Shale Gas Review: Global fracking debate: Coming soon to town hall near you Upstate NY localities face fallout from Home Rule decision

August 12, 2014

Shale Gas Review: Global fracking debate: Coming soon to town hall near you Upstate NY localities face fallout from Home Rule decision.

Filed under Bans, Local Control, Municipal tools, Regulation, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking Tagged with bans, comprehensive plan, hydrofracking, local control, NY, town boards, towns, zoning

UNCONVENTIONAL OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT Key Environmental and Public Health Requirements

August 10, 2014

www.gao.gov/assets/650/647782.pdf.

September 2012

GAO-12-874

United States Government Accountability Office

GAOUnited States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-874, a report to congressional requesters

summary chart on pg 51 of regulatory exemptions for O and G development

September 2012

UNCONVENTIONAL OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT

Key Environmental and Public Health Requirements

Why GAO Did This Study

Technological improvements have

allowed the extraction of oil and natural

gas from onshore unconventional

reservoirs such as shale, tight

sandstone, and coalbed methane

formations. Specifically, advances in

horizontal drilling techniques combined

with hydraulic fracturing (pumping

water, sand, and chemicals into wells

to fracture underground rock

formations and allow oil or gas to flow)

have increased domestic development

of oil and natural gas from these

unconventional reservoirs. The

increase in such development has

raised concerns about potential

environmental and public health effects

and whether existing federal and state

environmental and public health

requirements are adequate.

GAO was asked to review

environmental and public health

requirements for unconventional oil

and gas development and (1) describe

federal requirements; (2) describe

state requirements; (3) describe

additional requirements that apply on

federal lands; and (4) identify

challenges, if any, that federal and

state agencies reported facing in

regulating oil and gas development

from unconventional reservoirs. GAO

identified and analyzed federal laws,

state laws in six selected states

(Colorado, North Dakota, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wyoming),

and interviewed federal and state

officials and representatives from

industry, environmental, and public

health organizations.

GAO is not making recommendations.

In commenting on the report, agencies

provided information on recent

regulatory activities and technical

comments.

What GAO Found

As with conventional oil and gas development, requirements from eight federal

environmental and public health laws apply to unconventional oil and gas

development. For example, the Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates discharges of

pollutants into surface waters. Among other things, CWA requires oil and gas

well site operators to obtain permits for discharges of produced water—which

includes fluids used for hydraulic fracturing, as well as water that occurs naturally

in oil- or gas-bearing formations—to surface waters. In addition, the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) governs the management and disposal

of hazardous wastes, among other things. However, key exemptions or

limitations in regulatory coverage affect the applicability of six of these

environmental and public health laws. For example, CWA also generally

regulates stormwater discharges by requiring that facilities associated with

industrial and construction activities get permits, but the law and its regulations

largely exempt oil and gas well sites. In addition, oil and gas exploration and

production wastes are exempt from RCRA hazardous waste requirements based

on a regulatory determination made by the Environmental Protection Agency

(EPA) in 1988. EPA generally retains its authorities under federal environmental

and public health laws to respond to environmental contamination.

All six states in GAO’s review implement additional requirements governing

activities associated with oil and gas development and have updated some

aspects of their requirements in recent years. For example, all six states have

requirements related to how wells are to be drilled and how casing—steel pipe

within the well—is to be installed and cemented in place, though the specifics of

their requirements vary. The states also have requirements related to well site

selection and preparation, which may include baseline testing of water wells

before drilling or stormwater management.

Oil and gas development on federal lands must comply with applicable federal

environmental and state laws, as well as additional requirements. These

requirements are the same for conventional and unconventional oil and gas

development. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oversees oil and gas

development on approximately 700 million subsurface acres. BLM regulations for

leases and permits govern similar types of activities as state requirements, such

as requirements for how operators drill the well and install casing. BLM recently

proposed new regulations for hydraulic fracturing of wells on public lands.

Federal and state agencies reported several challenges in regulating oil and gas

development from unconventional reservoirs. EPA officials reported that

conducting inspection and enforcement activities and having limited legal

authorities are challenges. For example, conducting inspection and enforcement

activities is challenging due to limited information, such as data on groundwater

quality prior to drilling. EPA officials also said that the exclusion of exploration

and production waste from hazardous waste regulations under RCRA

significantly limits EPA’s role in regulating these wastes. In addition, BLM and

state officials reported that hiring and retaining staff and educating the public are

challenges. For example, officials from several states and BLM said that retaining

employees is difficult because qualified staff are frequently offered more money

for private sector positions within the oil and gas industry.

View GAO-12-874. For more information,

contact David C. Trimble at (202) 512-3841 or

trimbled@gao.gov. Page i GAO-12-874 Unconventional Oil and Gas Development

Letter 1

summary chart on pdf pg 51 (p. 44 printed text) of regulatory exemptions for O and G development

;

Table 2: Exemptions or Limitations in Regulatory Coverage for the Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Industry in Six
Environmental Laws
Law Description of exemption or limitation in regulatory coverage Source
Type of program related to
exemption or limitation in
regulatory coverage
Preventive Response
SDWA Hydraulic fracturing with fluids other than diesel fuel does not require a
UIC permit.
Statutory (2005) X
CWA Federal stormwater permits are not required for uncontaminated
stormwater at oil and gas construction sites or at oil and gas well sites.
Statutory (1987,
2005) X
CAA Emissions of hazardous air pollutants from oil and gas wells and their
associated equipment may not be aggregated together or with those of
pipeline compressors or pump stations to determine whether they are
a major source.
Statutory (1990)
X
In the Risk Management Program, many naturally-occurring
hydrocarbons in oil and gas are not included in the threshold
determination of whether a facility should be regulated.
Regulatory/EPA
decision (1988) X
RCRA Oil and gas exploration and production wastes are not regulated as
hazardous waste.
Regulatory/EPA
decision (1988) X
CERCLA Liability and reporting provisions do not apply to injections of fluids
authorized by state law for production, enhanced recovery, or
produced water.
Statutory (1980)
X
EPCRA Oil and gas well operations are not required to report releases of listed
chemicals to the TRI.
Regulatory/EPA
decision (1997) X
Source: GAO.
Note: In some cases, states may have requirements in these areas. State requirements are
discussed in the next section of this report.

Filed under Air Pollution, Environment, Health, Official Actions--Legislation, judgments,regulation, Regulation, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking, Water Tagged with environment, GAO, government report, health impacts, hydrofracking, regulation, Research reports

Blackout in the Gas Patch By Nadia Steinzor, Earthworks’ Oil & Gas Accountability Project

August 7, 2014

www.earthworksaction.org/files/publications/BlackoutReportFINAL.pdf.

Blackout in the Gas Patch

Nadia Steinzor, Earthworks’ Oil & Gas Accountability Project

Data analysis and research provided by Lisa Sumi, environmental research and

science consultant

For more information on this study go to: http://blackout.earthworksaction.org

Filed under Air Pollution, Official Actions--Legislation, judgments,regulation, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking, Waste, Water Tagged with air pollution, DEP, hydrofracking, incompetence, PA, water pollution

Assessment and risk analysis of casing and cement impairment in oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania, 2000–2012 PSE Healthy Energy

July 30, 2014

Physicians Scientists & Engineers for Healthy Energy.

Assessment and risk analysis of casing and cement impairment in oil and gas wells in Pennsylvania, 2000–2012

PSE Healthy Energy

29 July 2014

Anthony R. Ingraffea, Martin T. Wells, Renee L. Santoro, and Seth B. C. Shonkoff


Presentation Outline Background •Definitions of important technical terms •Well casing & cementing, integrity overview Why this study? What this study is, and is not How we did it Summary of findings What next? Download slidedeck

– See more at: http://psehealthyenergy.org/site/view/1220#sthash.h69eMaxH.dpuf

Filed under Environment, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking, Water Tagged with cement, gas wells, hydrofracking, PA, risk

DEP: Oil and gas operations damaged water supplies 209 times since end of ’07

July 22, 2014

DEP: Oil and gas operations damaged water supplies 209 times since end of ’07.

Auditor General of PA says PADEP is deficient and overtaken by shale gas development.

See below:

Here is the audit – http://www.auditorgen.state.pa.us/reports/performance/special/speDEP072114.pdf

Here is a joint press statement from PA coalition – http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/resources/PressReleases/press%20stmnt%20AG%20audit%20website.pdf

Filed under Environment, Shale Gas Development-Hydrofracking, Water Tagged with DEP, drinking water contamination, gas industry, hydrofracking, oil/gas industry, PA

Toward an Evidence-Based Fracking Debate (2013) | Union of Concerned Scientists

July 19, 2014

Toward an Evidence-Based Fracking Debate (2013) | Union of Concerned Scientists.

Center for Science and Democracy

TEXT SIZEA A A

SHARE EMAIL

Toward an Evidence-Based Fracking Debate (2013)

Science, Democracy, and Community Right to Know in Unconventional Oil and Gas Development

DOWNLOAD: Toward an Evidence-Based Fracking Debate (2013) — Executive Summary | Toward an Evidence-Based Fracking Debate (2013) — Full Report

Hydraulic fracturing—better known as fracking—and other technological advances, such as horizontal drilling, have resulted in the rapid expansion of “unconventional” oil and gas extraction.

Communities across the country now face difficult decisions on fracking. Promises of economic growth have led many communities to embrace unconventional oil and gas development, but questions about environmental and health risks, and about the duration and distribution of economic benefits, are causing deep concern.

These decisions become especially challenging when the public lacks reliable information about the impacts of fracking. Inadequate governance, interference in the science, and a noisy public dialogue all create challenges for citizens who want to be informed participants in fracking discussions.

The 2013 Center for Science and Democracy report, “Toward an Evidence-Based Fracking Debate: Science, Democracy, and Community Right to Know in Unconventional Oil and Gas Development,” examines the current state of the science on fracking risk as well as the barriers that prevent citizens from learning what they need to know to help their communities make evidence-based decisions.

A Lack of Transparency

Communities seeking reliable information about fracking often run into barriers:

Most companies do not disclose complete information about the chemicals used in fracking, claiming that this data is proprietary and its disclosure could hurt their business.
Companies have restricted access for scientistsconducting research that is crucial for understanding the impacts of fracking.
Since lawsuits brought by citizens affected by fracking usually end in non-disclosure agreements, data used as evidence in these cases is unavailable to the public or to scientists.

To remove such obstacles, companies should be required to collect and publicly disclose three kinds of data:

Baseline studies of air, water, and soil quality before drilling begins;
Monitoring studies during and after extraction activities;
The chemical composition, volume, and concentration of the chemicals used in their operations.

Such concrete data will enable scientists to quantify risk, empower citizens with reliable information, and help hold polluters accountable.

Misinformation and Interference in the Science

With large profits at stake, it is perhaps not surprising that government and academic research on fracking’s environmental and socioeconomic effects has been subject to interference from political and corporate forces.

The EPA, on multiple recent occasions, has begun to act against industry actors whose fracking activities were found to have caused environmental damage—only to back off in the face of pressure from the companies themselves or sympathetic politicians.

Academic study of fracking, too, has been vulnerable to corporate interference. The University of Texas published a study in 2012 that was strongly criticized after the lead author was revealed to have ties to an energy industry firm. And SUNY Buffalo was forced to close its Shale Resources and Society Institute in response to similar criticism about the relationship of some of its professors to the natural gas industry.

Legal Limitations and Loopholes

One might think that laws like the Clean Water Act, and regulatory agencies like the EPA, would provide adequate protection against possible fracking risks. However, it turns out that federal laws and regulations are full of loopholes and shortcomings. (Perhaps not coincidentally, the industry spent $750 million on lobbying and political contributions between 2001 and 2011.)

Most fracking operations are exempt from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act and parts of the Clean Water Act thanks to a provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 commonly known as the “Halliburton loophole” (because former Halliburton CEO—and then Vice President—Richard Cheney chaired the task force that recommended the exemptions).
The Bureau of Land Management in May 2013 released revised regulations to address such exemptions on public and tribal lands, but the new regulations again have troubling loopholes regarding chemical disclosure.
State and local governments have attempted to fill the regulatory gap, but the result is a patchwork of old and new rules varying from state to state, with important protections often absent.

Empowering the Public

Community members looking for answers on fracking must navigate a noisy and often misleading information landscape. To maximize the chance of finding reliable information, citizens should:

Seek out objective sources. Government sources usually provide objective information. Government websites can be hard to find, however; try using the phrase “hydraulic fracturing” rather than “fracking” in a web search. Another potential source of objective information is the insurance industry, which relies on factual information and accurate risk assessment.

Carefully navigate media sources. The public should look for stories that neither stoke nor dismiss concerns, but accurately represent the work scientists are doing and explain, without exaggerating, the complex relationship between uncertainty and risk.

Watch out for misinformation. Citizens must carefully navigate through messages from fracking stakeholders. Misinformation rarely takes the form of outright falsehoods; instead it may appear as half-truths, exaggerations, omissions and misrepresentations. Stakeholders on both sides may skip over nuances, uncertainties, limitations and caveats in scientific studies in their eagerness to use the research as evidence supporting their views.

Community Right to Know

The public has a right to reliable information:

about the likely impacts (negative and positive) of unconventional oil and gas development on their community;
about the uncertainties and limitations of our scientific knowledge;
about what is covered by regulations—as well as what isn’t, but should be.

Ultimately, citizens need to be empowered with the information they need to make informed decisions about unconventional oil and gas development in their communities.

A Toolkit for Community Decision Making

Along with this report, we have developed a toolkit for active citizens and policy makers faced with decisions about unconventional oil and gas development in their communities. By providing practical advice and resources, the toolkit helps citizens identify critical questions to ask, and obtain the scientific information they need to weigh the prospects and risks in order to make the best decisions for their community.

To read or print the toolkit, go towww.ucsusa.org/HFtoolkit.