Gas Producers Favor State Oversight of 'Fracking'
The State Journal
29 October 2009
By Kelly Merritt
States do a fine job of regulating the drilling process of "fracking,"
and transferring that regulatory authority to the federal government is
not necessary, according, to West Virginia oil and natural gas industry
executives.
Identical bills were introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives
and Senate this summer to repeal a portion of the Safe Drinking Water
Act that exempts hydraulic fracturing operations from that act.
Fracking, as it is known in the drilling industry, is a process that
injects treated water deep into the productive zone of natural gas and
oil wells to fracture the rock and stimulate more production of gas or
oil. The procedure has been a common practice in the industry since the
1940s and is used to enhance production from new and older wells.
Senate Bill 1215 and HR 2766 are known as the FRAC Act -- Fracturing
Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals -- and would amend the Safe
Drinking Water Act to repeal an exemption for hydraulic fracturing
operations.
In effect, the bill would transfer regulatory responsibility from state
agencies to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The legislation
also would require companies to disclose the chemicals they use in
hydraulic fracturing operations.
While fracking is used throughout the industry, the process is
especially important to production of gas and oil from tight
sandformations, such as the Marcellus shale, where grains of sand are
compacted tighter than in formations where gas and oil have
traditionally been extracted.
The Marcellus shale formation is considered by geologists to be a
"super-giant natural gas field" that underlies much of northern West
Virginia, eastern Ohio most of Pennsylvania, and southern New York.
U.S. Sen. Robert P. Casey, D-Pa., is one of the bill's sponsors.
"Drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus shale across much of
Pennsylvania is part of our future," Casey said. "I believe that we
have an obligation to develop that natural gas responsibly to safeguard
the drinking water wells used by 3 million Pennsylvanians."
But some in the drilling industry say the danger to groundwater stated
by the bill's proponents are overstated.
"In a word, it's ludicrous," said Greg Kozera, regional sales manager
for Indiana, Pa.-based Superior Well Services, when asked about the
proposal. He said there is no danger of frac fluids injected into
natural gas wells getting into water supplies.
Most drinking water is from the top 200 or 300 feet from the ground's
surface while frac jobs for conventional wells inject water about 1,000
feet below the surface. Wells in the Marcellus formation drill deeper,
injecting frac water at 7,000 to 8,000 feet.
"When we are pumping at 8,000 feet, how difficult is it for a fracture
to grow from 8,000 feet to the surface? That would go through solid
rock. It's virtually impossible," Kozera said.
As for the chemically treated frac water that flows back to the surface
of the well, Kozera said that water is cleaned and either reused for
fracking or discharged after being treated. Frac fluid is 99.51 percent
fresh water and sand, while the remaining half a percent includes
chemical additives to support the hydraulic fracturing process,
according to a Web site by Energy in Depth, a consortium of small
independent oil and natural gas producers (www.energyindepth.org).
"When that water comes back, it's captured either in tanks or lined
pits, and often it's being reused," Kozera said. "The states have very
strict requirements on discharge. It goes to a treatment facility. If
anything is discharged, it's all within the specs of the Clean Water
Act. As I see it, this is a nonissue."
Charlie Burd, executive director of the Independent Oil & Gas
Association of West Virginia, also said the proposed legislation is
unnecessary.
"Every year across the United States, thousands of oil and natural gas
wells are hydraulically fracked. Not one of these treatments has been
reported to pollute any freshwater aquifers," Burd said in an e-mail.
"Oil and natural gas exploration and production companies spend large
sums of money in the well construction process to ensure the safety and
integrity of freshwater aquifers. It is also vitally important to
understand that after the completion of the fracturing treatment the
injected fluid is flowed back under very controlled and calculated
conditions then disposed of in an U.S. EPA approved facility."
Besides their belief that stricter legislation is not necessary, both
Kozera and Burd questioned the need for federal regulators to take over
review of what traditionally has been a state regulatory responsibility.
"There have been many technical articles written and presented to show
that hydraulic fracturing is a safe, efficient and cost-effective
method to extract oil and natural gas for our country's energy needs
without causing environmental harm," Burd said. "State governments in
the oil and natural gas-producing states have long recognized this and
have crafted appropriate regulations to govern the exploration of oil
and natural gas in an environmentally safe manner."
Added Kozera: "The states do a pretty darn good job of regulating this
and other industries. If you step over the line, they'll whack you. The
regulations are there, and the states enforce them well."
Both Kozera and Burd bring up energy security in their arguments to
maintain state regulation over fraking operations.
The Senate bill has been referred to the Environment and Public Works
Committee. The House bill is sponsored by Colorado Democrat Diana
DeGette and has been referred to the House Energy & Commerce
Committee. Both bills have several co-sponsors, including
representatives from New York and Pennsylvania, which are natural
gas-producing states.