US lawmakers seek regulation of drilling practice
By Ayesha Rascoe
WASHINGTON, June 4 (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers expect to introduce legislation next week that would reverse a Bush era law exempting a controversial drilling practice from federal oversight, possibly driving up costs and curtailing the development of vast amounts of unconventional energy.
Democratic Representatives Diana DeGette of Colorado and Maurice Hinchey of New York plan a bill that would repeal a measure in a 2005 law that excluded the method of hydraulic fracturing from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
"This is a very serious issue. If it is not addressed, large numbers of people are very likely to suffer," Hinchey told Reuters. "Their water will be contaminated. Their houses will no longer be livable."
Hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," injects a mixture of water, sand and chemicals into rock formations at high pressure to force out oil and natural gas. The practice is used to stimulate production in old wells, but is now also used to tap oil and gas trapped in shale beds across North America.
Fracking is essential to shale gas production, which has significantly boosted U.S. gas output. The Energy Information Administration estimates this resource could make the United States self-sufficient in natural gas supply by 2030.
The new bill would open the door to Environmental Protection Agency supervision of the practice. Industry groups are concerned the law will lead to a cumbersome federal standard that may require more permitting, higher water quality for fracking fluid and additional testing.
Richard Ranger, senior policy adviser for the American Petroleum Institute, said new requirements could cost as much as $100,000 per well, a significant burden for drillers.
In areas where companies are still exploring, Ranger said "that $100,000 price tag when added to other things can lead companies to say 'No, we're not going to drill here.'"
Lynn Helms, who oversees North Dakota's mineral resources, said fracking is a "critical component" of developing oil and gas from shale in his state and throughout the country.
"Without hydraulic fracturing, under regulation of the states, this resource could not be produced," Helms testified at a House Natural Resources subcommittee hearing on Thursday.
Environmentalists say fracking without a national safety standard endangers human health by contaminating ground water. Residents in gas drilling areas have complained their well water was discolored or foul-smelling and that children became sick.
The bill would also force companies such as Halliburton Co (HAL.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and Schlumberger Ltd (SLB.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) to reveal what chemicals they use to produce hydraulic fracturing fluid, information protected by the companies as trade secrets.
"These fracking fluids use a witches brew of toxic chemicals, nearly all of which are intrinsically hazardous to the environment," Albert Appleton, an environmental consultant, testified at the House subcommittee hearing.
Industry groups say the criticisms are completely unfounded and that gas drilling is done thousands of feet below ground, much deeper than most water resources. Also, they say officials have not linked any public health incidents to hydraulic fracturing.
The stakes are high for U.S. shale producers, such as Range Resources Corp (RRC.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), Chesapeake Energy Corp (CHK.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and Anadarko Petroleum Corp (APC.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz).
"Investors are watching it very closely because if something was to change meaningfully the deployment of the shales for natural gas, it has the potential to dramatically change market conditions," said Christine Tezak, senior energy policy analyst at Robert W. Baird and Co. (Reporting by Ayesha Rascoe; editing by Jim Marshall
WASHINGTON, June 4 (Reuters) - U.S. lawmakers expect to introduce legislation next week that would reverse a Bush era law exempting a controversial drilling practice from federal oversight, possibly driving up costs and curtailing the development of vast amounts of unconventional energy.
Democratic Representatives Diana DeGette of Colorado and Maurice Hinchey of New York plan a bill that would repeal a measure in a 2005 law that excluded the method of hydraulic fracturing from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
"This is a very serious issue. If it is not addressed, large numbers of people are very likely to suffer," Hinchey told Reuters. "Their water will be contaminated. Their houses will no longer be livable."
Hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," injects a mixture of water, sand and chemicals into rock formations at high pressure to force out oil and natural gas. The practice is used to stimulate production in old wells, but is now also used to tap oil and gas trapped in shale beds across North America.
Fracking is essential to shale gas production, which has significantly boosted U.S. gas output. The Energy Information Administration estimates this resource could make the United States self-sufficient in natural gas supply by 2030.
The new bill would open the door to Environmental Protection Agency supervision of the practice. Industry groups are concerned the law will lead to a cumbersome federal standard that may require more permitting, higher water quality for fracking fluid and additional testing.
Richard Ranger, senior policy adviser for the American Petroleum Institute, said new requirements could cost as much as $100,000 per well, a significant burden for drillers.
In areas where companies are still exploring, Ranger said "that $100,000 price tag when added to other things can lead companies to say 'No, we're not going to drill here.'"
Lynn Helms, who oversees North Dakota's mineral resources, said fracking is a "critical component" of developing oil and gas from shale in his state and throughout the country.
"Without hydraulic fracturing, under regulation of the states, this resource could not be produced," Helms testified at a House Natural Resources subcommittee hearing on Thursday.
Environmentalists say fracking without a national safety standard endangers human health by contaminating ground water. Residents in gas drilling areas have complained their well water was discolored or foul-smelling and that children became sick.
The bill would also force companies such as Halliburton Co (HAL.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and Schlumberger Ltd (SLB.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) to reveal what chemicals they use to produce hydraulic fracturing fluid, information protected by the companies as trade secrets.
"These fracking fluids use a witches brew of toxic chemicals, nearly all of which are intrinsically hazardous to the environment," Albert Appleton, an environmental consultant, testified at the House subcommittee hearing.
Industry groups say the criticisms are completely unfounded and that gas drilling is done thousands of feet below ground, much deeper than most water resources. Also, they say officials have not linked any public health incidents to hydraulic fracturing.
The stakes are high for U.S. shale producers, such as Range Resources Corp (RRC.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), Chesapeake Energy Corp (CHK.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) and Anadarko Petroleum Corp (APC.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz).
"Investors are watching it very closely because if something was to change meaningfully the deployment of the shales for natural gas, it has the potential to dramatically change market conditions," said Christine Tezak, senior energy policy analyst at Robert W. Baird and Co. (Reporting by Ayesha Rascoe; editing by Jim Marshall
Views: 120
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by P.G. on -
I don't see anything wrong with making sure the drilling companies are good neighbors.
Costs will be passed along. Probably be no more costly than what consumers are already sticking into the foreigner's pockets right now.
-
Permalink Reply by jffree1 on
-
Isn't this sort of akin to the debate which took place over EPA regulating the sale, use, labeling, etc... of pesticides and herbicides? They regulate now, based on the various Federal ACTS in place to protect the health and well being of all of us. Pesticide contamination in drinking water and pasture/crop application runoff were and are the same type of problem as possible contamination from frac chemicals.
The states are in charge of enforcing regulation and can pass their own laws which may be more stringent than EPA but not less. It hasn't put the chemical companies or pest control operators out of business and farmers still use herbicides. They just do it now in a safer, more informed manner.
Maybe there needs to be more schooling for the people who are using these frac fluids (above and beyond how to run the pumps?) so that they are aware of the impact of and possible results from surface spills.
As for the fluids once they are in the ground, I agree that they are well below the aquifers. But if gas and oil can "percolate" upward through rock formations cannot frac fluids as well? That is my question.
-
Permalink Reply by Pipeliner on
-
DDT: A case Study in Scientific Fraud:
Edwards, Ph.D.
Value of Pesticides to Humanity
ABSTRACT
The chemical compound that has saved more human lives than
any other in history, DDT, was banned by order of one man, the
head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Public
pressure was generated by one popular book and sustained by
faulty or fraudulent research. Widely believed claims of
carcinogenicity, toxicity to birds, anti-androgenic properties, and
prolonged environmental persistence are false or grossly
exaggerated. The worldwide effect of the U.S. ban has been
millions of preventable deaths.
For the complete article:
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf
-
Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on
-
This could actually have something of the opposite effect. The feds have a tendency to preempt local regulations when federal regulations are in effect.
Sometimes the locals want stricter rules than the feds. Sometimes, it's not simply stricter, it's that each state has a different set of regulations and making something that meets all states requirements is difficult or impossible.
We really do need to require the disclosure of all chemicals in frac fluids. "We're going to inject thousands of gallons of powerful chemicals into the ground at high pressure, and transport it around your neighborhood, but we're not going to tell you what the chemicals are, or what the risks are."
As for the ingredients being kept secret from the competitors, get real. Does anyone believe that one company can't get hold of enough of another company's "magic" frac fluid to do a chemical analysis?
-
Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on
-
I can think of several potential reasons. These may not be correct thinking, but they may be part of the though process involved.
1) It makes lawsuits more difficult.
2) Prevents public outcry. ("Shreveport Times reports DHMO in frac fluids")
3) Keep oilfield workers ignorant of the risks to their health.
4) There's quite legitimate need for secrecy in much of the oil industry. When you are involved in an environment of secrecy, security, tight lips, and paranoia, it may carry over to areas where it shouldn't.
5) Customers (drillers) might be less willing to buy a supplier's chemicals or services if they know it contains some dangerous or politically incorrect chemicals. (Or if they knew that the public knew the chemicals involved.)
6) It hinders environmental regulation of the industry.
As I said, these reasons may not be "valid," but they could be the way some people involved think.
By the way, note I didn't mean to say frac fluid composition wasn't secret, just that their competitors could easily find out what's in the fluids if they want to. I'd be surprised if one chemical supplier doesn't really know what's in its competitor's fluids.
Remember when there were reports of "chloride" in something that killed cows near a drilling rig? Of course, salt in salt water is "chloride."
-
Permalink Reply by sesport on
-
Mac Davis - Would it be possible for the industry to at least provide the medical community with the antidote/treatment that would be required without giving away it's secret recipe? I don't know what the numbers are regarding the people that come in contact with these fluids that experience poisoning symptoms, perhaps it's a sensitivity like an allergy, but even if that number isn't significant there's got to be a way to administer quick & effective treatment.
thanks - :0)
-
Permalink Reply by sesport on
-
Keith just reported yesterday from the meeting that the Chair said they were seriously considering bringing together shale states to discuss gold standard practices. Another round table, lock 'em in a room, tete a' tete like was done with the emissions standards. (My guess.)
-
Permalink Reply by P.G. on
-
Maybe it's a good sign if the US lawmakers are showing an interest and want to get involved in these shale plays!
Probably trying to figure how they can get their meat hooks into some of that lobbying money, huh?
Does anyone suppose they may fast forward things if it becomes worth their while?
-
Permalink Reply by John M. Hays on
-
The chances of any cross contamination between the down hole fracing and much higher elevation potable water bearing sand formations is slim to none.
The problem comes in from two directions, particularly when dealing with fracing water coming from the Sparta. The Sparta is being depleted much faster than it can be normally recharged and the fracing process is just one more demand. Secondly, when the fracing water is brought out of the hole so that the well will flow, it has to go somewhere and that water pulled out along the Sparta outcrop may well find its way, along with whatever contamination, going into the formation. Of course as slow as the water moves through the formation, measured in feet per year, it may take 200 years to get from western Bienville Parish to Ruston.
But don't you worry! The chances of the Dept. of Conservation, the Dept. of Environmental Quality or Environmental Protection Agency actually winning a head-butting contest with "Big Oil" are very slim. And if they did lose, the cost of safe disposal would be a drop in the bucket compared with the goofy prices the companies have been paying for leases to those of you who've gotten the actual checks.
-
Permalink Reply by Gary Hogan on
-
Sorry Industry Chesapeake et ALL I think You protest to much and I am getting so weary of your crying over $$$$$ while you pass on hundreds of millions of dollars to CEOs like Aubrey Mc Clendon while you threaten to not help this country become energy dependent unless you can do it cheaper without exemption to and protection to the communities you operate in. There is and has been segnificant evidense that fracing causes water pollution in well water, we have established no proof that run off from well sites does not contaminate surface drinking water. There are also studies that say in Fort Worth Texas that VOC emissions from Barnett Shale drilling equals that of all current ground transportation sources. Industry attacks independent study, TCEQ repoorts the results as " reasonable ". In spite of the facts you lobby TCEQ to direct the problem solution to cars and say that controls on jndustry will cost a $$$$ and chase you away. Ghee I only wish. By the way the cost will repay in vapor recovery systems. Still cry and INDUSTRY JUST WILL NOT DO THE ENVIRONENTAL RIGHT THING. STOP wrapping yourself in an AMerican flag claiming INDUSTRY is saving America from foreign oppression and dependence when in fact you could be great Americans achieve all that still make a reasoanble capitalistic profit and protect our environement. Instead you spend millions to lobby politicians to excempt you from every basic federal and state laws meant to protect Water , Air and the natural environemnt. STOP IT AND BE GOOD STEWARDS and AMERICANS rather than the GREEDY UNCARING CAPITALISTS SOBS YOU SEEM TO BE NOW>
-
Permalink Reply by Spring Branch,mineral owner on
-
Yeah! You Capitalist Pigs!
-
Permalink Reply by Grillin' - MmmMmm on
-
"There are also studies that say in Fort Worth Texas that VOC emissions from Barnett Shale drilling equals that of all current ground transportation sources."
Actually, that study was done by an academic at one of the universities in the DFW area and was subsequentally rebuked by government agency scientists that said a) the study made incorrect assumptions and b) drew erroneous conclusions. For instance: did you know that during the time that Barnett drilling was ramping up at warp speed, the actual VOC emissions in the DFW area went down? I have to pull up the full post from another site and I'll post a link or a copy. I believe the site I viewed this on is a subscription site so I won't be able to post the link or the entire article for copywrite issues.
The rest of your rant....uhh no. Its too early in the morning to go into the rest of your errors.
Support GoHaynesvilleShale.com
Top Content
Blog Posts
The Lithium Connection to Shale Drilling
Shale drilling and lithium extraction are seemingly distinct activities, but there is a growing connection between the two as the world moves towards cleaner energy solutions. While shale drilling primarily targets…
ContinuePosted by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher) on November 20, 2024 at 12:40
Not a member? Get our email.
Groups
-
San Augustine, TX
386 members
-
Miller County, Arkansas
27 members
-
Sabine Parish, LA
455 members
-
South Caddo Parish Group
440 members
-
Natchitoches Parish
400 members
-
Bienville Parish, LA
244 members
-
Fayetteville Shale
149 members
-
North Caddo Parish
358 members
-
Central Texas Gas
63 members
-
Cass County, TX
119 members
© 2024 Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).
Powered by
