Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
tuolumne_tradster
Trad climber
Leading Edge of North American Plate
|
|
|
Nov 14, 2014 - 09:50pm PT
|
For those who might be concerned about groundwater impacts of fracking in California...
State Water Resources Control Board
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is hosting a public meeting regarding the development of model criteria for groundwater monitoring related to oil and gas well stimulation treatments, as specified in Senate Bill 4 (Pavley, Statutes of 2013). LLNL is the expert that the State Water Board is working with to develop the model criteria for groundwater monitoring.
The meeting will be held at the Cal/EPA Building in Sacramento on December 11, 2014, from 8am to 5 pm. The meeting agenda will be sent in a future email notification.
At this meeting, LLNL will gather information on stakeholders perspective and ideas regarding oil and gas related activities on groundwater quality and the development of the groundwater monitoring model criteria.
Information about State Water Board SB 4 related activities, including subscribing to our email distribution (listserv) for Oil and Gas Groundwater Monitoring, can be found at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/groundwater/sb4.shtml
Thank you,
Janice H. Zinky, P.G.
Oil and Gas Monitoring Unit Chief
State Water Resources Control Board
1001 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
916.341.5897
janice.zinky@waterboards.ca.gov
By model criteria for groundwater monitoring they mean a conceptual hydrogeologic model for designing a ground water monitoring program to identify groundwater quality impacts from oil and gas well stimulations, including hydrofracking.
Here is a presentation by LLNL on this topic from the State Water Resources Control Board's website...
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/groundwater/sb4/docs/pres_lawrence_livermore_082514.pdf
The USGS will also be among the presenters at this public meeting.
Here is their presentation...
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/groundwater/sb4/docs/pres_usgeo_survey_082514.pdf
Here is a DRAFT list of questions that has been submitted RE Senate Bill 4 operator-required local and regional-scale groundwater monitoring...
Operator-Required Monitoring:
• What is the minimum required list of laboratory analytical methods needed to characterize
groundwater?
• How many wells are necessary to sufficiently monitor groundwater conditions?
• At what depth intervals should monitoring wells be completed or screened?
• How close should the monitoring wells be located or placed to the well undergoing well
stimulation treatment?
• What should the frequency and duration of the monitoring be?
• Should there be any limitations or exclusions to consider such as:
• Lack of protected water
• Depth to base of protected water
• Hydrocarbon zone presence or absence
• UIC exempted aquifers
• Existing groundwater quality issues not related to oil and gas activities
Regional Scale Monitoring:
• In what areas should regional groundwater monitoring be prioritized?
• What will be the criteria for the transition from operator-required monitoring to regional
monitoring conducted by the State Water Board?
What should the overall scope and extent of a regional scale monitoring program contain?
Exempted aquifers
Hydrocarbon zone
Depths of groundwater monitoring
List of analytes
Frequency and duration of sampling
Reporting requirements and Information sharing
|
|
couchmaster
climber
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2014 - 08:29am PT
|
Toulome-tradster noted: "This was posted up thread but here it is again....a list of common chemicals used in frac fluids from the Frac Fluids Chemical Disclosure Registry http://www.fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used "
Thanks for that tradster, missed it the first time. I guess we've been brushing our teeth with some nasty sh#t. :-) Also, thanks Base104 on the well casing comments, however, although it mitigates migration of fracking chemicals, that doesn't mean it eliminates the problem.
We have some high quality people involved who have examined these issues. It's not like the Bush administration at all which was full of industry hacks (not that it made them wrong, only biased). Read Secretary Munuz bonifides (or former Secretary of Energy Chu, a Phd nobel prize winner) and consider if his (or their) support of fracking is in error. These guys are all about green energy and reducing the environmental impacts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Moniz Read it.
I haven't changed my opinion of Fracking, which is this: overall and on balance, it has some issues but it's a great thing for our country.
|
|
tuolumne_tradster
Trad climber
Leading Edge of North American Plate
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2014 - 10:35am PT
|
The question "Are you for or against fracking?" is too simple a question. IMO, a more relevant question is "What is the US's long-term energy policy?"
If the long term policy is to squeeze every last drop of hydrocarbons out of the subsurface, create oil industry-related jobs, and leave the environmental and climate impacts to a future generation to deal with, then, by all means, "Frack Baby Frack."
The question, often framed by the oil industry, "Is it possible for a fracture induced at 8,000 ft depth propagate upward and contaminate a water-supply aquifer at < 1,000 ft?" is also largely irrelevant. This is such a low probability event that, for all practical purposes, the answer is NO. Are there existing poorly constructed wells that might serve as conduits for upward migration of injected or produced fluids related to fracking operations? Yes, there could be.
IMO, modern fracking techniques can be done in an environmentally responsible way, assuming all the precautions are taken to manage and contain drilling, fracking and produced fluids. The volume of fluids being used in these operations is staggering, so managing these fluids is crucial. Are these fluids properly managed by all operators, in all states? Not so sure. In order to protect water resources in these areas, a comprehensive surface water and ground water management and monitoring program needs to be in place including an evaluation of pre-fracking conditions to establish a baseline for evaluation of future impacts. The demand on local water supplies, if needed, for fracking operations is also an important consideration.
To investigate the impacts of past operations, in an oil or natural gas field that has been in operation for decades, is a complex problem that requires sophisticated forensics techniques, like the ones I've posted up thread. These methods use isotopic and noble gas mass spectrometry that are capable of distinguishing biogenic from thermogenic methane and determining the nature and timing of methane releases. EPA's investigation of environmental impacts from fracking operations at Pavillion, Wyoming appears to be flawed in so many ways that it too is irrelevant.
Furthermore, there are other environmental issues than water resources, such as air quality and "quality of life" to local communities. The increased amount of traffic and the associated congestion and air quality impacts related to fracking operations is significant and must be considered in any comprehensive analysis. One of the air quality issues is methane leakage. As we all know, methane is a much more efficient heat trapping atmospheric gas than CO2, so there needs to be a zero methane leakage policy.
Alternatively, if the US's long term energy policy is to begin to wean our society off hydrocarbon-based energy resources, then here are some suggestions...
1) develop a more coherent alternative energy policy with real economic incentives and federal subsidies that significantly reduces coal use and fossil fuel burning for electricity production and increases wind, solar, and biofuels;
2) strongly encourage the use and development of effective public transportation systems;
3) use natural gas as a "bridge" fuel source for transportation while encouraging the use of electric cars;
4) create economic incentives for energy-efficient homes and office buildings; and
5) develop safer nuclear facilities for electricity generation.
There are no easy solutions to the predicament we are in right now.
Here's a timely question that has no easy answer..."Should Obama support the $5.3B Keystone Pipeline that will carry 800,000+ bbls of crude/day from Alberta to Nebraska?"
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2014 - 11:28am PT
|
Here's a timely question that has no easy answer..."Should Obama support the $5.3B Keystone Pipeline that will carry 800,000+ bbls of crude/day from Alberta to Nebraska?"
I think we should do it. And now a bunch of Senators suddenly agree with the House. Playing politics?
I was for it all along.
1) develop a more coherent alternative energy policy with real economic incentives and federal subsidies that significantly reduces coal use and fossil fuel burning for electricity production and increases wind, solar, and biofuels;
Solar maybe, wind and biofuels seem contrived to fit a narrative. In the near future it would be easily feasible to outfit stationary structures with solar energy to lessen drain on the grid. This is already being done.
2) strongly encourage the use and development of effective public transportation systems;
Sure, but this isn't Europe. There are large swaths of suburban America where this would take a lot of work. It's not convenient enough to get people out of their cars. And there's the cultural part of it where Americans largely like the independence of their own transport.
3) use natural gas as a "bridge" fuel source for transportation while encouraging the use of electric cars;
Electric cars. How do you "encourage" that? And they still plug into coal factories.
4) create economic incentives for energy-efficient homes and office buildings; and
Sure.
5) develop safer nuclear facilities for electricity generation.
Sure. They are getting better. SOme of the older sites need to be moth-balled.
|
|
tuolumne_tradster
Trad climber
Leading Edge of North American Plate
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2014 - 12:23pm PT
|
Bluering:
keystone pipeline - short of convincing Canada to stop mining the Athabasca tar sands and knowing the alternative routes that this pipeline will take if the section to Nebraska is not approved, unfortunately this is one of those issues where you have to hold your nose and vote yes.
not so sure wind power is a contrived energy source although I agree we're a very long way from any of these alternative energy sources having any real impacts on electricity production
how do you encourage electric car use? Federal subsidies and incentives to design a low cost electric car with the necessary infrastructure...perhaps piggy-back on the Tesla infrastructure that is being developed for the privileged class.
Bruce Kay says...
Our ability to assess stinks This situation is improving as forensic techniques are being developed to identify and trace fingerprints signatures of different fluids as gases. California SB-4 is an attempt to develop a scientifically based monitoring program. This will be very challenging.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2014 - 12:36pm PT
|
how do you encourage electric car use? Federal subsidies and incentives to design a low cost electric car with the necessary infrastructure...perhaps piggy-back on the Tesla infrastructure that is being developed for the privileged class.
Agree and disagree. The private-sector (Toyota, Tesla) will make this stuff happen far more efficiently, it should be left to them.
Sure Tesla is expensive, it's a luxury vehicle in it's infancy. It will get the cheaper, the market will demand that they compete with the Prius.
The Feds can give incentives to companies that make these cars in the form of corporate tax breaks based on sales.
The big problem with Fed incentives are phony loopholes and lobbiests. I.E., Solyndra and that silly car made in Scandanavia that we funded. Fisker?
|
|
tuolumne_tradster
Trad climber
Leading Edge of North American Plate
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2014 - 12:40pm PT
|
The private-sector (Toyota, Tesla) will make this stuff happen far more efficiently, it should be left to them. yes definitely with govt subsidies sans loopholes
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2014 - 12:56pm PT
|
Bruce, the private-sector will do these things much more efficiently without gauging the taxpayers.
Sure, it sounds all nice to have Fed programs, but they are ALWAYS corrupted.
The best thing is tax-breaks.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2014 - 01:46pm PT
|
Bruce,
Yes, TT's post was pretty spot on, but there is so much bad information out there that I honestly don't blame people for being so scared. Just go to Youtube and type in Fracking. It is nothing but ghost stories, and it shocks me that this is now the popular perception of how it works, but here we are. And PP can f*#k off, because he is basically calling me a liar. My wife is the director of one of the entire divisions of the state DEQ, and we have had many discussions on how drilling and production takes place in this state. She has a 30 year career in the regulatory field, and I have a 30 year career in the E&P field. And I am not lying. I'm being as bluntly honest as I can be.
This sudden fear of fracking, which is a very well understood process, really shocked me and other people who understand oil and gas production. The movie Gasland sure made it look bad. Now that most of it has been de-bunked, you would think that people would calm down, but no, popular belief is what I consider permanently skewed towards hysteria and made up bullsh#t.
The BAD thing about the shale plays has nothing to do with the frack itself. There is no way that fractures propagate from 10,000 feet to a fresh water aquifer. We know this. It is a physical fact. I can go into that for hours if someones needs to have that shown to them.
Most of the shale plays have been drilled without major incident. I grew up inside the Arkoma Basin Woodford Shale gas play, and I remember what it was like. Basically, you have an endless parade of big trucks hauling sand and water around. The flowback water was injected into saltwater disposal wells (something I can also discuss in detail) without any major incidents that I'm aware of.
It takes about 8 wells to drain each square mile drilling and spacing unit in most shale gas plays. Even with the big fracks, they need to be drilled parallel to each other only a few hundred feet apart. To limit surface impacts often many wells are drilled from the same pad. So you get a lot of wells on your property, but in a producing area, this isn't that unusual. The difference is the quantities of sand and water that is being moved about.
The biggest fracks that I've seen used 14 MILLION gallons of water and millions of pounds of sand. It takes hundreds of truckloads to haul that amount of water and sand to each well. That is rough on county roads. It is noisy. It goes on 24 hours a day. It is an industrial activity.
Now if you are lucky enough to own the mineral rights under your land (meaning that a previous owner didn't retain them when you bought the surface), you can become a millionaire overnight. So most landowners are actually pretty happy when a company finds 100 million dollars worth of gas under your farm, and you get 18.75% or more in royalty payments.
After the Arkoma settled down (not much drilling is going on right now due to low gas prices), the trucking and all that has basically stopped.
This is what it is. You cannot look at a gas well on the surface and tell if it is a horizontal well or a vertical well. The only difference is that the accumulation covers large areas, and it does make a big surface impact. Things like holding ponds are temporary in all but a very few circumstances.
I am not aware of any gas getting into the groundwater in the Arkoma Basin play. They did have one problem: The Arbuckle Limestone was too deep in the basin center to economically drill saltwater disposal wells, so they had to truck it 20-30 miles away where the Arbuckle was shallower.
The Arbuckle Group is the oldest and deepest sedimentary rock in the mid-continent and Texas (where it is called the Ellenburger). It is thick, porous, and has been used as a disposal zone since the beginning of time. The Marcellus Shale, in the Appalachian Basin, does not have a suitable disposal zone. That has created huge problems with what to do with not only the flow-back of the frack load water, but also with saltwater, which is naturally produced along with the gas.
That is the only difference between a vertical gas play and the new shale plays: the size of the fracks. Also, since shale gas wells have low permeability, the flowing pressure at the wellhead is much, much, lower than say, a vertical well in the overpressured Springer Sandstone in the deep Anadarko Basin.
Oil and gas activities are normally regulated by the various states. Every state has different geology, and regulations are strict and enforced. In Oklahoma, it is the Oklahoma Corporation Commission. In Texas, it is the Railroad Commission (whose regs are often used, to some extent, in other state regulatory agencies).
There are a lot of regulations. Protecting groundwater is the number one rule.
Here is a map of the subsurface wellbore paths in a one square mile area that I just picked in the Arkoma Woodford play. The colored symbols are the surface locations of the wellheads and production pads..normally only a few acres.
Here is a zoomed out view of the play. Each square is a square mile:
Here is a view of the eastern Anadarko Basin. The horizontal wells show the wellbore path. The normal vertical wells just show a well symbol. there are over 26,000 wells on this map, which is roughly 70 miles by 70 miles. Out of the 26,000 wellbores, over 1200 of them are horizontal. Here is a map of all of the wells:
This map shows only the horizontal wells, all of which have been drilled in the last 5 years, pretty much.
That is it for now. I'm busy. The only thing that I need to add is that oil and gas regulations began to be very strict about groundwater protection in the sixties. The Appalachian Basin has many thousands of cheap, shallow, and often poorly cased gas wells that are still being drilled to this day. Mom and Pop outfits are usually the culprit in pollution cases. The bigger companies, who have the capital to drill 10 million dollar wells, have their own compliance divisions to keep their nose clean.
I can print out maps like this all day. I can even post the casing string diameters and depths next to every single well if you guys feel that you need it.
If you want a lesson on the relevance of hydrostatic pressure, which you really need to have a slight grasp of to understand production, I can talk about that.
I can post maps showing naturally occurring shallow gas, you name it. I do this all day long.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2014 - 01:51pm PT
|
Doug Robinson visited me when I was doing some wellsight supervision in SW Kansas early this year. They were vertical oil wells.
Here he is out on the drilling rig:
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2014 - 02:18pm PT
|
Bruce, the difference between gov't/Fed corruption and private-sector is the Feds get away with it at tax-payer expense. The private-sector gets sued and, as a result, stops doing it.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2014 - 02:33pm PT
|
Methane is the main constituent of natural gas, but it is rare to find it as the only component of natural gas production. Even in the overmature areas, you usually get a little ethane in it. Most areas have butane, propane, and heavier constituents. This is one of the ways that you can tell that methane in the groundwater isn't due to natural gas. People don't realize how many areas have always had methane in their groundwater. Read this USGS report:
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=4053#.VGfMjmMtCUn
Most oil wells produce some natural gas. Some oil wells produce a lot of natural gas.
With gas wells, the only time that you vent gas is when you are completing the well. Not long, but enough to be a concern. If it is a lot of gas, which can create an explosion hazard, it is normally burned (flared).
With gas wells and modern pipelines, methane releases should not be allowed. This is an area which should be improved. The cost wouldn't be significant, and right now, the biggest drillers do not want a black eye.
An area that I find troubling is that most oil wells produce some natural gas. If it is a "significant" amount, you have to plug that well into a natural gas gathering system; a gas pipeline.
There are old areas that were drilled in the fifties with aging pipelines that can leak. The pipeline companies fix anything that will cause an explosion hazard, but what I'm talking about is wells that produce small amounts of methane.
In most areas, you use the associated natural gas to run the pumping unit. The familiar pumpjack. If you don't have any gas you must use electricity or trucked in propane to run the pumping units. Western Kansas oil wells have basically no natural gas and have to use electricity, which is expensive.
So let's say that your well produces 10,000 cubic feet per day. You use half of it or so to run your pumping unit and the rest is vented. Somebody needs to invent a little tank apparatus that collects this gas and then periodically burns it off in one or two small burps each day. 5 mcf is worth 20 bucks per day, so most gas gatherers charge a fat fee to hook it up to a gathering system, and you would also need to buy a compressor to get it into the gathering system, which hopefully is low pressure. No way can most wells afford that.
So the safest way to deal with it is to burn it. The methane is far worse than the CO2 that will be emitted by burning it off.
My wife knows more about that than I do. Air quality controls that, and it would be a good idea to declare venting methane a no-no.
This isn't really a problem with actual gas wells. All of that gas is gathered and sent to the gas purchaser who owns the pipeline system. However there are many oil wells which do vent a little methane each day. By a little, I mean not enough to cause an explosion hazard (whole valleys exploded back in the twenties, when natural gas was just a nuisance). That small amount may be a significant release of methane.
The real problem isn't domestic when it comes to venting natural gas. In the world's giant oil fields, the natural gas is often just burned or vented.
Iran, for example, sits on some of the biggest gas fields on the planet. You have to compress it to LNG if you want to ship it, but otherwise we can't control what these countries do.
As an aside, Iran is an interesting topic. Iran has been well-explored. The big oil and gas fields have been found, and Iran's production is peaking. Since that is the only source of money for the country, they have been converting their transportation fuel to natural gas. I believe that they have the highest number of NG powered vehicles of any country on the planet. They don't want to use that oil, they want to export it for income. Since they are sitting on truly gigantic natural gas fields with no pipeline market, they made the decision to convert their transportation fuel from oil to natural gas.
Look it up. It is an interesting story. We could do the same, here. The U.S. is at the top of oil and gas production on the planet. We are sitting on huge proven natural gas reserves, and right now prices are so low that drilling has almost stopped.
If Iran can switch to natural gas, why can't we? One reason is that people believe all of this bullshit about fracking.
Fracking is still going on, full blast, all over the country.
|
|
tuolumne_tradster
Trad climber
Leading Edge of North American Plate
|
|
|
Nov 15, 2014 - 09:18pm PT
|
FYI, here is a compilation of papers on US Methane Leakage from Natural Gas Systems by the Chesapeake Climate Action Network
http://chesapeakeclimate.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Summary-of-methane-leakage-studies_061214.pdf
There are two main approaches that scientists and engineers take [to estimate methane leakage]. The first approach is a bottom up modeling of the different processes in the natural gas lifecycle using, usually EPA, emissions factors. Significant concern has begun to arise, however, that the data in the bottom-up approach is based on engineering calculations and/or approximately measured volumes, and has not been comprehensively measured to verify emissions from a wide variety of wells. As such, there has been increasing attention paid to top-down modeling, which takes aggregated data, such as atmospheric methane measurements, and uses models to determine the sources of these gases. In many cases, the top-down measurements have revealed methane concentrations near gas basins that are several orders of magnitude higher than official estimates based on the bottom up approach.
Nearly all of the researchers from industry, government and academia agree that more data is necessary from all stages of the natural gas lifecycle (except during combustion) and that no one is quite sure how much methane is leaking.
|
|
Degaine
climber
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2014 - 06:17am PT
|
bluering wrote:
Bruce, the difference between gov't/Fed corruption and private-sector is the Feds get away with it at tax-payer expense. The private-sector gets sued and, as a result, stops doing it.
On the 2-D Internet tone is sometimes lost in translation, so to speak (or write).
In you're above statement, you're joking, right?
|
|
tuolumne_tradster
Trad climber
Leading Edge of North American Plate
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2014 - 01:28pm PT
|
Limited impact on decadal-scale climate change from increased use of natural gas
Haewon McJeon1, Jae Edmonds1, Nico Bauer2, Leon Clarke1, Brian Fisher3, Brian P. Flannery4, Je´roˆme Hilaire2, Volker Krey5,Giacomo Marangoni6, Raymond Mi3, Keywan Riahi5, Holger Rogner5 & Massimo Tavoni6
1Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, JGCRI, 5825 University Research Court, Suite 3500, College Park, Maryland 20740, USA.
2 Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, PO Box 60 12 03,
D-14412 Potsdam, Germany.
3 BAEconomics, PO Box 5447, Kingston, Australian Capital Territory 2604, Australia.
4Resources for the Future, 1616 P Street Northwest, Washington, DC 20036, USA.
5 International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria. 6 Centro Euromediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici and Politecnico di Milano, Via Lambruschini 4b, 20156 Milan, Italy
| NATURE | VOL 514 | 23 OCTOBER 2014
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7523/pdf/nature13837.pdf
Our results show that although market penetration of globally abundant gas may substantially change the future energy system, it is not necessarily an effective substitute for climate change mitigation policy 9,10
9. Newell, R. G. & Raimi, D. Implications of shale gas development for climate change.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 8360–8368 (2014).
10. Energy Modeling Forum. Changing the game? Emissions and Market Implications of
New Natural Gas Supplies EMF Report 26 (EMF, 2013); https://web.stanford.edu/
group/emf-research/docs/emf26/Summary26.pdf.
In other words, a substantial replacement of conventional fossil fuel energy sources with unconventional natural gas (mainly hydrofracking), without significant conservation measures, will not save us.
|
|
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2014 - 04:21pm PT
|
"The BLM is supposed to sort out high-priority wells and inspect all of them. But the GAO found that, between 2009 and 2012, the regulators failed to inspect more than 2,100 of the 3,702 wells they had flagged as high-priority. Inspecting fewer than 60 percent of high-priority wells is not good enough. Meanwhile, inspectors in the field are often armed with obsolete marching orders because the BLM hasn’t updated some of its drilling standards in decades. And the agency has not coordinated enough with state governments to maximize the number of high-priority wells that get looked at by some authority — whether state or federal."
As I suspected Base; the gold rush mentality has out paced the ability to inspect the work.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/increased-fracking-without-increased-inspections-puts-the-environment-at-risk/2014/06/08/fa4cf002-edb6-11e3-b84b-3393a45b80f1_story.html
|
|
tuolumne_tradster
Trad climber
Leading Edge of North American Plate
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 10:33am PT
|
FracFocus is a voluntary program but without it there is no central repository for this information. Being voluntary means it relies on oil industry full disclosure and transparency without any real hammer for inaccuracies.
FracFocus Fails as Fracking Disclosure Tool, Study Finds
By Jim Polson Apr 23, 2013 2:55 PM PT 1 Comment Email Print
FracFocus, the website used by Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM) and other energy companies to disclose chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, fails as a compliance tool for the 11 states that rely on it, a Harvard Law School study found.
Using the voluntary registry for compliance with state disclosure requirements is “misplaced or premature” because of spotty reporting, lack of a searchable database and an “overly broad” allowance for trade secrets, according to the study published today by the Environmental Law Program at Harvard.
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management should establish basic requirements for disclosure and penalties should apply for failure to report, according to the study. The online registry was created in April 2011 to keep track of chemicals used in fracking, in which producers shoot a mixture of water, sand and chemicals underground to access oil and natural gas in dense rock formations.
“Any state’s ability to make demands on FracFocus is limited,” Kate Konschnik, Margaret Holden and Alexa Shasteen wrote in the report. “The federal government should step into this void and require minimum standards for the disclosure registry.”
Of the 18 states that require companies to disclose chemicals used in fracking, 11 require or allow the reporting to be on FracFocus. The study cited reporting by Bloomberg News and the New York Times.
FracFocus is operated by two groups: the Ground Water Protection Council, a group of state water officials; and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, an association of states that produce the fuels.
“We believe the research done by the Harvard team fails to reflect the true capabilities of the FracFocus system and misrepresents the system’s relationship to state regulatory programs,” the Ground Water Protection Council said in an e- mailed statement.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Nov 17, 2014 - 10:58am PT
|
Since others are giving all due respect to dissenting views, I'll try the same. . .
With all due respect, the arguments I read against fracking boil down usually to the following:
1. Fracking isn't "safe" (meaning that fracking is imperfect); and
2. Fracking, or any other economic activity involving hydrocarbon fuel, is inconsistent with our long-term energy policy.
I think both of the statements above are true (at least as I have defined No. 1), but I find neither statement helpful.
Point 1 merely says that fracking is imperfect. Show me a perfect alternative, and you may have a point. Otherwise, critics of fracking need to compare the advantages and disadvantages of every other option to make valid comparisons.
Point No. 2 ignores the famous dictum of Lord Keynes: "In the long run, we are all dead." The cost of achieving an economy free of hydrocarbon (or at at least fossil) fuels matters in reaching the long-term goal. What gets us there almost certainly differs from what we will need when we arrive. Dismissing fracking - or any other technology providing hydrocarbon extraction - as unnecessary because we won't need it long-term is silly. It's like saying I don't need food to hike the length of the John Muir Trail because there's plenty of food at the end.
Carry on.
John
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!