Hydraulic Fracturing

Myths and Maneuvers

Presented by

Cindy Bishop

Society of Texas Environmental Professionals Meeting

January 10, 2012

1
 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
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
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
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
Effect Locally

•Since 2003 15,675 gas wells drilled

and fracked in North Texas
•2,000 wells in Fort Worth

7
8
 About 1/3 flowback
liquid returns
 Disposal well
 Surface impoundment
 Land surface

9
Waste Disposal – Surface
Impoundment

10
WHAT’S THE PROBLEM?

11


What’s the Problem?

Natural Gas in Well Water

April 11, 2011

13
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
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
What
How
What
are
might
are
are
the
the
the
possible
large
possible
possible
volume
impacts
impacts
impacts
water
ofof
withdrawals
releases
ofthe
releases
injection
of hydraulic
of
from
flowback
and
ground
fracturing
fracturing
and
and
Wastewater
Flowback
Treatment
and
and
Produced
Waste Disposal
Water
surface
produced
process
fluids
water
water
on
on
impact
drinking
drinking
on drinking
Water drinking
water
waterwater
water
resources?
resources?
Acquisition resources?
resources?

DRAFT Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan February 7, 2011

-- Science Advisory Board Review --
Regulating Fracing

Who’s 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 3.5
 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
• 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
 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
 Disclosure of Fracing Chemicals (16 TAC §
3.29)

◦ Disclose:
 Volume of water used
 Each fracing chemical
 Concentrations
 Suppliers

◦ Exception for trade secrets

20
 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
 Memorandum of Understanding:
16 TAC § 3.30

22
 Wastewater discharges

 Stormwater

 Underground injection wells involving diesel

 TSCA § 8(c)

 Proposed NSPS/NESHAP revisions (final rule by

Feb. 28?)

23
 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
 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
 Chemical disclosure statutes in Arkansas,
Pennsylvania, Wyoming and Colorado, Michigan,
Texas, California
 Drilling moratoriums: NY, Maryland, PA

26
 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
 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
 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
 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
 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
 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
 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
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
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
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
LITIGATION

38
• 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
 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
 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
 EPA seeks:
◦ Permanent injunctive relief to require
Range to comply with the EAO.
◦ Civil penalties up to $16,500 per day of
violation.

42
 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
 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
 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
◦ Sept 2009: independent testing confirmed
presence of Benzene, Xylene, Toluene and
Ethylbenzene
◦ April 2010: TCEQ installed permanent
monitoring stations

46
Allegations
 Nuisance
◦ Odor
◦ Noise
◦ Light
 Trespass
 No Allegations of Regulatory Violations

47
 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
 Allegations of Drinking Water
Contamination
◦ 4 cases in TX

49
 Where’s the science?
 How can we help?
◦ Technical/legal opinions
◦ Baseline study
◦ Disposal audits

50
Hydraulic Fracturing
Myths and Maneuvers

Presented by

Cindy Bishop

214-893-5646
cbishop@cbishoplaw.com

www.cbishoplaw.com

51