Browner, Fmr. EPA Administrator

• Interactive Graphic: How Could Efforts to Attack Hydraulic Fracturing Impact Your State?

###

WASHINGTON, DC – As their federal counterparts in Washington, D.C. look for new and creative ways to restrict the responsible use of a critical natural gas and oil extraction technique known as hydraulic fracturing, states with decades of experience in regulating the technology are not taking the effort lying down.

Earlier this week, the Louisiana House became the latest in a string of legislatures where resolutions affirming the chamber’s support for hydraulic fracturing – or opposition to Congress’s effort to disrupt the current partnership – were either formally filed or broadly approved. Many of these states have effectively regulated fracturing activities for more than a half century, and stand to lose the most – in jobs, revenue, royalties and energy output – should EPA be given regulatory authority over the proven technology. To learn more specifics about hydraulic fracturing technology, click here.

“If hydraulic fracturing were unsafe, unregulated, and largely unnecessary as a tool of producing American energy, Congress would have a good reason to step in, and states would have an even better one to step out,” said Lee Fuller, a spokesman for Energy In Depth, a new coalition of American oil and natural gas trade groups. “Clearly, that is not the case. And that’s why you’ve seen states from the Southeast to the Intermountain West stand up, shoulder-to-shoulder, and affirm their support for this safe, critical and increasingly valuable well stimulation technology”.

The latest effort out of Baton Rouge, La. was introduced by Rep. Joe Harrison, R-Napoleonville, and calls on Congress to maintain a provision in existing federal law preserving Congress’s intent not to regulate hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974, legislation designed to protect public water supplies. In 1974, hydraulic fracturing had already been in commercial use for 25 years. At no time during its deliberation, nor in subsequent debates on amendments to SDWA in 1986 and 1996, was the concept of regulating hydraulic fracturing under SDWA ever a consideration.

The reason? Hydraulic fracturing was then, and continues to be now, aggressively regulated by the states, compiling an impressive record of safety and performance over that time. More than 60 years after its first commercial use, not a single case of hydraulic fracturing-related contamination has been documented by the federal government. In fact, a landmark 2004 study conducted by EPA found that hydraulic fracturing posed “no threat” to underground drinking water supplies.

Because of that, other states – such as Alabama, North Dakota, Utah, Wyoming, Oklahomaand Texas – have taken up or passed resolutions similar to the one being considered in Louisiana. In New Mexico, former U.S. Energy Secretary and current Governor Bill Richardson introduced a plan in February aimed at easing unnecessary compliance burdens, recognizing that thousands of jobs and millions in potential revenue were tied to safe, responsible, state-regulated natural gas and oil production.

Those conclusions are supported in full by a recent set of studies known collectively as Project BRIEF (Bringing Real Information on Energy Forward), commissioned by the Energy in Depth coalition. In particular, BRIEF found that proposed changes to federal regulations, including those related to hydraulic fracturing, could result in:

• The forced closure of more than half of America’s oil wells, and a third of its gas wells
• $4 billion in lost revenue to the federal government; state treasuries would lose $785 million
• Domestic oil production slashed by 183,000 barrels per day; natural gas by 245 billion cubic feet per year