This presentation discusses the technical, legal and regulatory issues associated with hydraulic fracturing.

1. Hydraulic Fracturing
Myths and Maneuvers
Presented by
Cindy Bishop
Society of Texas Environmental Professionals Meeting
January 10, 2012
1

2. Hydraulic Fracturing:
Myths and Maneuvers
I. Hydraulic Fracturing 101
1. What is it?
2. Why do we care?
3. What’s the problem?
II. Regulations – Who’s on First?
1. Texas
2. EPA
III. Myths (Studies)
IV. Maneuvers
1. US v. Range Production Company
2. Maryland v. Chesapeake Energy Corp.
3. Town of Dish v. Atmos Energy, et al.
2

3. What is Hydraulic Fracturing (“Fracing”)?
General Steps
•Obtain water source
•Well construction
•Fracing
•Waste disposal
Fracing
•Liquid pressure
•Fissures
•Propping agent
•Flowback water
3

4. 4

5. Why do we care?
•Natural gas heats ½ of US homes
•Natural gas fuels more than 20% of
annual electricity production
•Natural gas use will increase as coal
plants are retired
•20% of U.S. gas supply will be from
shale gas by 2020
5

6. It is projected that shale gas will comprise over 20%
of the total US gas supply by 2020 (EPA)
NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION BY SOURCE (TCF/YEAR)
6

7. Effect Locally
•Since 2003 15,675 gas wells drilled
and fracked in North Texas
•2,000 wells in Fort Worth
7

8. 8

9.  About 1/3 flowback
liquid returns
 Disposal well
 Surface impoundment
 Land surface
9

10. Waste Disposal – Surface
Impoundment
10

11. WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?
11

12. 
What’s the Problem?
Natural Gas in Well Water

13. April 11, 2011
13

14. What’s the Problem?
•Water for fracing
•Fracing
•Chemicals in frac water
•Methane release
•Disposal of flowback water
•Air emissions
•Noise, light, odor
•Earthquakes
14

15. What’s the Problem?


Chemical Mixing

Well Injection

What are the possible impacts of inadequate treatment of hydraulic
fracturing wastewaters on drinking water resources?
FIGURE 1. FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS POSED FOR EACH STAGE OF THE HYDRAULIC FRACTURING WATER LIFECYCLE

What are the possible impacts ofwithdrawalsof flowback and
Whatmight large volume water releases of hydraulic fracturing
What are the possible impacts of releases from ground and
How arethe possible impacts of the injection and fracturing
Wastewater Treatment
Flowback and
and Waste Disposal
Produced Water
surface wateron drinkingwaterwater resources?
produced water on drinking water resources?
processWater drinking resources?
fluids on drinking water resources?
impact Acquisition
DRAFT Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan February 7, 2011
-- Science Advisory Board Review --

16. Regulating Fracing
Who’s on First?
16

17.  The Texas Railroad Commission has
primary jurisdiction over oil and gas
drilling.
 Tex. Nat. Res. Code 81.051; 16 Tex. Admin Code 3.5
 Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality has primary jurisdiction over
conservation of natural resources and
protection of the environment
 30 Tex. Admin Code 5.012
17

18. • Well Drilling/re-completion
• Disposal wells
• Pits for storage of oil field fluids or oil
and gas wastes.
• Spills associated with production
• Oil and Gas Waste
• Applicable 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)
18

19.  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)
19

20.  Disclosure of Fracing Chemicals (16 TAC §
3.29)
◦ Disclose:
 Volume of water used
 Each fracing chemical
 Concentrations
 Suppliers
◦ Exception for trade secrets
20

21.  Surface water use
 Spills of hazardous substances
 Nuisance Odor Complaints
 Air Emissions
◦ Permit by Rule (30 TAC §106.352)
 New PBR: applies to Barnett Shale operations constructed
or modified after April 1, 2011
◦ Existing operations in Barnett Shale claiming old PBR
must notify TCEQ by Jan. 1, 2013
21

22.  Memorandum of Understanding:
16 TAC § 3.30
22

23.  Wastewater discharges
 Stormwater
 Underground injection wells involving diesel
 TSCA § 8(c)
 Proposed NSPS/NESHAP revisions (final rule by
Feb. 28?)
23

24.  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).
24

25.  No EPA action after 2005 Energy Policy Act
 Summer 2010 – EPA posts on its website
that fracing with diesel requires a UIC
permit
 August 2010 – Independent Petroleum
Association v. EPA (D.C. Cir.)
25

26.  Chemical disclosure statutes in Arkansas,
Pennsylvania, Wyoming and Colorado, Michigan,
Texas, California
 Drilling moratoriums: NY, Maryland, PA
26

27.  Barnett Shale
◦ City of Fort Worth rules on drilling
◦ Town of Dish blocks drilling
◦ City of Dallas has not issued any drilling permits
 task force for considering drilling requirements
27

28. 28

29.  Sampled 68 drinking water wells in PA
and NY
 Methane concentrations were 17 times
higher in water wells near active vs.
inactive wells
 Methane was thermogenic
 “Methane Contamination of Drinking
Water Accompanying Gas-well Drilling
and Hydraulic Facturing”
29

30.  85% of wells sampled contained
thermogenic methane – regardless of
location
 No fracing fluid detected in shallow
water
 Water properties consistent with
historical data
 Methane likely did not come from actual
fracing
30

31.  Methane is a GHG
 Fracing has a higher carbon footprint than
coal
 3.6 to 7.9% escapes in fracing
 1.7 to 6% escapes in regular drilling
 “Hogwash”
31

32.  January 6, 2012 New Cornell Study
 Prior study was “seriously flawed”
 Fracing has a carbon footprint that is half to
a third that of coal
32

33.  2004 EPA study – little to no risk of drinking
water contamination during fracing of
coalbed methane wells
 Al’s Study
 2011 EPA study pending
 Wyoming Study
33

34.  2012 - EPA proposed year to release
interim results
 2012 to 2014 - additional results to be
released as particular investigations
completed
 2014 - EPA proposed year to release
another report
34

35. EPA Wyoming Study
 Draft Study – Dec. 8, 2011
 Studied rural water wells in response to
complaints
 Wells in area since the 1950s
 169 production wells
 33 surface pits
 EPA collected soil and gw samples
 Conclusions: (1) pits are a source of
shallow gw contamination (2) likely impact
to gw from hydraulic fracturing
35

36. EPA Wyoming Study - Problems
 Draft Study – no peer review
 Area has a shallow gas field
 EPA drilled monitoring wells into a gas
reservoir and found natural gas – duh
 QA/QC issues with blank samples
 Results from water well tests do not exceed
drinking water standards
 Pits are already in remediation program
36

37. UT Study
 UT Energy Institute
 Groundwater study in Barnett, Haynesville
and Marcellus formations
 Final Report Expected January 2012
 Preliminary findings – no direct link
between fracing and groundwater
contamination
37

38. LITIGATION
38

39. • 12/7/10 – EPA issued Emergency
Administrative Order against Range under
SDWA
• Methane in 2 drinking water wells in Parker
County “likely” due to fracing from Range
wells in the area
39

40.  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 Range’s activities.
40

41.  1 day after the EAO issued, Railroad Commission
sets a hearing on Range
 Meanwhile, 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 wells
 3/22/11 – Range sues EPA, seeking dismissal of
EAO on constitutional and evidentiary grounds
41

42.  EPA seeks:
◦ Permanent injunctive relief to require
Range to comply with the EAO.
◦ Civil penalties up to $16,500 per day of
violation.
42

43.  4/19/11 – Chesapeake well blowout
releases flowback water onto
neighboring farmlands and into nearby
creek
 4/29/11 – Maryland files Notice of Intent
to Sue under RCRA and CWA
◦ Injunctive relief
◦ Attorneys’ fees
 5/17/11 – Chesapeake Settles with PA
for $1 million
43

44.  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
44

45.  TIMELINE
◦ 2005: residents complained of odors
but assured there were no harmful
gases
◦ April 2009: city officials confirmed
presence of hydrocarbons in the air
◦ Summer 2009: compressor stations
expanded; air quality allegedly
worsened
45

46. ◦ Sept 2009: independent testing confirmed
presence of Benzene, Xylene, Toluene and
Ethylbenzene
◦ April 2010: TCEQ installed permanent
monitoring stations
46

47. Allegations
 Nuisance
◦ Odor
◦ Noise
◦ Light
 Trespass
 No Allegations of Regulatory Violations
47

48.  DAMAGES
◦ Residents 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 Defendant’s activities
◦ Trespass damages of $1,000 per day
◦ Exemplary Damages
48

49.  Allegations of Drinking Water
Contamination
◦ 4 cases in TX
49

50.  Where’s the science?
 How can we help?
◦ Technical/legal opinions
◦ Baseline study
◦ Disposal audits
50

51. Hydraulic Fracturing
Myths and Maneuvers
Presented by
Cindy Bishop
214-893-5646
cbishop@cbishoplaw.com
www.cbishoplaw.com
51