Shale Gas and Hydraulic Fracturing Debate

Shale Gas and Oil Drilling and the Debate Over Hydraulic Fracturing

By Cliff Foster
and Mary Winter Freelance researchers, writers, and editors

Key Points:

Many observers regard the recent shale gas and oil surges as a “game changer” for the U.S. economy, creating new jobs and spin-off industries, fattening tax coffers, driving down energy prices, and moving the nation closer to energy independence.

Concerns about the environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing have grown along with its rapid expansion. Critics maintain that the industry is drilling without fully evaluating the effects on water, air, and community life and without adequate oversight. The industry responds that shale gas development is by and large safe, and that companies are stepping up efforts to minimize their environmental footprint.

A major focus in the shale gas debate is on fracturing fluid, which is 99.5 percent water and sand. The remaining 0.5 percent is chemicals, some of them found in household products and others carcinogenic and potentially hazardous.

Industry supporters say there is no proof that fracturing fluids cause groundwater contamination. Environmental groups counter that hydraulic fracturing is the prime suspect in a number of instances of polluted drinking water.

Some experts have concluded that faulty well construction, surface spills and waste disposal pose the greatest potential risks to water. Air pollution in heavily drilled areas is also a growing concern.

The debate over hydraulic fracturing has sparked increased governmental oversight at the local, state and federal levels. Recently, the Environmental Protection Agency issued the first federal air standards for hydraulically fractured wells and is conducting a major study of the effects of fracturing on drinking water.

The energy industry has taken steps to address environmental and other issues, adopting improved drilling techniques and safety measures, developing best management practices, and agreeing to more disclosure of fracturing fluid chemicals.

July 2012

Shale Gas Drilling and the Debate
Over Hydraulic Fracturing

Advances in the technology used to extract oil and natural gas from shale deposits are revolutionizing the U.S. energy industry. Tens of thousands of new wells have been drilled from the Northeast to the Pacific, applying a technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Along with the boom have come jobs, spin-off industries, fattened tax coffers and even talk of finally achieving energy independence.

But this surge in drilling activity is accompanied by controversy. As energy companies tap vast new shale gas and oil deposits, they are met by opponents who worry about the impact on water and air quality, public health, property values and community life. Their calls for greater government oversight, particularly by Washington, have created uncertainty in the market and pushback by industry.

Much like the passionate disagreement over global warming, the debate about hydraulic fracturing is fueled by disputed research, heated rhetoric, conflicting media reports and questions about whether government regulations go too far or not far enough. Critics maintain that the industry is drilling without fully evaluating the environmental impacts and without adequate oversight. The industry responds that shale gas development is by and large safe and that companies are stepping up efforts to minimize their footprint.

The three objectives of this report are to identify the key environmental issues of shale gas development, to reflect the viewpoints of supporters and critics of hydraulic fracturing, and to explore evolving regulatory initiatives and best management practices that hold promise in making the industry more eco-friendly. Our aim is not to takes sides but to report as objectively as possible the highlights of the debate.

Many observers regard hydraulic fracturing as a “game changer” for the U.S. economy – but one with risks. As a recent report by the Energy Project of the non-profit Bipartisan Policy Center put it, “While new shale gas resources provide exceptional opportunities for the country, the environmental challenges are clear. Fortunately, however, they are not insurmountable.”[1]

Shale gas development

Hydraulic fracturing was first used in 1947 in an oil well in Grant County, Kan. Today, it is estimated that 90 percent of wells in the United States have undergone fracturing.[2] The marriage of fracturing with horizontal drilling in the early 2000s made extraction from shale, coal beds, and tight sands formations economically feasible.[3] “Without these techniques, natural gas does not flow to the well rapidly, and commercial quantities cannot be produced from shale,” according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Analysts at the EIA estimate that shale gas production will increase from 23 percent of total U.S. dry gas production in 2010 to 49 percent in 2035.[4] Some estimates suggest that U.S. gas resources could support as much as 100 years of domestic demand at present consumption levels.[5]

Fracturing involves the high-pressure injection of a fluid, usually water mixed with sand and small amounts of chemicals, into shale formations that are typically 6,000 to 14,000 feet underground.[6] The fluid opens hairline fractures in the shale where gas is trapped. Sand is carried into the fractures by the fluid and keeps the cracks open, allowing the gas to escape and be captured on the surface. A portion of the fracturing fluid flows back up the well and is stored in tanks or lined pits and eventually reused or disposed of in underground injection wells authorized under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.

Exploration of shale formations in Arkansas, Colorado, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, New York, West Virginia, Texas, Louisiana and elsewhere has brought drilling to many communities unaccustomed to energy development. In response, activists in some places have tried to stop or restrict drilling, and their concerns are reflected daily in headlines, TV newscasts and on the Internet. The extensive media coverage has fueled the public debate, framed the discussion and influenced policy. By the end of 2011, Time magazine had declared hydraulic fracturing the “biggest environmental issue of the year.”[7]Drilling for oil and gas does pose environmental risks, but the industry insists that these risks are manageable. That said, drilling can raise ozone and greenhouse gas levels, and hydraulic fracturing can cause minor earthquakes, the U.S. Geological Survey says.[8] Faulty well construction, accidental spills, and poor waste-management methods have the potential to contaminate drinking water sources. The environmental group Earthworks said in a report that “there are a number of cases in the U.S. where hydraulic fracturing is the prime suspect in incidences of impaired or polluted drinking water,”[9] though the Ground Water Protection Council, an association of regulatory agencies, says there is no concrete proof of fracturing fluids causing groundwater contamination.[10]

Hydraulic fracturing and water use

Much of the environmental debate centers on water. The amount of water needed to fracture a well varies by the type of formation being tapped, among other factors. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that water use in shale gas plays range from two million to four million gallons per fracturing job. Still, the amounts “are relatively modest in comparison to other uses of water, including industrial, agricultural and recreational purposes,” as noted by the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Energy Project in its January 2012 report. A recent Carnegie Mellon University study indicates that the region encompassing the enormous Marcellus Shale, which stretches across New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Ohio and Maryland, has plenty of water. [11] However, water availability is a major concern in drought-prone regions of the country, where various interests – cities, farms, businesses — compete for threatened supplies.[12] In a Dec. 6, 2011 report, the Wall Street Journal cited industry officials saying that access to enough water is the biggest challenge to future shale gas development. The issue isn’t confined to thirsty regions of the Southwest. North Dakota, which sits on part of the oil-rich Bakken Formation, is also concerned about aquifer depletion, and Louisiana has passed a law to regulate what it calls the industry’s “unprecedented use of enormous amounts of water.”[13]

In water-hungry areas, particularly where the potential for conflict exists, “the feasibility of using brackish water, water reuse, or other alternatives that minimize freshwater supply withdrawals should be encouraged,” the National Ground Water Association, an international water managers trade group, advises.[14]

A debate over semantics

A key source of friction between the drilling industry and its critics centers on the word “fracking” and whether this technique poses a direct and widespread threat to communities’ drinking water supplies.

Environmentalists and the media, among others, often use the term “fracking” to describe hydraulic fracturing as well as related activities. The energy business prefers to define the term “hydraulic fracturing” as the act of blasting fluids deep underground to crack open the shale deposits. This definition is the basis for the industry’s contention that it’s virtually impossible for fracturing fluid to migrate thousands of feet through impermeable rock to reach relatively shallow drinking water supplies.[15]

“There have been over a million wells hydraulically fractured in the history of the industry, and there is not one, not one, reported case of a freshwater aquifer having ever been contaminated from hydraulic fracturing. Not one,” Rex W. Tillerson, the chief executive officer of ExxonMobil, told a 2010 congressional hearing on drilling.[16]

Critics see it differently. They have “taken to lumping all shale gas production under the banner ‘fracking,’ ” Greenwire’s Mike Soraghan wrote in a May 13, 2011 article in The New York Times.[17] Critics say fracturing fluids can infiltrate water sources via spills, blowouts, material and design flaws in wells and leakage from wastewater storage pits. They also maintain that when industry officials insist an aquifer has never been contaminated by hydraulic fracturing, they are playing word games – but the industry says the same thing about the vocabulary of its opponents.

Soraghan believes that semantics muddles the debate. “Both drilling critics and supporters use the confusion to their advantage,” he writes. “The result is that the two sides often talk past one another when discussing the environmental consequences of oil and gas production from shale formations.”

More study needed

In 2004 the EPA released its controversial study on the impact of hydraulic fracturing on water supplies. The study concluded that the injection of fracturing fluids “poses little or no threat” to underground sources of drinking water and “does not justify additional study at this time” — findings the industry touts.[18] But critics maintain that the EPA study was flawed, and a subsequent report by the online investigative news site, ProPublica, citing EPA documents, said the agency “negotiated directly with the gas industry in reaching those conclusions” and ignored evidence of contamination.[19] Investigations of several recent incidents have led to similarly contested conclusions.

In 2009, environmental investigators for the state of Pennsylvania reported that faulty wells drilled by Cabot Oil and Gas Corp. led to methane-gas contamination of 18 residential water wells in the rural town of Dimock in the northeastern part of the state. The company paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, though it said the methane occurred naturally and was not connected to drilling.[20] The highly publicized case became a rallying point for activists across the nation. Recently, the EPA conducted more tests of private wells and concluded the water was safe, though critics disputed the findings.[21]

On June 3, 2010, a gas well blowout in Clearfield County, Pa., sent at least 35,000 gallons of wastewater and natural gas spewing into the air for 16 hours. An independent investigation released by the state’s Department of Environmental Protection found “untrained personnel and the failure to use proper well control procedures were the principal causes” of the accident.[22]

In December 2011, the EPA announced preliminary findings of another study in heavily drilled Pavillion, Wyo., where residents had long complained of brown, foul-smelling water. The EPA said testing showed that groundwater contained compounds which were “likely associated with gas production practices, including hydraulic fracturing,” but that further study was needed.[23] An industry group said the preliminary results rest “on conclusions that are fundamentally flawed.”[24] Environmental groups defended the agency’s work and called for further investigation, which is under way.[25]

Another major EPA fracturing-related water quality study is in progress at seven sites in five states. But it won’t be finished for two years and, if history is any guide, it will be criticized by whomever is unhappy with its results. And the scientific community remains far from agreement. As scientist Bill Chameides of Duke University wrote in his blog on Jan. 10, 2012: “Does fracking undermine drinking water? This is a huge question with only a tiny bit of data — enough to raise some questions, but not enough to provide definitive answers.” [26]

Well construction and pollution

A number of experts have concluded that faulty well construction and surface spills pose the greatest potential risk to water.

“Some energy companies, state regulators, academics and environmentalists are reaching consensus that natural-gas drilling has led to several incidents of water pollution—but not because of fracking,” the Wall Street Journal reported in March 2012. “The energy officials and some environmentalists agree that poorly built wells are to blame for some cases of water contamination.”[27]

A February 2012 report by the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin also implicated faulty wells. It concluded that hydraulic fracturing has no direct connection to groundwater contamination, but that many problems attributed to it have other causes, such as “casing failures or poor cement jobs.” A UT Austin news release added that many reports of contamination “can be traced to above ground spills or other mishandling of wastewater produced from shale gas drilling rather than from hydraulic fracturing.”[28]

A water contamination incident in Bradford County, Pa., supports this theory. The Wall Street Journal reported that a state investigation concluded that faulty well construction, before any fracturing took place, allowed natural gas to leak from pipes into groundwater. Chesapeake Energy Corp paid $900,000 in fines to the state, but in a news release last May, it said the investigation was “inconclusive.”[29]

The fracturing fluid recipe

A major focus in the shale gas debate is on the makeup of fracturing fluids, which include a host of chemicals, some of them found in household products and others carcinogenic and potentially hazardous.

Each company’s formulations vary slightly in accordance with the drilling site’s geology, the well’s depth and the time of year. The industry points out that water and sand typically account for 99.5 percent of fracturing fluid. But Earthworks notes that “when millions of gallons of water are being used… the amount of chemicals per fracking operation is very large.”[30]

Environmentalists and others have long called for public disclosure of fracturing fluid recipes, and in August 2011, a coalition of more than 100 public health and environmental groups from 23 states asked the EPA to require toxicity testing on the chemicals used in fracturing, among other requests.[31]

“Manufacturers, processors, and distributors place substantial quantities of E&P [exploration and production] chemicals into commerce without first disclosing the chemicals’ identity, toxicity, or health and environmental impacts,” the groups wrote. “Chemical manufacturers and processors are, moreover, under no obligation to conduct toxicity testing or to develop or provide health and safety data for E&P chemicals. As a result, the public lacks adequate information to evaluate the risks of harm to health and the environment posed by exposure to E&P chemicals.”

Also in 2011, a survey of 14 oil and gas companies by the minority Democratic staff of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce indicated that between 2005 and 2009, the companies used more than 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 chemicals and other components. Some of the components were harmless, such as salt and citric acid, “and some were extremely toxic, such as benzene and lead.”[32]

The staff, including those working for sponsors of a chemical disclosure bill in Congress, concluded that while shale gas could be an important stepping stone to a clean energy future, “questions about the safety of hydraulic fracturing persist, which are compounded by the secrecy surrounding the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids.”

But the secrecy cited by the committee staff is giving way to more transparency. Reflecting the growing national concern, several states require energy companies to list their fracturing fluid ingredients online, and shale gas producers can voluntarily disclose them at a public website, FracFocus.org. Some critics argue that loopholes allow drillers to continue to conceal certain ingredients, but others say the websites and new laws are steps in the right direction.

Disposal and storage of wastewater

From 10 to 40 percent of the fluids injected into a well during fracturing returns through the well bore to the surface. The wastewater, also called flowback or produced water, contains drilling chemicals, heavy salts and, at times, naturally occurring radioactive material from deep underground.[33]

Disposal methods for flowback vary, and each has challenges.

Increasingly, drillers are recycling wastewater, which cuts down on the use of fresh water and reduces waste disposal. But some recycling methods still leave a toxic sludge that can pollute drinking water and harm aquatic life if it gets into waterways.[34]

Wastewater is also temporarily stored in holding tanks or in open-air pits. But the pits can overflow in heavy rain, potentially contaminating streams and other surface water sources, and the lining can tear, which can allow wastewater to seep into the ground.[35]

In many states, drillers inject wastewater deep underground, below impermeable rock layers, in non-potable saline aquifers. Pennsylvania drillers, until 2011, often sent their wastewater to water-treatment plants, where the toxins settled into sludge to be trucked to landfills. The salts, radium and chemicals that remained in the treated water were diluted when mixed into rivers. But in February 2011, The New York Times reported the discharge from at least 12 sewage-treatment plants in three states, including Pennsylvania, was only partially treated before being released into waterways. An industry official told the newspaper that low levels of radioactivity in the discharge posed no health threat.[36]

In April 2011, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection asked Marcellus gas drillers to stop sending wastewater to treatment plants, and the vast majority complied and now recycle most of their wastewater on site or send it to nearby states for underground injection. But the Associated Press reported in February 2012 that “78 million gallons of drilling wastewater from non-Marcellus wells were still being sent to treatment plans that discharge into rivers in the second half of 2011.”[37]

Air emissions, greenhouse gases and pollution

One rare point of agreement between environmentalists and the energy industry has been that natural gas burns much more cleanly than oil or coal. Environmentalists see it as a big step toward reducing global warming and a bridge fuel to alternative energy sources such as wind and solar.

But unhealthy levels of air pollution in heavily drilled areas are a growing concern.[38]

Roughly 13,000 new and existing natural gas wells are fractured or re-fractured each year, according to the EPA, which recently issued rules to control air pollution. “As those wells are being prepared for production, they emit volatile organic compounds, which contribute to smog formation, and air toxics, including benzene and hexane, which can cause cancer and other serious health effects,” the agency said.[39]

High air pollution levels have been recorded in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado.[40] In March 2012, University of Colorado School of Public Health scientists released results of a three-year study of wells near Battlement Mesa, Colo., showing that “air pollution caused by hydraulic fracturing may contribute to acute and chronic health problems for those living near natural gas drilling sites.” Exposure to hydrocarbons could cause eye irritation, headaches, sore throat and difficulty breathing, the scientists said. “We also calculated higher cancer risks for residents living nearer to the wells as compared to those residing further [away],” the report said.[41]

Energy In Depth, a research and education initiative launched by the Independent Petroleum Association of America, called the study “unquestionably flawed.” It said some data were collected before Colorado had imposed stronger air quality regulations in 2009, that the cancer risk cited in the study is “in line with or even well below the risk for the entire U.S. population,” and that some air samples were taken relatively close to an interstate where benzene is emitted from vehicles.[42]

Even the conventional wisdom that natural gas has a smaller carbon footprint than coal or oil has been challenged. In May 2011, Cornell University scientists caused an uproar when they postulated that shale gas extraction contributes more to global warming than conventional gas development, coal mining or oil drilling.[43] The study’s methodology was criticized by some academics as well as industry spokesmen.[44]

Earthquakes, noise and traffic

Earthquakes have increased in recent years in areas where gas and oil are extracted, but the reasons are not fully understood.

Hydraulic fracturing may have caused two minor quakes about 50 miles south of Oklahoma City in January 2011, according to a seismologist cited in an April 2012 New York Times article. But quakes in central Arkansas since 2010, the newspaper reported, have not been linked to fracturing but to the injection of wastewater into deep underground wells, where the wastewater may have migrated into an unmapped fault, the newspaper reported.[45] Ohio officials reached a similar conclusion after a series of small quakes near Youngstown in 2011, promoting new state disposal regulations.[46]

The United States Geological Survey website states that while fracturing can cause earthquakes, “they are almost always too small to be a safety concern.” However, it says, the injection of wastewater into deep wells “can cause earthquakes that are large enough to be felt and may cause damage,” [47]

In an April 2012 report, the USGS said an increase in earthquakes in Arkansas and Oklahoma “are almost certainly manmade,” but added that “it remains to be determined how they are related to either changes in extraction methodologies or the rate of oil and gas production.”[48] EnergyWire, in the meantime, reported that leading geologists in Oklahoma and Colorado have criticized USGS scientists, saying they jumped prematurely to the conclusion that all of the tremors could be manmade.[49]

The Ground Water Protection Council, made up of state officials who enforce ground water and underground injection regulations, says studies have indicated that deep-well injection over prolonged periods of time and in large volumes may cause small earthquakes but notes this is unrelated to the drilling, treating and production of gas wells.[50]

Other downsides of shale gas drilling are noise, traffic, dust, wear and tear on infrastructure, bright lights, chemical odors and wildlife habitat disruptions. Communities in energy-producing states are often accustomed to the activity, but as drilling operations move closer to urban areas, complaints about quality-of-life issues and property devaluation have increased.

Some communities have passed ordinances restricting drillers’ hours, and others have billed energy companies for road damage.[51] Increasingly, the industry is policing itself and taking good-neighbor steps such as erecting sound walls around drilling sites, adding landscaping and limiting operations after dark.[52]

Concerns bring action

Oil and gas development is regulated at the local, state and federal levels of government. The surge in hydraulic fracturing and the accompanying environmental concerns have sparked even greater oversight. The National Conference of State Legislatures says at least 136 bills related to hydraulic fracturing had been introduced in statehouses in 24 states as of February 2012.[53]

The federal government has launched studies that could lead to additional regulation, and two bills before Congress call for more oversight, while another proposal would keep Washington at bay. Industry, too, has taken action, improving its drilling techniques across the board over the last decade.[54] Companies and trade groups continue to develop “best practices” for shale gas development and have agreed to more disclosure of fracturing fluid chemicals, though not as much as some observers would like.

States have the lead role in regulating oil and gas development. They enforce their own laws and administer federal requirements, though natural gas drilling companies are exempt from parts of at least 7 of 15 federal environmental laws.[55]

All energy-producing states have regulations designed to protect the environment from drilling, but most do not have specific rules addressing hydraulic fracturing. Regulators argue that effective rules are in place for the entire menu of drilling activity. Still, “regulatory gaps remain in many states, including the areas of well casing and cementing, water withdrawal and usage, and waste storage and disposal,” according to a report by the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin.[56]

An organization that helps states close gaps in their regulatory framework is the nonprofit State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations (STRONGER). States can voluntarily submit their rules for a STRONGER review by teams made up of representatives of states, industry and environmental/public interest groups. A STRONGER review basically notes what the state is doing well on the regulatory front and what it could do better.[57]

“We do believe the states do a good job in developing and carrying out regulations that protect,” said Ben Grunewald, associate director of the Ground Water Protection Council who serves as a spokesman for STRONGER.

But some environmentalists don’t see it that way. In reaction to a bill in Congress that would affirm states’ authority over hydraulic fracturing, Jennifer Krill, executive director of Earthworks, said, “The facts on the ground show us that state regulation of hydraulic fracturing is woefully inadequate.”[58]

One state receiving a good deal of attention is New York, which sits on part of the gas-rich Marcellus Shale. High-volume hydraulic fracturing in the Empire State has been on hold while the N.Y. Department of Environmental Conservation reviews state regulations and its environmental impact statement. Among other things, proposed rules would prohibit high-volume fracturing in the New York City and Syracuse watersheds, on the state’s primary aquifers and within 500 feet of their boundaries, and on certain state land, and would impose conditions on well casings, waste disposal and emissions.[59]

The regulations attracted some 60,000 comments as of February 2012.[60] Department of Environmental Conservation Commissioner Joe Martens said in April the review will likely extend through the summer and that there is no deadline for a decision on whether high-volume fracturing will be allowed.[61]

Neighboring Pennsylvania has a long history of oil and gas production and laws governing drilling, but until recently it had “practically no existing regulations that specifically targeted recovery through hydraulic fracturing,” according to a 2011 report by the Haynes and Boone law firm. New rules, which took effect Feb. 5, 2011, are designed to strengthen regulations on well casing and design and the requirement that drillers replace water supplies they contaminate.[62]

Like Pennsylvania, Colorado has a long history of energy development. The state amended its rules in 2008 to, among other things, address well construction and minimize the chance that fracturing fluids will leak into groundwater. Other rules impose setbacks to protect public drinking water supplies and govern the storage and containment of waste fluids.[63] The state also requires drillers to disclose chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluids and their concentrations – a rule called the most comprehensive of its kind in the nation.[64] Even though state governments have the primary authority over oil and gas development, local communities have also gotten into the act. The anti-fracking environmental group Food & Water Watch counts dozens of local initiatives to regulate or ban fracturing.[65] A state court judge in West Virginia recently overturned a proposed ban in Morgantown, ruling that the state Department of Environmental Protection has exclusive control over drilling.[66] However, at least two judges in New York have upheld local bans on natural gas drilling.[67]

Washington reacts

On April 13, 2012 President Obama issued an executive order to create an Interagency Working Group to Support Safe and Responsible Development of Unconventional Domestic Natural Gas Resources. The group, made up of representatives from at least 13 federal agencies, is charged with fostering cooperation among agencies; coordinating the sharing of scientific, environmental, and related technical and economic information; and promoting interagency communication with stakeholders, among other goals.[68]

The White House announcement was quickly followed by the EPA’s first federal air standards for hydraulically fractured wells, a response to a lawsuit brought by environmental groups. Companies will have to employ a process called “green completions” using equipment that captures gas that comes up during flowback thereby reducing smog-producing volatile organic compounds and air toxics. The rules also would trim emissions of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Many companies are using green completions voluntarily and some states require the technique.[69] However, in response to industry concerns that not enough equipment is available to comply right away, the new rules won’t take effect until 2015.[70]

The EPA is also moving on other fronts, including taking steps to set wastewater discharge standards [71] and issuing permitting guidance on the use of diesel fuel in fracturing.[72] But most eyes are focused on the EPA’s five-state “lifecycle” study of the relationship between fracturing and water quality.

The EPA says the study, which won’t be finished until 2014, is designed to provide answers to five major questions about the effects of fracturing on drinking water: (1) What are the potential impacts of large volume water withdrawals from ground and surface waters? (2) What are the possible impacts of surface spills on or near well pads of hydraulic fracturing fluids? (3) What are the possible impacts of the injection and fracturing process on drinking water resources? (4) What are the possible impacts of surface spills on or near well pads of flowback and produced water? (5) And what are the possible impacts of inadequate treatment of hydraulic fracturing wastewaters?[73]

Congress and the Department of Interior also have waded into the debate.

The Department of Interior proposes that drillers on federal land reveal hydraulic fracturing chemicals and their concentration, “with appropriate protections for proprietary information.”[74]

On Capitol Hill, the “Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act,” also known as the “FRAC Act,” would also require disclosure and repeal an exemption of hydraulic fracturing in the Safe Drinking Water Act.[75] One of the FRAC Act sponsors in the House, Rep. Jared Polis, (D-Colo.), has also introduced the BREATHE Act (The Bringing Reductions to Energy’s Airborne Toxic Health Effects Act) that Polis said would close two drilling exemptions in the Clean Air Act.[76]

On the flip side, Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, has introduced the Fracturing Regulations are Effective in State Hands Act (FRESH Act), which asserts that states have the sole authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing within their borders.[77]

Barry Russell, president and CEO of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, expressed his group’s support of the FRESH Act, saying it affirms that “regulation remains with the states” and “would end the unnecessary and counterproductive actions by federal agencies to complicate regulation of fracturing through the creation of new federal permitting requirements.”[78] Krill, of Earthworks, had a different take: “Given what we know about the inadequacy of state regulation of fracking, the potentially unconstitutional FRESH Act will enshrine the status quo—an oil and gas industry that threatens the health and well-being of communities that live near drilling on public lands and forests.”

A push for best practices

In March 2011, the Obama administration’s “Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future” directed the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB) to establish a shale gas production subcommittee with a mandate to identify ways “to improve the safety and environmental performance of fracking.”[79]

The subcommittee’s 90-day report, issued in August 2011, contained what The Washington Post characterized as a “qualified endorsement of shale gas exploration” along with 20 recommendations.[80] They included a call to reduce air and water pollution and for industry to continue to develop and implement best practices. The subcommittee issued a second report measuring implementation of its recommendations in November.

The American Petroleum Institute, which represents more than 500 oil and natural gas companies, has published best practices for fracturing that it says meet or exceed federal requirements “while remaining flexible enough to accommodate the variations in state regulatory frameworks that often occur due to fundamental differences in regional geology and other factors.”[81] In June 2011, Shell Oil Company publicly released its “Onshore Tight/Shale Oil and Gas Operating Principles,” which cover safety, water, air, footprint impacts and community engagement.[82]

A leading source of best practices is the Environmentally Friendly Drilling Systems program (EFD), managed by the Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC). Started in 2005 with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy, the EFD’s mission is “to identify, develop and transfer critical, cost effective new technologies that can provide policy makers and industry with the ability to develop U.S. domestic reserves in a safe and environmentally friendly manner.” The EFD partnership includes environmental organizations, universities, state and federal agencies, government laboratories, and industry. [83]

The group supports a database of best practices for the western slope of the Rocky Mountains through the Natural Resources Law Center at the University of Colorado Boulder and is helping to set up a similar resource for the eastern United States, said Rich Haut, a senior research scientist at the HARC and director of the EFD.[84] The program also identifies and promotes field tests of environmentally friendly technologies.

To cut back on fresh water use, recycling of flowback for reuse “is really gaining traction” among companies, Haut said.[85] Apache Corp. and partner Encana, which are drilling for natural gas in the Horn River Basin in British Columbia, have taken the trend a step further. They tapped into the salty Debolt aquifer and built a treatment plant so that the non-potable water can be used in their operations, reducing the fresh water use by 80 percent.[86]

Similarly, a company called GasFrac has developed a process that uses liquefied petroleum gas instead of water in the fracturing process.[87] Halliburton has come up with a fracturing fluid system called CleanStim “made with ingredients sourced from the food industry.”[88] In the Piceance Basin in western Colorado, the Williams company uses high-pressure lines to carry hydraulic fracturing fluid from a central location to multiple wells, reducing emissions and road wear by trucks, lessening wildlife disturbance, and significantly trimming the size of drilling pads.[89]

A study by researchers at Utah State University and Sam Houston State provides some insight on companies’ motivations to improve. A variety of reasons encourage environmental innovations, including advancements in engineering and technology, financial savings, better public relations, the prospect of greater government oversight, a change in corporate culture, and the “sincere sense of responsibility to local communities.”[90]

Public pressure to adopt best practices may also come from large consumers of natural gas. According to Haut, a Texas electric utility, which he declined to name, intends to survey its suppliers about the utility’s efforts to minimize the environmental impact of drilling and may incorporate a requirement for best practices into their contracts.

In Haut’s view, a big challenge is making concern for the environment as much a part of energy exploration culture as safety.

“There’s variation among companies and I believe that there is variation within a company. One of the items we’re trying to push forward is how do you get into the mindset of the employees all the way from the boardroom to the field hand about environmental awareness? Corporations have done a really great job concerning safety issues…now let’s push and get environmental awareness up there and social issues up there as well.”

“The public isn’t going to believe ‘just trust us, we’re going to take care of it’….and with the social media the way it is…there’s got to be a different approach compared to what it was 20 years ago.”

Chris Tucker, team lead for Energy In Depth, cites technological breakthroughs, new standards, and the entry of large, responsible companies into the shale gas market as trends that will build public confidence, though local concerns about drilling-related noise and traffic will continue.

“I think there’s been a broad recognition at least on our side that [natural gas development] is a huge opportunity,” he said. “We want to get it right and there’s going to be…a winnowing of this industry in some ways because the price of entry to do it right is higher now.” He added, “I think that’s also going to promote better actors getting involved.”[91]

Charlie Montgomery, energy organizer for the Colorado Environmental Coalition, doesn’t expect controversy to disappear in the next few years. “We’re seeing a lot of people who are getting very, very concerned about fracking, and they are just beginning to get organized,” he said.[92]

In addition to air and water concerns, people living near drilling activity worry that it lowers property values, Montgomery said. Many residents atop Colorado’s Niobrara Formation, for example, want drilling setbacks of 1,000 feet or more, he said, but the industry prefers the current setbacks of 150 feet in rural areas and 350 feet in suburban areas.

Montgomery urges energy companies to see “things from the homeowner’s perspective,” and to acknowledge drilling’s environmental impact, even if studies don’t conclusively prove damage. “To say ‘The results aren’t in, so we really don’t need to worry about that,’ (is) the wrong way to go. It’s better for the industry to talk to citizens and take their concerns seriously and not dismiss them” because data is incomplete, Montgomery said.

Conclusion

The contentious debate about hydraulic fracturing is inevitable, given the high stakes for the environment, for the industry and for the economy. Indeed, public policy-makers must strive to strike a balance between energy development and environmental protection. The energy department’s subcommittee noted shale gas currently accounts for nearly 30 percent of the total domestic natural gas production.[93] And this share is likely to continue to grow. The new drilling boom has brought lower energy prices, more jobs and the prospect of enhanced national security.

“But the growth has also brought questions about whether both current and future production can be done in an environmentally sound fashion that meets the needs of public trust,” it said. “Adverse environmental impacts need to be prevented, reduced and, where possible, eliminated as soon as possible. Absent effective control, public opposition will grow, thus putting continued production at risk,” the subcommittee warned.

But the group also sounded a hopeful note: “There are many reasons to be optimistic that continuous improvement of shale gas production in reducing existing and potential undesirable impacts can be a cooperative effort among the public, companies in the industry, and regulators.”^[94]

[1] http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/BPC%20Shale%20Gas%20Paper.pdf

[2] http://www.energyindepth.org/PDF/Hydraulic-Fracturing-3-E%27s.pdf

[3] http://www.oilandgasbmps.org/resources/water_quality.php

[4] http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/executive_summary.cfm

[5] http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/BPC%20Shale%20Gas%20Paper.pdf

[6] http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/publications/brochures/Shale_Gas_March_2011.pdf

[7] http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2101745_2102309_2102323,00.html

[8] http://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/faq/?faqID=357

[9] http://www.earthworksaction.org/files/publications/DrinkingWaterAtRisk.pdf

[10] Correspondence with the Ground Water Protection Council

[11] http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/coal-oil-gas/top-10-myths-about-natural-gas-drilling-6386593#slide

[12] http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/BPC%20Shale%20Gas%20Paper.pdf