Slide 1
Hydraulic Fracturing Myths and Maneuvers
Presented by Cindy Bishop
1Society of Texas Environmental Professionals MeetingJanuary 10,
2012
1
Hydraulic Fracturing: Myths and ManeuversHydraulic Fracturing
101What is it?Why do we care?Whats the problem?Regulations Whos on
First?TexasEPA Myths (Studies)ManeuversUS v. Range Production
CompanyMaryland v. Chesapeake Energy Corp. Town of Dish v. Atmos
Energy, et al.
2
2
General Steps Obtain water sourceWell constructionFracingWaste
disposal
FracingLiquid pressureFissuresPropping agentFlowback water
3What is Hydraulic Fracturing (Fracing)?
3
4
4
5Natural gas heats of US homesNatural gas fuels more than 20% of
annual electricity productionNatural gas use will increase as coal
plants are retired20% of U.S. gas supply will be from shale gas by
2020Why do we care?
5
NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION BY SOURCE (TCF/YEAR) It is projected that
shale gas will comprise over 20% of the total US gas supply by 2020
(EPA)6
Since 2003 15,675 gas wells drilled and fracked in North
Texas2,000 wells in Fort Worth7Effect Locally
8
About 1/3 flowback liquid returnsDisposal wellSurface
impoundmentLand surface9Wastewater Disposal
10Waste Disposal Surface Impoundment
11WHATS THE PROBLEM?
Natural Gas in Well WaterWhats the Problem?
13April 11, 2011
14Water for fracingFracingChemicals in frac waterMethane
releaseDisposal of flowback waterAir emissionsNoise, light,
odorEarthquakesWhats the Problem?
DRAFT Hydraulic Fracturing Study PlanFebruary 7, 2011-- Science
Advisory Board Review --Water Use in HydraulicFundamental Research
QuestionFracturing OperationsWater AcquisitionChemical MixingWell
Injection Flowback andProduced WaterWastewater Treatmentand Waste
DisposalHow might large volume water withdrawals from ground
andsurface water impact drinking water resources?What are the
possible impacts of releases of hydraulic fracturingfluids on
drinking water resources?What are the possible impacts of the
injection and fracturingprocess on drinking water resources?What
are the possible impacts of releases of flowback andproduced water
on drinking water resources?What are the possible impacts of
inadequate treatment of hydraulicfracturing wastewaters on drinking
water resources?FIGURE 1. FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS POSED FOR
EACH STAGE OF THE HYDRAULIC FRACTURING WATER LIFECYCLEWhats the
Problem?
Regulating Fracing
Whos on First?16
The Texas Railroad Commission has primary jurisdiction over oil
and gas drilling.Tex. Nat. Res. Code 81.051; 16 Tex. Admin Code
3.5Texas Commission on Environmental Quality has primary
jurisdiction over conservation of natural resources and protection
of the environment30 Tex. Admin Code 5.012
17Texas Regulations
Well Drilling/re-completionDisposal wellsPits for storage of oil
field fluids or oil and gas wastes.Spills associated with
productionOil and Gas WasteApplicable Regs: 16 Tex. Admin. Code 3.8
(Water Protection); 3.13 (Casing, Cementing, Drilling, and
Completion Requirements); RRC Rule 38; 40 CFR 261.4(a)(12)Surface
casing program (eff. 9/1/11)18Railroad Commission
Disclosure of Fracing Chemicals (16 TAC 3.29)
Applies to fracturing operations where RRC has issued an initial
drilling permit on or after Feb. 1, 2012
Supplier/service company to operator 15 days after completion of
fracing
Operator to RRC disclose into online database on or before
submission of well completion report to RRC (30 days after well
completion)
19Railroad Commission
Disclosure of Fracing Chemicals (16 TAC 3.29)
Disclose:Volume of water usedEach fracing chemical
ConcentrationsSuppliers
Exception for trade secrets20Railroad Commission
Surface water use
Spills of hazardous substances
Nuisance Odor Complaints
Air EmissionsPermit by Rule (30 TAC 106.352)New PBR: applies to
Barnett Shale operations constructed or modified after April 1,
2011Existing operations in Barnett Shale claiming old PBR must
notify TCEQ by Jan. 1, 2013
21TCEQ
Memorandum of Understanding: 16 TAC 3.3022RRC or TCEQ?
Wastewater discharges
Stormwater
Underground injection wells involving diesel
TSCA 8(c)
Proposed NSPS/NESHAP revisions (final rule by Feb. 28?)
23Federal Regulation
Energy Policy Act of 2005 specifically excludes hydraulic
fracturing operations.Exemption for: The underground injection of
fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to
hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal
production activities.42 U.S.C. 300h(d)(1)(B)(ii).24Federal
Regulation
No EPA action after 2005 Energy Policy ActSummer 2010 EPA posts
on its website that fracing with diesel requires a UIC permitAugust
2010 Independent Petroleum Association v. EPA (D.C. Cir.)25Federal
Regulation
Chemical disclosure statutes in Arkansas, Pennsylvania, Wyoming
and Colorado, Michigan, Texas, CaliforniaDrilling moratoriums: NY,
Maryland, PA
26State Actions
Barnett ShaleCity of Fort Worth rules on drillingTown of Dish
blocks drillingCity of Dallas has not issued any drilling permits
task force for considering drilling requirements27Local Attempts at
Regulation
28Current Studies
28
Sampled 68 drinking water wells in PA and NYMethane
concentrations were 17 times higher in water wells near active vs.
inactive wellsMethane was thermogenicMethane Contamination of
Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-well Drilling and Hydraulic
Facturing29Duke Study (May 2011)
85% of wells sampled contained thermogenic methane regardless of
locationNo fracing fluid detected in shallow waterWater properties
consistent with historical dataMethane likely did not come from
actual fracing30Duke Study (May 2011)
Methane is a GHGFracing has a higher carbon footprint than
coal3.6 to 7.9% escapes in fracing1.7 to 6% escapes in regular
drillingHogwash31Cornell Study (April 2011)
January 6, 2012 New Cornell StudyPrior study was seriously
flawedFracing has a carbon footprint that is half to a third that
of coal32Cornell Study
2004 EPA study little to no risk of drinking water contamination
during fracing of coalbed methane wellsAls Study 2011 EPA study
pendingWyoming Study33EPA Studies
2012 - EPA proposed year to release interim results2012 to 2014
- additional results to be released as particular investigations
completed2014 - EPA proposed year to release another report34New
EPA Study of Hydraulic Fracturing for Shale Gas
Draft Study Dec. 8, 2011Studied rural water wells in response to
complaintsWells in area since the 1950s169 production wells33
surface pitsEPA collected soil and gw samplesConclusions: (1) pits
are a source of shallow gw contamination (2) likely impact to gw
from hydraulic fracturing35EPA Wyoming Study
Draft Study no peer reviewArea has a shallow gas fieldEPA
drilled monitoring wells into a gas reservoir and found natural gas
duhQA/QC issues with blank samplesResults from water well tests do
not exceed drinking water standardsPits are already in remediation
program36EPA Wyoming Study - Problems
UT Energy InstituteGroundwater study in Barnett, Haynesville and
Marcellus formationsFinal Report Expected January 2012Preliminary
findings no direct link between fracing and groundwater
contamination37UT Study
LITIGATION38
12/7/10 EPA issued Emergency Administrative Order against Range
under SDWAMethane in 2 drinking water wells in Parker County likely
due to fracing from Range wells in the area39United States v. Range
Production Co.
EPA ordered Range to submit:A survey of all private water wells
in the area and a sampling plan for approval.A plan to conduct soil
gas surveys and indoor air analyses for all properties serviced by
the nearby water wells.A plan to identify and eliminate gas flow
pathways to the Trinity Aquifer.A plan to remedy the areas of the
aquifer that had been affected by Ranges activities.40United States
v. Range Production Co.
1 day after the EAO issued, Railroad Commission sets a hearing
on RangeMeanwhile, EPA sues Range to enforce the EAO
(1/18/11)3/7/11 RRC finds no evidence that Range caused damage to
the drinking water wells3/22/11 Range sues EPA, seeking dismissal
of EAO on constitutional and evidentiary grounds41United States v.
Range Production Co.
EPA seeks:Permanent injunctive relief to require Range to comply
with the EAO.Civil penalties up to $16,500 per day of
violation.
42United States v. Range Production Co.
4/19/11 Chesapeake well blowout releases flowback water onto
neighboring farmlands and into nearby creek4/29/11 Maryland files
Notice of Intent to Sue under RCRA and CWAInjunctive
reliefAttorneys fees5/17/11 Chesapeake Settles with PAfor $1
million43Maryland v. Chesapeake Energy Corp.
February 2011, Town of Dish, Texas sued six natural gas pipeline
companies that own and operate compressor stations near the town
for releasing harmful substances into the air
44Town of Dish v. Atmos Energy, et al
TIMELINE2005: residents complained of odors but assured there
were no harmful gasesApril 2009: city officials confirmed presence
of hydrocarbons in the airSummer 2009: compressor stations
expanded; air quality allegedly worsened
45Town of Dish v. Atmos Energy, et al
Sept 2009: independent testing confirmed presence of Benzene,
Xylene, Toluene and EthylbenzeneApril 2010: TCEQ installed
permanent monitoring stations
46Town of Dish v. Atmos Energy, et al
AllegationsNuisance OdorNoiseLightTrespassNo Allegations of
Regulatory Violations
47Town of Dish v. Atmos Energy, et al
DAMAGESResidents suffered loss of land market value, eroded tax
base and loss of revenue in the amount of $15,000 per year$45,000
in legal fees$15,000 in other costs associated with Defendants
activitiesTrespass damages of $1,000 per dayExemplary Damages48Town
of Dish v. Atmos Energy, et al
Allegations of Drinking Water Contamination4 cases in TX49Other
Lawsuits
Wheres the science?How can we help?Technical/legal
opinionsBaseline studyDisposal audits50Conclusions
Hydraulic Fracturing Myths and Maneuvers
Presented by Cindy Bishop
[email protected]
www.cbishoplaw.com
51
