CBD Comments Titan With Appendices 8-9-12

August 9, 2012 Via Email and Federal Express Overnight Delivery Compact Disks of Attachments Provided with Hard
Copy Nancy Dagle Staff Environmental Scientist Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources 801 K Street, MS18-05 Sacramento, CA 95814-3530 Email: nancy.dagle@conservation.ca.gov Re: Initial Study/Negative Declaration Titan (851D-4) Exploratory Oil and Gas Well. Aera Energy LLC, Section 4, T29S, R21E MD & B&M, Kern County Dear Ms. Dagle, Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the Initial Study and Negative Declaration (ISND) for the above referenced project. These comments are submitted on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and our tens of thousands of California members and supporters. The Center is a non-profit environmental organization dedicated to the protection of imperiled species, their habitats, and the environment through science, policy, and environmental law. The goal of the Centers Climate Law Institute is to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollution to protect biological diversity, the environment, and public health. Specific objectives include securing protections for species threatened by the impacts of global warming, ensuring compliance with applicable law in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other air pollution, and educating and mobilizing the public on global warming and air quality issues. As explained in detail below, the Negative Declaration fails to meet the minimum standards of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, title 14, California Code of Regulations, 15000 et seq. The ISND fails to provide an adequate project description, including specifying whether hydraulic fracturing (fracking) will be used. It also fails to disclose, analyze, and propose measures to avoid or mitigate the Projects significant environmental effects. Substantial evidenceincluding the peer-reviewed scientific articles and other studies submitted as appendices to this letterdemonstrates that greenhouse gas emissions from the Project are significant. Accordingly, the California Department of Conservations Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR, or the Division) must address these
shortcomings and prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) addressing the projects full impacts, in full compliance with CEQA, before it can approve the Project. I. Legal Background A. CEQA The Legislature enacted CEQA to [e]nsure that the long-term protection of the environment shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 13 Cal. 3d 68, 74 (1974). The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that CEQA must be interpreted to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment. Wildlife Alive v. Chickering, 18 Cal. 3d 190, 206 (1976) (quotation omitted). CEQA also serves to demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action. Laurel Heights Improvement Assn v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 47 Cal. 3d 376, 392 (1988) (Laurel Heights I). If CEQA is scrupulously followed, the public will know the basis for the agencys action and being duly informed, can respond accordingly to action with which it disagrees. Id. Accordingly, CEQA protects not only the environment but also informed self-government. Id. CEQA applies to all discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies. Pub. Res. Code 21080(a). Before taking any action, a public agency must conduct a preliminary review to determine whether the action is a project subject to CEQA. See Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Commn, 41 Cal. 4th 372, 380 (2007). A project is the whole of an action directly undertaken, supported, or authorized by a public agency which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Pub. Res. Code 21065; CEQA Guidelines 15378(a). Under CEQA, the term project refers to the underlying activity and not the governmental approval process. California Unions for Reliable Energy v. Mojave Desert Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 178 Cal. App. 4th 1225, 1241 (2009) (quoting Orinda Assn v. Bd. of Supervisors, 182 Cal. App. 3d 1145, 1171-72 (1986)). The definition of project is given a broad interpretation in order to maximize protection of the environment. Lighthouse Field Beach Rescue v. City of Santa Cruz, 131 Cal. App. 4th 1170, 1180 (2005) (internal quotation omitted). Where, as here, there is substantial evidence in the record to support a fair argument that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, preparation of an EIR is required. Public Resources Code 21100, 21151; CEQA Guidelines 15064(a)(1), (f)(1); Communities for a Better Envt v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., 48 Cal. 4th 310, 319 (2010); No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal. 3d at 82. This fair argument test establishes a low threshold for initial preparation of an EIR, which reflects a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review. Architectural Heritage Assn. v. County of Monterey, 122 Cal. App. 4th 1095 (2004). By contrast, a negative declaration is appropriate only when there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. Pub. Res. Code 21064.5, 21080(c); CEQA Guidelines 15006(h), 15064(f)(2), 15070(b), 15369.5. If evidence demonstrating a significant impact exists, an EIR must be prepared, even if the lead agency also can point to substantial evidence in the record supporting its determination that no significant effect will occur. Architectural Heritage, 122 Cal. App. 4th at 1109Center for Biological Diversity Comments August 9, 2012 Page 2 of 23
10. The lead agency may not dismiss evidence because it believes that there is contrary evidence that is more credible. Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento, 124 Cal. App. 4th 903, 935 (2005). B. Other Applicable Law State law provides that the State Oil and Gas Supervisor: shall so supervise the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of wells and the operation, maintenance, and removal or abandonment of tanks and facilities attendant to oil and gas production, including pipelines.so as to prevent, as far as possible, damage to life, health, property, and natural resources; damage to underground oil and gas deposits from infiltrating water and other causes; loss of oil, gas, or reservoir energy, and damage to underground and surface waters suitable for irrigation or domestic purposes by the infiltration of, or the addition of, detrimental substances. PRC 3106(a) (emphasis added). As discussed in detail in Appendix A, hydraulic fracturing (fracking) has proliferated in California without adequate state or federal oversight, and poses severe risks to Californias air, water, public health, communities and wildlife. DOGGR has clear existing authority with regard to fracking, including the authority to deny approval of fracking activities on a well by well basis, and the authority to prohibit it all together. See PRC 3106(a); Young v. Department of Fish & Game, 124 Cal. App. 3d 257, 279- 280 (Cal. App. 4th Dist. 1981). DOGGR and the Project Applicant must also comply with all existing laws regulating fracking, including the states underground injection control program. PRC 3106(a); 14 CCR 1724.6-10. There can be no question that Californias longstanding regulations for underground injection apply to fracking. See, e.g., 14 CCR 1724.6 (Approval must be obtained from this Division before any subsurface injection or disposal project can begin.) (emphasis added.) Pre-permitting data requirements include, but are not limited to, an injection plan, which must include the method of injection, source and analysis of the injection liquid, treatment of the water to be injected, location and depth of each water-source well that will be used in conjunction with the project, a monitoring system or method to be utilized to ensure that no damage is occurring and that the injection fluid is confined to the intended zone or zones of injection, and other data as required for large, unusual, or hazardous projects. 14 CCR 1724.7. Filing, notification, operating, and testing requirements include but are not limited to, an injection reportshall be filed with the Division on or before the 30th day of each month, for the preceding month, a chemical analysis of the liquid being injected shall be made and filed with the Division whenever the source of injection liquid is changed, or as requested by the Supervisor, data shall be maintained to show performance of the project and to establish that no damage to life, health, property, or natural resources is occurring by reason of the project, and to determine the maximum allowable surface injection pressure, a step-rate test shall be conducted prior to sustained liquid injection 14 CCR 1724.10.
Center for Biological Diversity Comments August 9, 2012 Page 3 of 23
In 1981, California applied for primacy under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and has been implementing the SDWA through its primacy agreement with EPA since 1982.1 In the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress exempted chemicals used in fracking (with the exception of diesel fuel) from the SDWAs definition of underground injection in what is known as the Halliburton loophole.2 The exemption followed a court decision overturning Alabamas determination that it need not cover fracking in its SDWA program implementation.3 The Eleventh Circuit held that the process of hydraulic fracturing obviously falls within the definition of underground injection, and noted further that [w]hat EPA cannot do is to exempt hydraulic fracturing activities from regulation simply by deeming them not to be underground injection, despite the plain language of the statute.4 While EPA thus does not currently regulate chemicals used in fracking (with the exception of diesel fuel) through the SDWA, nothing in the Halliburton loophole affects Californias independent state law authority and mandate. California law regulating underground injection was in place well before the passage of the SDWA and remains in substantially similar form today. California law also provides that [a]ll persons, firms, corporations, and associations are prohibited from wilfully permitting natural gas wastefully to escape into the atmosphere. PRC 3500. Furthermore, [n]o person, firm, corporation, or association who owns or controls land in which [a well from which natural gas flows] shall wilfully permit natural gas flowing from the well wastefully or unnecessarily to escape into the atmosphere. PRC 3501. DOGGR is also required to prevent the waste of oil and gas pursuant to PRC 3106. II. The ISND Provides an Inadequate Project Description As an initial matter, the project description provides insufficient information to evaluate the projects impacts. In particular, the project does not specify whether hydraulic fracturing (fracking) is contemplated during exploration or production activities. Several pieces of information indicate, however, that it is likely the well would be fracked. First, the ISND states that the target formation is shale and sandstone. ISND at 36. Shale formations are now commonly developed through fracking. Second, the ISND indicates the use of two 500 bbl frac tanks, which are commonly used in fracking operations. ISND at 16. Third, hydraulic fluids are listed as needed for the project. ISND at 43. Finally, the website FracFocus.org, where oil and gas operators voluntarily disclose a subset of information related to wells fracked on or after January 1, 2011, shows that multiple wells have been fracked in the immediate vicinity of the project. Appendix C (FracFocus.org Map). The project description must specify whether the Project includes fracking. If it does not, then the Project approval must specifically exclude this activity and include measures to verify and enforce compliance with this prohibition. If the project does include fracking, then the fracking operations must be fully described and the impacts fully analyzed.
CA Dept of Conservation, Division of Oil Gas and Geothermal Resources, UIC Application Guidance, http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/general_information/Pages/UICApplicationGuidance.aspx (last visited Aug. 1, 2012). 2 Energy Policy Act of 2005, H.R. 6, 109th Cong. (Jan. 4, 2005). 3 Wiseman, Hannah, Untested Waters: The Rise of Hydraulic Fracturing in Oil and Gas Production and the need to revisit Regulation, 20 Fordham Envtl. Law Rev. 115, 145 (2009). 4 Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation v. EPA, 118 F.3d at 1474-1475. Center for Biological Diversity Comments August 9, 2012 Page 4 of 23
1
The project description is impermissibly vague in other ways, as well. For example, the document states that the well will be plugged if exploration activities are not successful, however, it does not state what will occur if they are successful. Will additional CEQA review be conducted prior to the authorization of production activities? If not, then those production activities must be described and analyzed. As currently written, the ISND describes only the temporary impacts of several months of production activities. The Project cannot be so narrowly defined if there will be no additional approval or review required prior to production activities if exploration is successful. Other basic information is also lacking. For example, the ISND states [a]s the proposed well is exploratory, the amount of production water cannot be accurately quantified at this time. ISND at 66-67. This is insufficient. Given the amount of drilling in the area and prior experience of the Project Applicant and others, some estimate must be possible. The project approval must be conditioned upon the use of a maximum volume of water, and the impacts of using that water must be fully analyzed. This information cannot be omitted altogether from the approval process. III. Substantial Evidence Demonstrates that the Project Will Cause Significant Environmental Effects In concluding that the Project will have no significant impact on the environment, the ISND fails to properly disclose or analyze the projects impacts, and omits entirely consideration of some important issues. In fact, substantial evidence indicates that the Project will cause significant environmental impacts in a number of different areas, as discussed below.5 A. Chemicals Used in Fracking As described in detail in Appendix A, fracking can utilize hundreds of chemicals that are carcinogenic, toxic, and otherwise harmful. These chemicals can enter the environment and can be encountered by people and wildlife through several mechanisms, including as air emissions (approximately 40% of the chemicals used in fracking are volatile), through surface spills, which are commonplace, through well casing failure, which is also common, and through underground migration, either through natural fractures or those created through fracking. Contamination can range from immediate and acute, to chronic and occurring over many years. Despite these many perils, the ISMD provides no information on the chemicals that will be used.6 Disclosure of all of the chemicals that will be used in the Project should be both comprehensive and specific, and should include a rigorous verification system. Disclosure must include the unique chemical identifier as maintained by the American Chemical Society in its Chemical Abstracts Service Registry (CAS). The CAS number is the most authoritative identifier for a chemical. The CAS number is a crucial piece of information for medical professionals in the event of an accident and is important in determining interaction effects with other chemicals.7 In addition, to fully assess the potential
Because the Project contains no apparent prohibition against fracking, we assume that fracking will occur and discuss its impacts below. 6 While the ISMSD contains an Air Toxics Hot Spots form, it does not appear to list any substances other than diesel exhaust. ISND 136-143. 7 See OMB Watch, The Right to Know,the Responsibility to Protect (2012) at 23. Center for Biological Diversity Comments August 9, 2012 Page 5 of 23
5
toxicity of the substances used in fracking, the concentration or volume of each chemical (e.g., pounds per gallon) has to be disclosed, along with the amount, type, and sources of base fluid pumped into the well. Knowing the concentration of chemicals helps scientists evaluate the often complex and unpredictable interactions between the ingredients within the additives and the chemistry and geology of underground formations. The contents of the flowback fluid from fracking must also be tested and disclosed. The fluid that comes back to the surface will include not only the chemicals that were injected, but also substances from the underground formation. These substances range from salts and minerals to toxins such as cadmium and benzene, and the fluid can also contain radiation, requiring special treatment.8 The reporting requirement must be comprehensive and extend to all parties involved in the oil and gas development process, including well owners, operators, service providers, and vendors. The need for specificity in this regard was highlighted by a Congressional investigation that found that in many cases well operators do not themselves know what they are injecting because the information has been withheld by the manufacturer or vendor.9 Full information must be disclosed during the CEQA process and prior to project approval, both to comply with the law but also for immediate health and safety reasons. In at least one reported instance, doctors have been hindered in their treatment of a victim impacted by a drilling accident because they did not have access to information on chemicals being used: the Colorado debate intensified when news broke that Cathy Behr, an emergency room nurse in Durango, Colo., had almost died after treating a wildcatter who had been splashed in a fracking fluid spill at a BP natural gas rig. Behr stripped the man and stuffed his clothes into plastic bags while the hospital sounded alarms and locked down the ER. The worker was released. But a few days later Behr lay in critical condition facing multiple organ failure. Her doctors searched for details that could save their patient. The substance was a drill stimulation fluid called ZetaFlow, but the only information the rig workers provided was a vague Material Safety Data Sheet, a form required by OSHA. Doctors wanted to know precisely what chemicals make up ZetaFlow and in what concentration. But the MSDS listed that information as proprietary. Behrs doctor learned, weeks later, after Behr had begun to recuperate, what ZetaFlow was made of, but he was sworn to secrecy by the chemicals manufacturer and couldnt even share the information with his patient.10 This type of incident must not be allowed to recur in California. The oil and gas industry has long sought to protect information on the chemicals used in fracking from disclosure, arguing that it could be used by a competitor company to emulate another companys fracking fluid composition and thus erode competitive advantage, and asserting that the chemicals used are thus trade secrets. To
See, e.g. International Energy Agency, Golden Rule for Golden Age of Gas (2012) at 32-33. OMB Watch at 24 (citing Waxman et al. 2011). 10 Lustgarten, Abraham, Buried Secrets: Is Natural Gas Drilling Endangering U.S. Water Supplies? ProPublica.org (2008), http://www.propublica.org/article/buried-secrets-is-natural-gas-drilling-endangering-us-water-supplies-1113.
9 8
date both federal and state oversight has failed to ensure full disclosure regarding the chemicals used in fracking. There are multiple pathways to contamination in the fracking process and accidents will always happen. No industry claim regarding its competitive advantage could ever outweigh the publics right to full disclosure and DOGGRs responsibility to ensure that oil and gas operations are conducted as safely as possible. There must be no exceptions to the CEQA disclosure requirements for trade secrets or other claims that information relating to chemicals used is proprietary. While the ISMD does refer to material safety data sheets (MSDSs) (ISMD at 43), posting the MSDS at the project site is completely inadequate for CEQA compliance purposes. An MSDS is subject to provisions that protect purported trade secrets, and as a result: a large universe of chemicals frequently used in hydraulic fracturing treatments goes unreported. MSDS only report chemicals that have been deemed to be hazardous in an occupational setting under standards adopted by OSHA (the Occupational Safety and Health Administration); MSDA reporting does not include other chemicals that might be hazardous if human exposure occurs through environmental pathways. 11 Further problems with limiting disclosure to MSDS information are as follows: The information on MSDSs is self-reported by manufacturers of products with no independent verification. OSHA does not review MSDSs for accuracy. Analyses have found that MSDSs frequently contain conflicting and incorrect information and lack critical and basic information, such as the identity of the chemicals in a product. For instance, an analysis of MSDSs for 980 hydraulic fracturing additives found that only 14 percent of the sheets actually listed at least 95 percent of the chemicals in a given additive; 43 percent of the MSDSs reported less than one percent of the composition of an additive. 43 percent of the MSDSs reported less than one percent of the composition of an additive. Moreover, MSDSs do not require manufacturers to list the amounts of the hazardous chemicals in a product, nor list all ingredients in a product. Ingredients are often only identified by their general function (such as biocide or corrosion inhibitor) without actually identifying the specific chemicals used. MSDSs are simply not an accurate source by which to ascertain the chemicals in a product, and a disclosure rule that relies on MSDSs is an insufficient one.12 Full information on the chemicals used in fracking must therefore be disclosed. In addition, fracking should not be approved in the absence of adequate baseline data and a rigorous monitoring program. In addition, use of a tracer to help identify the origin of fluids that have migrated to other areas should also be required. B. Impact on Water Resources
11 12
SEAB First 90 day Report at 23-24. OMB Watch at 24 (internal citations omitted).
As noted above the ISMD fails even to disclose the amount of water that would be used by the Project. CEQA requires far more, in particular because fracking poses new, serious, and unique risks to Californias water. DOGGR should take a lifecycle approach to the Projects water use, as recommended by the Natural Gas Subcommittee: the Subcommittee believes certain common principles should guide the development of integrated water management and identifies three that are especially important: Adoption of a life cycle approach to water management from the beginning of the production process (acquisition) to the end (disposal): all water flows should be tracked and reported quantitatively throughout the process. Measurement and public reporting of the composition of water stocks and flow throughout the process (for example, flow-back and produced water, in water ponds and collection tanks). Manifesting of all transfers of water among locations.13 The ISMD includes almost no information on water use and disposal, except that the water will come from a surface source and that produced water will be taken to the Southern California Waste Water Facility (SCWWF) at Belridge California. ISMD at 36. Far more is required. What is the environmental impact of using the surface water? What chemicals will be present in the produced water, and is the SCWWF capable of handling them? What measures will be taken to ensure against underground migration of fracking fluid? All such issues must be analyzed and all feasible mitigation measures discussed, for all stages of the drilling process, from the impact of acquiring the water to be injected, to the storage of harmful and potentially harmful substances on site, to the injection process itself and treatment, storage, transport and disposal of the wastewater. C. Air Quality Impacts Oil and gas drilling and fracking in particular produces an enormous amount of air pollution. These emissions come not just from the combustion of fuel used to run drilling-related equipment and vehicles, but from all stages of the production process including emissions at well completion and other sources of fugitive emissions. Increasing evidence demonstrates that these fugitive emissions are typically far larger than previously understood. The discussion and sources included in Appendix A constitute substantial evidence that the project will have a significant impact on air quality. The ISND, however, omits any consideration of important emission sources, including those from well completion and fugitive emissions from associated equipment like compressors and storage tanks. These emissions must be disclosed, and measures to reduce them must be analyzed and adopted unless they are demonstrated to be infeasible. The ISND also fails to analyze the potential for hydrogen sulfide emissions. It is particularly important for DOGGR to conduct a full and adequate air quality impacts analysis because there are so many readily available and cost effective measures to reduce air pollution from oil and gas activities, many of which are summarized in Appendix A, pp. 30-37. All alternatives and mitigation measures must be analyzed and adopted unless they are infeasible. For example, why are no alternatives to flaring considered? Flaring is a far inferior option to capturing the
13
SEAB First 90-day Report at 22.
gas, which is feasible in nearly all cases. Capture of the gas must be required unless there are overriding special circumstances, none of which are mentioned in the ISND. The ISNDs treatment of climate change impacts is also inaccurate and inadequate. It is not true that greenhouse gases are unregulated and there are no thresholds for their release as stated by the ISMD at 12. Nor is it true that the only feasible mitigation for [climate change] impacts is the adoption of ordinances or regulations. ISND at 40. To the contrary, DOGGR must fully disclose the projects greenhouse gas emissions, including fugitive methane emissions, and consider impacts to reduce them. As discussed in Appendix A, many feasible measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have the added benefit of reducing other air pollution. Nor can DOGGR rely upon the SJVAPCDs Climate Change Action Plan or related guidance. SJVAPCDs approach to greenhouse emissions has been widely recognized as inadequate.14 Moreover, the existence of such guidance, even were it legitimate when it was enacted, cannot excuse DOGGR from its independent duty to fully comply with CEQA based on the most current information relevant to the proposed project. Substantial evidence shows that the Project will have greater greenhouse gas emissions that disclosed by the ISND and that the environmental impact of these emissions will be significant. DOGGR must, therefore, analyze and adopt all feasible measures to reduce those impacts. D. Impacts to Wildlife As discussed in Appendices A and B, fracking exacerbates the impacts of conventional oil and gas to sensitive plants and animals because it brings its own unique risks. The unique impacts of fracking include the use of hundreds of dangerous and potentially dangerous chemicals, which as discussed above can be released into the environment both through underground migration of fluid and through surface spills. While we realize that the proposed project area is heavily disturbed, the ISND has still failed to adequately analyze the potential impacts to sensitive species, in particular the California condor, that may be harmed by the drilling activities. E. Induced Seismic Activity The ISND contains an inadequate discussion of the potential for the Project to induce seismic activity. As discussed in Appendix A, oil and gas activities, including fracking and the disposal of wastewater, can and does induce earthquakes. The ISND contains insufficient information on this topic, including the direct and cumulative impact of fracking wells in the area. As noted above, the
14
Letter from Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General of the State of California, to Dave Warner, Director of Permit Services San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District re District Policy and Guidance Document for Addressing GHG Emission Impacts under CEQA; Governing Board Meeting on Dec 17, 2009 (December 21, 2009); Letter from Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General of the State of California, to Dave Warner, Director of Permit Services San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District re Final Draft Staff Report on Greenhouse Gas Emissions under CEQA (November 4, 2009); Center for Biological Diversity et al., Comments submitted to San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) re SJVAPCD Climate Action Plan: June 30, 2009 Draft Staff Report (June 30, 2009); Center for Biological Diversity et al., Comments submitted to San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) re SJVAPCD Climate Action Plan: November 5, 2009 Final Draft Staff Report; Guidance for Valley Land-Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Impacts for New Projects under CEQA; District Policy: Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as Lead Agency (November 3, 2009).
ISMD also does not discuss the ultimate disposition of the wastewater, stating only that it will be taken to a waste water disposal facility. If the water will or may ultimately be re-injected in a disposal well, this aspect of the project must be analyzed with reference to its potential to induce seismic activity. IV. DOGGR and the Project Applicant Must Comply with Other Applicable Law In addition to its CEQA obligations, DOGGR must ensure that it and the Project Applicant are in full compliance with other existing legal obligations, including the need for an underground injection permit for fracking and the requirement to avoid the waste of natural gas. It does not appear that the agency is on track to meet these requirements. DOGGR has asserted that it is unable to identify where and how often hydraulic fracturing occurs within the state, and that there are neither reporting requirements nor regulatory parameters of when, how and what needs to be reported when applying for permits.15 DOGGR has also stated that it plans to promulgate regulations in order to close the gap between the requirements placed on oil and gas operators to safely construct and maintain their wells, and the information they provide to the Division about hydraulic fracturing operations and steps taken to protect resources and the environment.16 These statements do not accurately reflect existing California law pertaining to fracking. While we certainly agree that existing regulations are not fully adequate to address the dangers of fracking, that is no excuse for non-compliance with existing protections that do apply, including Californias underground injection program. DOGGRs apparent assertion that underground injection permits are not required prior to fracking cannot be squared with the plain language of the statute and regulations. See, e.g., 14 CCR 1724.6 (Approval must be obtained from this Division before any subsurface injection or disposal project can begin. (emphasis added.) Accordingly, unless the proposed project approval includes an enforceable prohibition against fracking, a UIC permit must be obtained, and compliance with all of the UIC program requirements must be ensured. DOGGR and the Project Applicant also have independent duties to prevent the waste of natural gas. PRC 3106, 3500, 3501. As discussed above, there are many cost-effective measures available to capture the gas that would otherwise be flared or simply escape through fugitive emissions. These measures reduce methane emissions, thereby reducing climate change and ozone impacts. They also often reduce other pollutants, such as VOCs, as an added co-benefit. We thus urge DOGGR to require the implementation of all available measures to reduce the waste of gas prior to approving the project. III. Conclusion
15
Letter from Elena M. Miller, State Oil and Gas Supervisor, California Division of Oil, Gas, & Geothermal Resources, to The Honorable Fran Pavley, California State Senate, February 16, 2011 at 2. 16 California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Hydraulic Fracturing in California, http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/general_information/Pages/HydraulicFracturing.aspx (last visited July 30, 2012). Center for Biological Diversity Comments August 9, 2012 Page 10 of 23
Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments on this important issue. Please contact Andrea Weber, aweber@biologicaldiversity.org, 415-632-5311, if you have any questions about these comments. Yours Sincerely, Kassie Siegel Senior Counsel Climate Law Institute Director Center for Biological Diversity Encs: List of References Cited and Attached Appendix A: The Impacts of Fracking in California Appendix B: Impacts of Fracking on Wildlife - A Review Appendix C: Map of Fracked Wells Near the Project Site from the FracFocus.org Compact disk containing all references cited in Appendix B Compact disk containing all other references cited
LIST OF REFERENCES Ackerman, Frank et al., Economics for Equity and Environment, The Economics of 350: The Benefits and Costs of Climate Stabilization (2009). Alvarez, Ramon et al., Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure, Proc of Nat'l Acad. Science Early Edition (Feb 13, 2012). Aminzadeh, Fred, Hydraulic Fracturing and Induced Seismicity, Current State of the Art, University of Southern California (2012); Armendariz, Al, Emissions for Natural Gas Production in the Barnett Shale Area and Opportunities for Cost-Effective Improvements (2009). Daniel Arthur et al., All Consulting, Hydraulic Fracturing Considerations for Natural Gas Wells of the Marcellus Shale, 2008 Annual Forum (2008) P. Baer et al., EcoEquity & SEI, A 350 ppm Emergency Pathway (2009)., http://gdrights.org Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Particulate Matter Overview, Particulate Matter and Human Health, http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/ParticulateMatter.aspx#dpm (last visited Aug 1, 2012). Behrens, Carl E. et al., U.S. Fossil Fuel Resources: Terminology, Reporting, and Summary, Congressional Research Service at 6 (Dec. 28, 2011 Brown, Heather, Memorandum to Bruce Moore, USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD re Composition of Natural Gas for use in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector Rulemaking, July 28, 2011. Brown, Matthew, Bakken Oil Booms, Police Expect Rise in Drug Trafficking Prostitution, Gun Crimes on Northern Plains, Huffington Post (April 23, 2012), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/23/bakken-oil-crime_n_1445410.html Letter from Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General of the State of California, to Dave Warner, Director of Permit Services San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District re District Policy and Guidance Document for Addressing GHG Emission Impacts under CEQA; Governing Board Meeting on Dec 17, 2009 (December 21, 2009). Letter from Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General of the State of California, to Dave Warner, Director of Permit Services San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District re Final Draft Staff Report on Greenhouse Gas Emissions under CEQA (November 4, 2009). Bureau of Land Management, GASCO Energy Inc. Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement (GASCO DEIS), Chapter 3 Affected Environment (2012). Butler, Betsy, Assembly Bill 972 (Introduced Feb 18, 2011, Latest amendment June 28, 2012).
California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Hydraulic Fracturing in California, http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/general_information/Pages/HydraulicFracturing.aspx (last visited July 30, 2012). California Dept of Conservation, Division of Oil Gas and Geothermal Resources, UIC Application Guidance, http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/general_information/Pages/UICApplicationGuidance.aspx (last visited Aug. 1, 2012). Castelvecchi, Davide, France becomes first country to ban extraction of natural gas by fracking, Scientific American Observations Blog, June 30, 2011 08:27 PM. CBS, Pittsburgh Bans Natural Gas Drilling, CBS/AP, http://www.cbsnwes.com/stories/2010/11/16/national/main7060953.shtml. Center for Biological Diversity et al., Comments submitted to San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) re SJVAPCD Climate Action Plan: June 30, 2009 Draft Staff Report (June 30, 2009). Center for Biological Diversity et al., Comments submitted to San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) re SJVAPCD Climate Action Plan: November 5, 2009 Final Draft Staff Report; Guidance for Valley Land-Use Agencies in Addressing GHG Impacts for New Projects under CEQA; District Policy: Addressing GHG Emission Impacts for Stationary Source Projects Under CEQA When Serving as Lead Agency (November 3, 2009). CITI, Resurging North American Oil Production and the Death of the Peak Oil Hypothesis (Feb. 15, 2012) CNN Staff Writer, Vermont first state to ban fracking,CNN U.S. (May 17, 2012). Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Visibility and Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Twelve Mandatory Class I Federal Areas in Colorado, Appendix D at 1 (2011). Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Quality Control Commission, Regulation Number 7, XVIII.C (2011). Craft, Elena, Environmental Defense Fund, Do Shale Gas Activities Play a Role in Rising Ozone Levels?, http://blogs.edf.org/texascleanairmatters/2012/07/10/do-shale-gas-activities-play-a-role-inrising-ozone-levels/ (2012). Crain, E.R., Permeability Basics, Crains Petrophysical Handbook at 1, http://www.spec2000.net/15-permbasics.htm (last visited July 30, 2012). Drajem, Mark, Fracking Tied to Unusual Rise in Earthquakes in U.S., Bloomberg (April 12, 2012), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-12/earthquake-outbreak-in-central-u-s-tied-to-drillingCenter for Biological Diversity Comments August 9, 2012 Page 13 of 23
wastewater.html
Earthworks, Hydraulic Fracturing 101, http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/hydraulic_fracturing_101 (last visited July 16, 2012). Earthworks, Sources of Oil and Gas Pollution, http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/sources_of_oil_and_gas_air_pollution (last visited July 30, 2011). Ellsworth, William et al., Abstract: Are Seismicity Rate Changes in the Mid-continent Natural or Man-made? Seismological Society of America (2012) Entrekin, Sally et al., Rapid Expansion of Natural Gas Development Poses a Threat to Surface Waters, 9 Front Ecol Environ 503 (2011). Environmental Working Group, California Regulators: See No Fracking, Speak No Fracking (2012). Esch, Mary, New York Fracking Moratorium Causes Drilling Company to Shut off Gas in Avon, N.Y., Huffington Post, July 9, 2012, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/09/avon-ny-newyork-fracking-moratorium_n_1660166.html?view=print&comm_ref=false (last visited July 30, 2012). Fiore, Arlene et al., Linking ozone pollution and climate change: The case for controlling methane, 29 Geophys. Res Letters 19, 1919 (2002). Fletcher, Jon B. and Lynn R. Sykes, Earthquakes related to hydraulic mining and natural seismic activity in Western New York State, 82 J. of Geophys. Res 3768 (1977). Food & Water Watch, The Case for a Ban on Fracking (2012). Food & Water Watch, Exposing the Oil and Gas Industrys False Jobs Promise for Shale Gas Development (2011), available at http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/exposing-the-oil-andgas-industrys-false-jobs-promise/. Fountain, Henry, Disposal Halted at Well After New Quake in Ohio, New York Times (January 1, 2012), Four Corners Air Quality Group, Task Force Report (2007) at 12, http://cogcc.state.co.us/Library/Statistics/CoWkly&MnthlyO&GStats.pdf FracFocus.org, Frequently Asked Questions, http://fracfocus.org/faq (last visited Aug. 1, 2012) FracFocus.org, Website Terms and Conditions of Use, http://fracfocus.org/terms-of-use (last visited Aug. 1, 2012).
FracFocus.org, What Chemicals Are Used, http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-areused (last visited July 30, 2012). Letter from Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal to Carol Rushin, Acting Regional Administrator, USEPA Region 8, (Mar. 12, 2009) Frohlich, Cliff and Eric Potter, Dallas-Fort Worth earthquakes coincident with activity associated with natural gas production, The Leading Edge 270 (March 10, 2010), available at http://www.ig.utexas.edu/people/staff/cliff/publications.htm/ Frohlich, Cliff, Two-year survey comparing earthquake activity and injection-well locations in the Barnett Shale, Texas, PNAS Early Edition (2012). Frohlich, Cliff et al., Location and Felt Reports for the 25 April 2010 3.9 Earthquake near Alice, Texas: Was it Induced by Petroleum Production?, 102 Bull. Seismol. Soc'y of America 457 (2012) Hans-Martin Fussel. An Updated Assessment of the Risks from Climate Change Based on Research Published Since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 97 Climatic Change 469 (2009) Hansen, James et al., Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? 2 Open Atmospheric Science Journal 217 (2008); atmospheric CO2 levels are currently 395 ppm. http://co2now.org/ (last visited July 26, 2012). Hansen, James, Global Warming twenty years later: Tipping Points Near (2008). Healy, J.H. et al., The Denver Earthquakes, 161 Science 3848, 1301 (1968). Hhne, N. et al., Ecofys, Emission pathways towards 2C (September 2009), www.ecofys.com Hhne, N. et al., Climate Analytics & Ecofys, Copenhagen Climate DealHow to Close the Gap? Briefing Paper (2009). Holland, Austin, Examination of possibly induced seismicity from hydraulic fracturing in the Eola Field, Garvin County, Oklahoma, Oklahoma Geological Survey Open-File Report OF1-2011 (2011). Hooper, Troy, Black Sunday lessons from 30 years ago coloring Colorado oil shale debate today, Colorado Independent (May 2, 2012), http://coloradoindependent.com/119367/black-sundaylessons-from-30-years-ago-coloring-colorado-oil-shale-debate-today Horwitt, Dusty, Senior Counsel for the Environmental Working Group, Public Testimony, Oversight Hearing on the Revised Environmental Impact Statement on Hydraulic Fracturing and New York Citys Upstate Drinking Water Supply Infrastructure, Before the New York City Council Committee on Environmental Protection (Sep. 22, 2011). Horwitt, Dusty & Alex Formuzis, Environmental Working Group, USGS: Recent Earthquakes Almost Certainly Manmade http://www.ewg.org/analysis/usgs-recent-earthquakes-almostCenter for Biological Diversity Comments August 9, 2012 Page 15 of 23
certainly-manma
Howarth, Robert, et al., Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations, Climactic Change (Mar. 31, 2011), available at http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/Howarth%20et%20al%20%202011.pdf. Howarth, Robert, et al., Venting and Leaking of Methane from Shale Gas Development: Response to Cathles et al., (2012), available at http://ecowatch.org/wpcontent/uploads/2012/01/report.pdf. Infocast, Conference Speakers say Bakken has huge potential, Infocast In the News (Oct 26, 2011), http://www.infocastinc.com/index.php/news/74 International Energy Agency, Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas (2012). Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, Press Release: Carl Michael Smith Named Interstate Oil an Gas Compact Commission Executive Director (March 18, 2008), Jacquet, Jeffrey, Community and Economic Impacts Of Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Development, Cornell University, at 8, 15 (2010), Jaffe, Amy Myers et al., The Status of World Oil Reserves: Conventional and Unconventional Resources in the Future Supply Mix at 12-13 (Oct. 2011) Kadaba, Dipika & Shaye Wolf, Impacts of fracking on wildlife- A review (July 30, 2012). Kemble, William, Woodstock bans activities tied to fracking, Daily Freeman (Jul. 19, 2012), http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2012/07/19/news/doc50076d4cd1861663882345.txt Koch, Wendy, Wyoming's smog exceed Los Angeles' due to gas drilling, USA Today (Mar 9, 2011). Kusnetz, Nicholas, A Fracking First in Pennsylvania: Cattle Quarantine, ProPublica (July 2, 2010), http://www.propublica.org/article/a-fracking-first-in-pennsylvania-cattle-quarantine Kusnetz, Nicholas, Deteriorating Oil and Gas Wells Threaten Drinking Water, Homes Across the Country, ProPublica (April 4, 2011), http://www.propublica.org/article/deteriorating-oil-and-gaswells-threaten-drinking-water-homes-across-the-co Levy, Marc, Crime is up in gas boom towns, Times Union (Oct 26, 2011), http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Crime-is-up-in-gas-boom-towns2238332.php#ixzz223ILz3iU Lustgarten, Abraham, Buried Secrets: Is Natural Gas Drilling Endangering U.S. Water Supplies? ProPublica.org (2008),
Marcellus Accountability Project - Tompkins, How will High-Volume (Slick-water) Hydraulic Fracturing of the Marcellus (or Utica) Shale Differ from Traditional Hydraulic Fracturing? (Feb. 2011). Mathias, Simon, Hydraulic fracturing of shale gas reservoirs implications for the surrounding environment at 3 (Sep. 2010) McDonald, Robert, Californias Silent Oil Rush, New Times, Aug 31, 2011, http://www.newtimesslo.com/cover/6555/californias-silent-oil-rush/ (last visited Aug 1, 2012). McDonald, Robert A., California's Silent Oil Rush, New Times, August 31, 2011, http://www.newtimesslo.com/cover/6555/californias-silent-oil-rush/ (last visited July 13, 2012). Meehl, G.A. et al., Global Climate Projections, in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (Susan Solomon et al. eds. 2007). Meinshausen, M. et al., Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2C, 458 Nature 1158 (2009) MetroNews.com, Morgantown Bans Fracking (June 22, 2011), http://www.wvmetronews.com/news.cfm?func=displayfullstory&storyid=46214 Letter from Elena Miller, State of California Oil and gas Supervisor to Fran Pavley, California State Senator re Hydraulic Fracturing (Feb 16, 2011). Letter from James G Moose, Counsel for Venoco, Inc. to Charles J. McKee, County Counsel for Monterey County regarding Venoco Use Permit Number PLN 080321, March 17, 2011. Mufson, Steven, In North Dakota, the gritty side of an oil boom, The Washington Post (July 18, 2012), Myers, Tom, Review of DRAFT: Investigation of Ground Water Contamination near Pavillion Wyoming Prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency, Ada OK (Apr. 30, 2012). Myers, Tom, Potential Contaminant Pathways from Hydraulically Fractured Shale to Aquifers (Feb. 2012). Myers, Orrin et al., The Association Between Ambient Air Quality Ozone Levels and Medical Visits for Asthma in San Juan County (Aug. 2007). National Petroleum Council, Prudent Development (Sep. 2011) National Public Radio, Pennsylvania Doctors Worry Over Fracking 'Gag Rule' (May 17, 2012), http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=152268501 National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Stabilization Targets for Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (2010), http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12877.html
National Research Council, Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies at 3 (2012). Natural Resources Defense Council, Petition for Rulemaking Pursuant to Section 6974(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Concerning the Regulation of Wastes Associated with the Exploration, Development, or Production of Crude Oil or Natural Gas or Geothermal Energy at 17 (Sep. 8, 2010). Natural Resources Defense Council, Water Facts: Hydraulic Fracturing can potentially Contaminate Drinking Water Sources (2012). NaturalGas.org, The Transportation of Natural Gas, http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/transport.asp (last visited Aug 1, 2012). New Mexico Oil Conservation Division, OGAP Analysis of data provided in New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Dept, Oil and Conservation Div., Cases Where Pit Substances Contaminated New Mexicos Ground Water (2008). New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Revised Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program, Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs at 5-5 (Sep. 7, 2011). Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Executive Summary: Preliminary Report on the Northstar 1 Class II Injection Well and the Seismic Events in the Youngstown, Ohio, Area (2012), Olson, Laura, Pa. to study air qulity at shale sites, Post-gazette.com (July 24, 2012), http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/marcellusshale/pa-to-study-air-quality-at-shale-sites645949/. OMB Watch, The Right to Know, the Responsibility to Protect (2012) Orszag, Peter, Fracking Boom Could Finally Cap Myth of Peak Oil, Bloomberg, Jan. 31, 2012, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-01/fracking-boom-could-finally-cap-myth-of-peak-oilpeter-orszag.html (last visited July 13, 2012). Paleontological Research Institution, Understanding Drilling Technology, Marcellus Shale at 1 (Jan. 2012), www.museumoftheearth.org/files/marcellus/Marcellus_issue6.pdf (last visited July 30, 2012). Pennsylvania Alliance for Clean Water and Air, Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.pacwa.org/FAQ-Photos.html Petzet, Alan, Venoco gears to probe California Monterey on land, Oil and Gas Journal (Jan 24, 2011), http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-109/issue-4/general-interest/venoco-gears-toprobe-california-monterey.html
Philly.com, Editorial, Fracking ban is about our water, The Inquirer (Jul. 11, 2012), http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-11/news/32633463_1_drilling-ban-gas-drilling-limit-drilling (last visited July 30, 2012). Power, Thomas, The Local Impacts of Natural Gas Development in Valle Vidal, New Mexico, University of Montana (2005). The Raleigh Telegram, Raleigh City Council Bans Fracking Within City Limits (Jul. 11, 2012), http://raleightelegram.com/201207112072 Ramanathan V. & Y. Feng, On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system: formidable challenges ahead, 105 Proc. Natl. Acad. of Sciences 14245 (2008). Rodriguez, Marco et al., Regional Impacts of Oil and Gas Development on Ozone Formation in the Western United States, J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 59:1111 (2009). Rogers A.D. & D. Laffoley, IPSO Oxford, International Earth system expert workshop on ocean stresses and impacts Summary Report (2011). Rubin, Sara, A Fracking Ordeal: Community Group Seeks Answers to Regulatory Loopholes, Monterey County Weekly (Feb 10, 2011), http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/2011/feb/10/fracking-ordeal/ Save Colorado from Fracking.org, Economic Impacts, http://www.savecoloradofromfracking.org/harm/economic.html (last visited Aug 1, 2012); Shindell, Drew, Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions, 326 Science 716 (2009). Siders, David, Capitol Alert: Chevron oil worker died in area with history of spills, seeps, The Modesto Bee (May 21, 2012), http://www.modbee.com/2012/05/21/2209299/capitol-alert-chevronoil-worker.html. Sierra Club Comments on New Source Performance Standards: Oil and Natural Gas Sector; Review and Proposed Rule for Subpart OOOO (Nov 30, 2011) Smith, Joel B. et al., Assessing Dangerous Climate Change Through an Update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reasons for Concern, 106 Proc. of the Natl. Acad. of Sciences of the U.S. 4133 (2009). Soraghan, Mike 2012. Victims think drilling triggered shaking, and that's OK. E&E News, July 24, 2012 Streater, Scott, Air Quality Concerns May Dictate Uintah Basin's Natural Gas Drilling Future, N.Y. TIMES, October 1, 2010, available at http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/10/01/01greenwire-airquality-concerns-may-dictate-uintah-basins-30342.html?pagewanted=all. Tittel, Jeff, Opinion: Stop fracking waste from entering New Jersey's borders, NJ.com, July 14,
2012. TRC Environmental Corporation, Air Quality Impact Analysis Technical Support Document for the Revised Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project (2006). United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), The Emissions Gap Report: Are the Copenhagen Accord Pledges Sufficient to Limit Global Warming to 2C or 1.5C? (2010), www.unep.org. U.S. Dept. of Fish and Game, Environmental Incident Report: Vintage Production California LLC Tar Creek Crude Oil and Produced Water Spills, January 30, 2007 and February 6, 2007. US Department of Energy, Secty of Energy Advisory Board, Shale Gas Production Subcommittee 90-Day Report (Aug 18, 2011). US Department of Energy, Natural Gas Subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board (SEAB). Second 90-day Report/Final Report, November 18, 2011 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2012 with Projections to 2035 (2012). U.S. Energy Information Administration, Review of Emerging Resources US Shale Gas and Oil Plays (2011). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources (February 2011). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Draft Investigation of Ground Water Contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming (2011), available at http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/EPA_ReportOnPavillion_Dec-8-2011.pdf U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases, 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496, 66,516 (Dec. 15, 2009). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Gas STAR Program Basic Information, http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/basic-information/index.html#sources. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oil and Natural Gas Sector: NSPS and NESHAP for Air Pollutants Reviews, 76 Fed. Reg. 52738 (2011). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, Transmission, and Distribution, Background Technical Support Document for the Proposed Rules US Environmental Protection Agency, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter Proposed Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 38,890, 38,893 (June 29, 2012).
US Environmental Protection Agency, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (June 2012) at 2-2, http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/PMRIACombinedFile_Bookmarked.pdf US Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Gas STAR Program, Partner Reported Opportunities for Reducing Methane Emissions Fact Sheet No. 103 (2012). US Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Gas STAR Program, Partner Reported Opportunities for Reducing Methane Emissions Fact Sheet No. 105 (2012). US Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Gas STAR Program, Partner Reported Opportunities for Reducing Methane Emissions Fact Sheet No. 108 (2012). US Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Gas STAR Program, Lessons Learned: Reducing Methane Emissions from Compressor Rod Packing Systems, October 2006. US Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Gas STAR Program, Lessons Learned: Reduced Emissions Completions for Hydraulically Fractured Natural Gas Wells (2012). US Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Gas STAR Program, Lessons Learned: Installing Plunger Lift Systems in Gas Wells (2012). US Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Gas STAR Partners, Lessons Learned: Installing Vapor Recovery Units on Crude Oil Storage Tanks (October 2006). US Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Gas STAR Program, Lessons Learned: Solar Power Applications for Methane Emissions Mitigation (2009). US Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Gas STAR Program, Lessons Learned: Convert Pneumatics to Mechanical Controls (2004). US Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Gas STAR Program, Basic Information, Major Methane Emisssion Sources and Opportunities to Reduce Methane Emissions, http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/basic-information/index.html#sources (last visited Aug 1, 2012). US Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Gas STAR Program, Partner Reported Opportunities for Reducing Methane Emissions Fact Sheet No. 402: Insert Gas Main Flexible Liners (2012). US Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Gas STAR Partners, Lessons Learned: Directed Inspection and Maintenance at Gas Processing Plants and Booster Stations (2003) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Gas STAR Program, Reducing Methane Emissions During Completion Operations (Oct. 24, 2006). US Environmental Protection Agency, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting from the Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry Background Technical Support Document, Climate Change Division Washington D.C. (2010).
US Environmental Protection Agency, Investigation of Ground Water Contamination Near Pavillion, Wyoming (2011). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Report to Congress on Hydrogen Sulfide Air Emissions Associated with the Extraction of Oil and Natural Gas (EPA453/R93045), at i (Oct. 1993). U.S. Governmental Accountability Office, Federal Oil and Gas Leases, Opportunities Exist to Capture Vented and Flared Natural Gas, Which Would Increase Royalty Payments and Reduce Greenhouse Gases (2010) U.S. Global Change Research Program, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009). Venoco, Inc., Monterey Shale Focused Analyst Day Slide Show, May 26, 2010. Venoco, Venoco Announces Reserves and Operations Update, Dec 31, 2010, http://investor.venocoinc.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=193733&p=irolnewsArticle&ID=1525229&highlight= (last visited July 16, 2012). Venoco, Employment Opportunities, http://www.venocoinc.com/employment.php?area=2 (last visited July 30, 2012).
Walker, James, California Class II Underground Injection Control Program Review, Final Report submitted to Ground Water Office USEPA Region 9 (June 2011). Warco, Kathy, Fracking truck runs off road; contents spill, Observer Reporter (Oct 21, 2010), http://www.observer-reporter.com/OR/Story/10-21-2010-fracking-truck-rolls Waxman, Henry et al., United States House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Minority Staff, Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing (Apr. 2011) Letter from Henry A. Waxman, Edward J. Markey and Diana DeGette, Ranking Members, US House of Representatives to Lisa Jackson, Administrator of US EPA, Jan. 31, 2011 (available at http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/index.php?q=news/waxman-markey-anddegetteinvestigationfinds-continued-use-of-diesel-in-hydraulic-fracturing-f). Williams, Peggy, Monterey Shale a marvelous target, EP Magazine (May 25, 2010), http://www.epmag.com/item/print/Monterey-Shale-marvelous-target_60504 Williams, Megan & Cindy Copeland, Earthjustice, Methane Controls for the Oil and Gas Production Sector (2010).
Williams Production RMT, Piceance Basin Operations, Reducing Methane Emissions During Completion Operations, 2006 Natural Gas STAR Annual Implementation Workshop, Houston, TX, October 24, 2006. Wiserman, Hannah, Untested Waters: The Rise of Hydraulic Fracturing in Oil and Gas Production and the need to revisit Regulation, 20 Fordham Envtl. Law Rev. 115, 145 (2009). Wooten, Michael, City of Buffalo Bans Fracking, WGRZ.com (Feb 9, 2011), http://origin.wgrz.com/news/article/108668/1/City-of-Buffalo-Bans-Fracking World Health Organization, Health Aspects of Air Pollution with Partiuclate Matter, Ozone, and Nitrogen Dioxide (2003), Wyoming Dept of Environmental Quality, Oil and Gas Production Facilities Permitting Guidance Chapter 6, Section 2, at 5 (March 2010). Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Technical Support Document I for Recommended 8-hour Ozone Designation of the Upper Green River Basin (March 26, 2009).
Appendix A: The Impacts of Fracking in California

Table of Contents I. Fracking is Already Widespread in California and is Poised to Greatly Expand........... 2 A. Technological Developments and the Fracking Boom........................................... 2 B. Development of Shale Oil from Californias Monterey Shale ............................... 8 II. Fracking Poses Grave and Unacceptable Risks to Californians and Our Environment ........................................................................................................................................... 11 A. Climate Change....................................................................................................... 11 B. Water Contamination .............................................................................................. 13 1. Harms to water resources from oil and gas operations. .................................... 14 2. Harms to water resources from fracking........................................................... 16 a. Pollutants in the hydraulic fracturing process............................................... 16 b. Fracking can harm water resources through a variety of mechanisms ......... 18 i. Depletion of Water Resources ....................................................................... 18 ii. Surface Spills and Leaks of Fracking Fluids, Flowback, or Produced Water ........................................................................................................................... 19 iii. Faulty Well Construction, Cementing, or Casing........................................ 20 iv. Newly created fractures, neighboring wells, natural fracture networks ...... 20 C. Air Pollution............................................................................................................ 21 1. Greenhouse gas emissions ................................................................................... 22 2. VOCs and NOX .................................................................................................... 25 3. Hydrogen Sulfide ................................................................................................. 28 4. Particulate Matter................................................................................................. 29 5. Technologies available to reduce emissions ........................................................ 30 a. Methane and VOCs ........................................................................................... 30 i. Compressors.................................................................................................. 30 ii. Wellhead facilities ........................................................................................ 31 iii. Vapor recovery units ................................................................................... 32 iv. Dehydrators.................................................................................................. 33 v. Pneumatic devices......................................................................................... 34 vi. Pipelines....................................................................................................... 35 vii. Direct inspection and maintenance............................................................. 36 b. Hydrogen sulfide............................................................................................... 37 c. Particulate matter .............................................................................................. 37 D. Induced Seismic Activity ........................................................................................ 37 E. Industrialization, Traffic, and other Community and Land Use Impacts................ 42 1. Economic impacts................................................................................................. 42 2. Aesthetic impacts .................................................................................................. 45 3. Impacts to infrastructure and institutions.............................................................. 45 4. Increased crime ..................................................................................................... 46 F. Impacts to Californias Sensitive Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems....................... 47
Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 1 of 48
I. Fracking is Already Widespread in California and is Poised to Greatly Expand Regulatory failures at both the state and federal levels have greatly hindered access to information on fracking in California, and have fostered several apparent misconceptions regarding the practice, namely, either that (1) fracking is not yet occurring in California, or (2) that fracking is occurring here, but that there is no reason for concern because it has been ongoing for many decades and is different, and less risky, than fracking occurring in other parts of the country. As detailed below, both are incorrect. In order to understand the current situation and the risks going forward, a bit of background on fracking technology and Californias petroleum resources is necessary. As detailed below, the fracking boom has been facilitated by several very recent technological developments, including, most notably, the combination of multi-stage slickwater hydraulic fracturing with horizontal drilling. While there is certainly risk from other types of fracking, for example, fracking a vertical well, it is the combination of slickwater fracturing with horizontal drilling that has facilitated the explosive growth in natural gas production in the Marcellus Shale in the Northeast and other areas, and that has been associated with many of the recent incidents of air and water contamination and other damage from fracking. Fracking is used to recover both natural gas and oil. While the problems associated with fracking for natural gas have received greater media attention, the new techniques have also facilitated the development of unconventional shale oil. Development of shale oil resources is already well underway in the Bakken play in North Dakota and Eagle Ford play in Texas, which the Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates hold approximately 3.6 billion barrels and 3.4 billion barrels of shale oil, respectively.1 However, the potential for development in these areas are dwarfed by the Monterey Shale play in California, which the EIA estimates holds 64 percent of the total shale oil reserves in the continental United States, or over 15 billion barrels of shale oil.2 The website FracFocus confirms that fracking is already widespread in California, with hundreds of wells fracked just since January 1, 2011 alone. Moveover, industry documents show that at least some of this fracking involves multi-stage slickwater hydraulic fracturing, along with horizontal drilling, and that these companies plan to use these techniques to exploit the massive, unconventional shale oil resources locked within the Monterey Shale. In sum, the fracking boom and all its attendant risks has already arrived in California, and if it continues unchecked, our state could experience impacts as bad or even worse than in other parts of the country. A. Technological Developments and the Fracking Boom
U.S. Energy Information Administration, Review of Emerging Resources US Shale Gas and Oil Plays (2011). 2 Id.
Recent technological developments in the oil and gas industry, most notably relating to slickwater hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling, has enabled economic recovery of previously inaccessible oil and gas resources. This has caused a massive boom in oil and gas production around the country, and has driven an increasing interest in the unconventional shale oil resources of Californias Monterey Shale. A bit of background on drilling techniques and geology is helpful to understanding the significance of recent developments. The first oil and gas deposits discovered and exploited consisted of porous reservoirs in geologic formations capped by an impervious trap that would contain migrating fluids, such as oil, natural gas, and water.3 Within these reservoirs, the fluids would arrange by density, so that natural gas would be on top, with oil under it, and water on the bottom.4 Most oil and gas produced historically has come from reservoirs like these, called conventional deposits. The permeability of a conventional deposit allows the easy flow of oil or gas toward a well when extraction of the liquids drops pressure around the well.5 This allows a single simple wellbore to easily extract the fossil fuels from a relatively large area, making the extraction economically attractive.6 However, much of the worlds store of fossil fuel is not contained in these conventional deposits, but rather is inside the pours and cracks of relatively impermeable sedimentary rock, and distributed over a larger area.7 Shale is one such impermeable formation, and shale deposits can hold huge amounts of shale oilalso called tight oil to avoid confusion with oil shaleand shale gas.8 The geologic processes of sedimentation and compaction that create shale make both horizontal and vertical migration of oil and gas through the shale especially difficult.9 Thus, while shale can contain huge amounts of oil and/or gas, its low permeability means that typically these resources cannot be economically recovered through conventional drilling methods.10 Recently, industry has overcome this low permeability by combining multi-stage slickwater hydraulic fracturing with horizontal drilling, allowing profitable production of
Behrens, Carl E. et al., U.S. Fossil Fuel Resources: Terminology, Reporting, and Summary, Congressional Research Service at 6 (Dec. 28, 2011); Mathias, Simon, Hydraulic fracturing of shale gas reservoirs implications for the surrounding environment at 3 (Sep. 2010) (Mathias); http://www.newtimesslo.com/cover/6555/californias-silent-oil-rush/ (McDonald); Paleontological Research Institution, Understanding Drilling Technology, Marcellus Shale at 1 (Jan. 2012), www.museumoftheearth.org/files/marcellus/Marcellus_issue6.pdf (last visited July 30, 2012). 4 Behrens, Carl E. et al., U.S. Fossil Fuel Resources: Terminology, Reporting, and Summary, Congressional Research Service at 6 (Dec. 28, 2011). 5 Crain, E.R., Permeability Basics, Crains Petrophysical Handbook at 1, http://www.spec2000.net/15permbasics.htm (last visited July 30, 2012). 6 See Behrens at 6; Mathias at 3; McDonald at 3. 7 Id. 8 National Petroleum Council, Prudent Development at 13 (Sep. 2011) (NPC); United States Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2012 at 58 (Jun. 2012) (EIA I); United States Energy Information Administration, Review of Emerging Resources: U.S. Shale Gas and Shale Oil Plays at 75-77 (Jul. 2011) (EIA II). 9 Arthur, J. Daniel et al., Hydraulic Fracturing Considerations for Natural Gas Wells of the Marcellus Shale at 2 (Sep. 2008) (Arthur). 10 Mathias at 3-4.
3
shale gas and shale oil.11,12 Elements of these technologies have been used individually for decades. However, the combination of practices employed by industry recently is new: Modern formation stimulation practices have become more complex and the process has developed into a sophisticated, engineered process in which production companies work to design a hydraulic fracturing treatment to emplace fracture networks in specific areas.13 The first aspect of this technique is the hydraulic fracturing of the rock. When the rock is fractured, the resulting cracks in the rock constitute passages through which gas and liquids can flow, increasing the permeability of the fractured area.14 To fracture the rock, the well operator injects hydraulic fracturing fluid at tremendous pressure.15 This frack fluid is primarily water, together with a proppant, typically sand, that becomes wedged in the fractures and holds them open so that passages remain after pressure is relieved.16 Most fracturing is done with slick water fracturing fluid, in which other chemicals are mixed into the fluid to provide characteristics that facilitate fracturing.17 Chemicals are used to increase the viscosity of the fluid, to keep proppants suspended, to impede bacterial growth or mineral deposition, and for a variety of other purposes.18 Halliburton developed the practice of injecting fluids into wells under high pressure in
11
CITI, Resurging North American Oil Production and the Death of the Peak Oil Hypothesis at 9 (Feb. 15, 2012) (CITI); EIA II at 4; Orszag, Peter, Fracking Boom Could Finally Cap Myth of Peak Oil (Jan. 31, 2011), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-01/fracking-boom-could-finally-cap-myth-of-peak-oilpeter-orszag.html (last visited July 13, 2012). 12 The New York Department of Environmental Quality provides the following overview of Technological Milestones for hydraulic fracturing: Early 1900s 1983 1980-1990s 1991 1991 1996 1996 1998 2002 2003 2005 2007 Hydraulic Fracturing Technological Milestones Natural gas extracted from shale wells. Vertical wells fractured with foam. First gas well drilled in Barnett Shale in Texas Cross-linked gel fracturing fluids developed and used in vertical wells First horizontal well drilled in Barnett Shale Orientation of induced fractures identified Slickwater fracturing fluids introduced Microseismic post-fracturing mapping developed Slickwater refracturing of originally gel-fractured wells Multi-stage slickwater fracturing of horizontal wells First hydraulic fracturing of Marcellus Shale Increased emphasis on improving the recovery factor Use of multi-well pads and cluster drilling
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Revised Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program, Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs at 5-5 (Sep. 7, 2011). 13 Arthur at 9. 14 Mathias at 5-9. 15 Id. 16 Id.; Arthur at 10. 17 Arthur at 10; United States House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Minority Staff, Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing (Apr. 2011) (House Fracking Report). 18 Arthur at 10.
the late 1940s;19 however, companies began using todays slick-water much later, in the mid-1990s.20 As discussed further below, industry has long resisted the disclosure of the chemicals used in fracking, and neither the states nor the federal government have yet required full disclosure.21 Nevertheless, it is clear that dozens of dangerous and potentially dangerous chemicals are used. One Congressional investigation which queried fourteen oil and gas companies found that [t]he oil and gas service companies used hydraulic fracturing products containing 29 chemicals that are (1) known or possible human carcinogens, (2) regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act for their risks to human health, or (3) listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.22 Because shale oil and shale gas formations are relatively thin layers of rock that are typically located miles below the surface, just adding hydraulic fracturing to the conventional drilling process is often insufficient to allow profitable extraction of these resources.23 The zone of increased permeability created by hydraulic fracturing only extends a certain radius away from the well bore, and drilling that deep to extract resources from a narrow vertical cylinder of the shale layer can be uneconomic.24 To address this problem, companies developed horizontal drilling. This practice first began appearing in the early 1990s.25 It allows an operator to drill down to the shale layer and then turn the well to extend along it.26 The operator can then fracture the shale formation and extract oil and gas from a much larger area, as compared to a vertical well.27 The development of long horizontal wells made increasing pressure in the well harder, and also raised the potential for a single well to encounter varying conditions. Thus, starting in 2002, to maintain sufficient pressure to fracture the entire length of the wellbore, to achieve better control of fracture placement and to allow changes from stage to stage to accommodate varying geological conditions along the wellbore,28 industry began employing multi-stage fracking. In multi-stage fracking, the operator treats only part of the wellbore at a time, typically 300 to 500 feet.29 Each stage may require
Marcellus Accountability Project - Tompkins, How will High-Volume (Slick-water) Hydraulic Fracturing of the Marcellus (or Utica) Shale Differ from Traditional Hydraulic Fracturing? (Feb. 2011) (Marcellus Accountability Project). 20 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Revised Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program, Well Permit Issuance for Horizontal Drilling and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas Reservoirs at 5-5 (Sep. 7, 2011) (NYDEC) 21 Waxman, Henry et al., United States House of Representatives, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Minority Staff, Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing at 11-12 (Apr. 2011). (House Fracking Report) 22 Id. at 8. 23 See CITI at 9; EIA II at 4; Orszag. 24 Arthur at 8 (Figure 4). 25 Venoco, Inc., Monterey Shale Focused Analyst Day Slide Show, May 26, 2010 at 23. 26 Id. 27 Id.; EIA I at 63. 28 NYDEC at 5-93. 29 Id.
19
300,000 to 600,000 gallons of water, and consequently, a frack job that is two or more stages can contaminate and pump into the ground over a million gallons of water.30 This new combination of multi-stage slickwater hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling (often called fracking, or the latest fracking methods) has opened up production of oil and gas deposits that only a few years ago were generally viewed as uneconomical to develop.31 In large part through the use of fracking, the oil and gas sector is now producing huge amounts of oil, and especially gas, throughout the United States, rapidly transforming the domestic energy outlook. The U.S. Department of Energys Energy Information Administration (EIA) has estimated that by using these recently developed techniques, at least 750 trillion cubic feet of shale gas and 23.9 billion barrels of shale oil are now technically recoverable in the United States.32 The largest shale gas plays are the Marcellus in the Northeast (410.3 trillion cubic feet, 55 percent of the total), the Haynesville in the South (74.7 trillion cubic feet, 10 percent of the total), and the Barnett in the Southwest (43.4 trillion cubic feet, six percent of the total).33 For shale oil, the EIA estimates more than 23.9 billion barrels in the Lower 48.34 Significant shale oil extraction has already occurred in the Bakken play in North Dakota and Eagle Ford play in Texas, estimated to hold approximately 3.6 billion barrels and 3.4 billion barrels of shale oil, respectively.35 These plays are potentially dwarfed, however, by the Monterey Shale in California, which may hold as much as 64 percent of the total shale oil reserves in the continental United States, or over 15 billion barrels of shale oil.36 Initially, the latest fracking methods were used successfully in the Barnett Shale of the Fort Worth Basin in Texas, with production ramping up rapidly in the mid- to late90s.37 Once its success in the Barnett Shale became clear, companies began adopting the new techniques, and fracking spread across the country. Fracking is now occurring in the eastern United States Marcellus Shale, North Dakotas Bakken Shale Formation, and Texass Eagle Ford Formation.38 The effect of hydraulic fracturing on the oil and gas markets has been tremendous, with many reports documenting the boom in domestic energy production. A recent congressional report notes that [a]s a result of hydraulic fracturing and advances in horizontal drilling technology, natural gas production in 2010 reached the highest level in decades.39 An EIA report notes how recently these changes have occurred, stating that only in the past 5 years has shale gas been recognized as a game changer for the U.S.
30 31
Id. CITI at 9; EIA II at 4; Orszag. 32 EIA II at 4. 33 Id. 34 Id. 35 Id. 36 Id. 37 Arthur at 1, 3. 38 Arthur at 3; EIA I at 95; McDonald. 39 House Fracking Report at 1.
natural gas market.40 Another recent report highlights how recent advances in technology have driven, and will continue to drive this change: From 2007 to 2009, the average lateral length of horizontal drilling for shale rock resources increased by a factor of five, allowing for a tripling of the initial production rate in some shale formations. This technological advance substantially lowered costs and allowed for greater technical access to the shale gas resource in-place. Currently in North America, break-even prices for some of the more prolific shales are estimated to be as low as $3 per thousand cubic feet (mcf), with a large majority of the resource accessibility at below $6/mcf. Ten years ago, costs were three to four times higher. As firms continue to make cost reducing innovations, it is likely that the recoverable resource base is larger than presently estimated.41 With respect to oil, the EIA notes that oil production has been increasing, with the production of shale oil resources pushing levels even higher over the next decade: Domestic crude oil production has increased over the past few years, reversing a decline that began in 1986. U.S. crude oil production increased from 5.0 million barrels per day in 2008 to 5.5 million barrels per day in 2010. Over the next 10 years, continued development of tight oil, in combination with the ongoing development of offshore resources in the Gulf of Mexico, pushes domestic crude oil production higher. As the shale gas experience demonstrates, one outcome of the recent price spikes of the 2000s is that higher prices encouraged innovations in the exploration of hydrocarbon resources that were previously too expensive or considered technologically infeasible. As these techniques are increasingly utilized, experience allow firms to learn by doing, and thereby lower the overall development cost of producing unconventional resources, leaving continued development feasible even as prices sink again cyclically.42 Thus, it is evident that industry is still exploring new locations to develop, and the nation has not yet seen the full extent of frackings impact on oil and gas development and production. The meteoric rise of fracking around the country and the scale of the practice, along with the scope and uncertainty of the risks involved with the practice have caught the public and governments by surprise. In response, concerned over impacts to groundwater, air quality and habitat, some cities, states, and countries have placed a
EIA II at 4. Jaffe, Amy Myers et al., The Status of World Oil Reserves: Conventional and Unconventional Resources in the Future Supply Mix at 12-13 (Oct. 2011) (Jaffe). 42 EIA I at 2.
41 40
moratorium or outright ban on fracking. For instance, in 2011 France became the first country to ban the practice.43 In May, Vermont became the first state to ban fracking. Vermonts governor called the ban a big deal and stated that the bill will ensure that we do not inject chemicals into groundwater in a desperate pursuit for energy.44 New York has halted the practice while it researches the issue, and Governor Andrew Cuomo is considering allowing fracking only in communities with ordinances allowing it.45 Also, New Jerseys legislature recently passed a bill that would prevent fracking waste, like toxic wastewater and drill cuttings, from entering its borders,46 and Pennsylvania, ground zero for the fracking debate, has banned natural-gas exploration across a swath of suburban Philadelphia . . . .47 Numerous cities and communities, like Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Raleigh, Woodstock, and Morgantown have banned fracking.48 Further, various legislative proposals are now moving in California that would increase regulation of fracking, including instituting a moratorium on fracking in the state. B. Development of Shale Oil from Californias Monterey Shale The Monterey Shale Formation is a massive deposit the EIA estimates to contain over 15 billion barrels of shale oil, or 64 percent of the nations total shale oil resources.49 The Monterey Shale is significant not just because of its size, but because [i]n theory, at least, these reserves are easier and less expensive to tap into than resources elsewhere in the US.50 Most of the oil produced to date from the Monterey Shale Formation has been the easy oiloil that was naturally released from the shale into other, permeable formations over geologic time scales and then pooled near the surface where it could be extracted with conventional drilling techniques.51 However, most of the remaining shale oil in the Monterey formation remains locked within the shale itself, and in order to
Davide Castelvecchi, France becomes first country to ban extraction of natural gas by fracking, Scientific American Observations Blog, June 30, 2011 08:27 PM. 44 CNN Staff Writer, Vermont first state to ban fracking, CNN U.S. (May 17, 2012). 45 Esch, New York Fracking Moratorium Causes Drilling Company to Shut off Gas in Avon, NY, Huffinton Post (Jul. 9, 2012), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/09/avon-ny-new-york-frackingmoratorium_n_1660166.html?view=print&comm_ref=false (last visited July 30, 2012). 46 Tittel, Opinion: Stop fracking waste from entering New Jerseys borders (Jul 14, 2012). 47 Editorial, Fracking ban is about our water, The Inquirer (Jul. 11, 2012), http://articles.philly.com/201207-11/news/32633463_1_drilling-ban-gas-drilling-limit-drilling (last visited July 30, 2012). 48 CBS Staff Writer, Pittsburg Bans Natural Gas Drilling (Dec. 8, 2010), http://www.cbsnwes.com/stories/2010/11/16/national/main7060953.shtml.;Wooten, Michael, City of Buffalo Bans Fracking (Feb. 9, 2011), http://origin.wgrz.com/news/article/108668/1/City-of-Buffalo-BansFracking; The Raleigh Telegram, Raleigh City Council Bans Fracking Within City Limits (Jul. 11, 2012), http://raleightelegram.com/201207112072; Kemble, Woodstock bans activities tied to fracking, Daily Freeman (Jul. 19, 2012). http://www.dailyfreeman.com/articles/2012/07/19/news/doc50076d4cd1861663882345.txt; MetroNews.com, Morgantown Bans Fracking (June 22, 2011), http://www.wvmetronews.com/news.cfm?func=displayfullstory&storyid=46214 49 EIA II at 4. 50 CITI at 14 (emphasis in original). 51 McDonald at 3.
43
recover that oil, industry must employ unconventional techniques like fracking to allow the oil to be brought economically to the surface.52 While there has been relatively light exploration and extraction of oil directly from the Monterey Shale formation to date, there has very recentlyjust over the last few yearsbeen an increase in industry activity. Oil and gas companies are gearing up to exploit the massive unconventional oil deposits. For instance, Venoco has a major program to drill unconventional oil resources of the Monterey Shale.53 Venocos CEO has expressed the companys dedication to its new program to investors, and indicates that drilling operations just started getting the bit into the ground in 2010: [W]e were able to double the Monterey Shale budget and not only drill additional vertical wells, but also drill our first horizontal wells in the play. We are very early in the process of applying new drilling, coring, logging, completion and petrophysics to the Monterey. Before 2010, wed invested five years to identify the resource, to build a solid lease position and to hire key personnel to pursue this play. We have made very good progress in 2010 by getting the bit into the ground.54 The company appears to be expanding this operation, as it is currently searching for Sr. Reservoir Engineers to work in one of its California offices.55 These Engineering positions will report to either the Manager of Unconventional Resources supporting our upcoming shale projects or the Development Manager supporting other active fields in Venocos Southern California Region. . . . Candidates for the Unconventional Resources positions should have extensive experience in unconventional shale plays including hands-on assignments in horizontal/long lateral wells with multi-frac completions in shale formations.56 The same California office also is seeking a drilling engineer that has experience with work in shale plays that utilized the latest unconventional drilling techniques . . . .57 Venoco has been and will be aiming these expanding efforts at the areas at issue here, the San Joaquin . . . basin[] and the Salinas Valley . . . .58 Venoco has been
See Arthur at 2-3. See, e.g., Williams, Peggy, Monterey Shale a marvelous target, EP Magazine (May 25, 2010), http://www.epmag.com/item/print/Monterey-Shale-marvelous-target_60504 54 Venoco, Inc, Venoco, Inc. Announces Reserves and Operations Update Dec 31, 2010, http://investor.venocoinc.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=193733&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1525229&highlight= (last visited July 16, 2012). (internal quotation marks omitted). 55 Venoco, Employment Opportunities, http://www.venocoinc.com/employment.php?area=2 (last visited July 30, 2012). 56 Id. (emphasis added). 57 Id. 58 Petzet, Alan, Venoco gears to probe California Monterey on land, Oil and Gas Journal (Jan 24, 2011), http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-109/issue-4/general-interest/venoco-gears-to-probe-californiamonterey.html.
53 52
particularly active in protecting its right to frack wells in Monterey County, and appears to have already fracked multiple wells there.59 Moreover, contrary to state and federal agency talking points on fracking in California, Venoco is already employing the modern techniques and tools that are the hallmark of modern fracking. An Oil & Gas Journal report highlights Venocos use of not just hydraulic fracturing, but also horizontal drilling and multi-stage frack jobs: [Venoco] has drilled its first two Monterey horizontal wells in the Santa Maria basin and awaits four-stage fracs expected in a few weeks to test that technology vs. acid treatments that have worked well in the Monterey elsewhere. It is also drilling a horizontal Monterey well in the Salinas Valley.60 The composition of the fracking fluid Venoco is using in its frack jobs remains unclear; however, in its application to Monterey County, Venoco described its chemical mix as acid, friction reducers, surfactant, gelling agent, PH adjusting agent, oxygen scavenger, breaker, crosslinker, Iron Control, Corrosion Inhibitor, and an Antibacterial Agent in a drilling application submitted to Monterey County.61 This means that Venoco is likely using a whole host of dangerous chemicals. For instance, companies use methanol, which can be fatal in high enough doses, as a corrosion inhibitor; and they use naphthalene, which is a carcinogen and which can cause death if inhaled, as a surfactant.62 Further, corporations are pursuing tight oil operations on the Monterey Shale that are large in scale. An industry report states that Venoco and Oxy [Occidental Petroleum], two of the major companies in Monterey, together shot Californias largest ever 3-D seismic shoot. And drilling activity increased throughout 2011, hitting 40 rigs in October, and up 100 wells in 2011 compared to the year before.63 Another report notes that this seismic survey covered 520,000 acres, and that the surveys data will help in planning horizontal wells.64
59
Rubin, Sara, Community group seeks answers to regulatory loopholes, Monterey County Weekly (Feb. 10, 2011), http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/news/2011/feb/10/fracking-ordeal/ (the Hames Valley is at the southern end of the Salinas Valley); Letter from James G Moose, Counsel for Venoco, Inc. to Charles J. McKee, County Counsel for Monterey County regarding Venoco Use Permit Number PLN 080321, March 17, 2011. (Venoco is currently drilling two wells in Monterey County . . . and has two other approved exploratory well permits . . . for which drilling may commence in the near future. None of the Existing Permits restricts the down-hole procedures that Venoco may use to evaluate the commercial potential its wells. Hydraulic fracturing is among various techniques commonly in use in the oil and gas industry. The last well Venoco drilled in Monterey County . . . was hydraulically fractured.). 60 Id. (emphasis added). 61 Robert A. McDonald, California's Silent Oil Rush, New Times, August 31, 2011, http://http://www.newtimesslo.com/cover/6555/californias-silent-oil-rush/ (last visited July 13, 2012).. 62 FracFocus.org, What Chemicals Are Used, http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used http://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used; http://www.businessinsider.com/scarychemicals-used-in-hydraulic-fracking-2012-3?op=1 (last visited July 30, 2012) (FracFocus I); Earthworks, Hydraulic Fracturing 101 at 9, http://www.earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/hydraulic_fracturing_101 (last visited July 16, 2012). (Earthworks Hydraulic Fracturing 101) 63 CITI at 14. 64 Petzet, Venoco gears to probe California Monterey on land, Oil & Gas Journal at 27 (Jan. 24, 2011).
Fracking is already widespread in California, and companies are already fracking in a manner that, until recently, likely had not been seen in the state. The website FracFocus, which discloses some voluntarily-reported information relating to wells fracked since January 1, 2011, shows 285 wells that have been fracked since that date. 65 Fracking has occurred in at least 9 California counties to date. In Kern County, according to Halliburton, in the fall of 2011, 50 to 60 percent of new wells being drilled were hydraulically fractured.66 It is also clear, however, that fracking is poised to greatly expand because California contains the lions share of the countrys unconventional shale oil resources, and oil and gas companies are already well along in their plans to exploit those resources through fracking. II. Fracking Poses Grave and Unacceptable Risks to Californians and Our Environment As detailed below, fracking poses a host of unacceptable risks for our state in areas including its contribution to the climate crisis, impacts to water resources, air pollution, impacts to wildlife, ecosystems, communities and seismic activity. While some of these dangers can be reduced through regulation, none can be eliminated, and taken together, it is quite clear that the only truly protective policy option is an immediate prohibition on fracking in California. A. Climate Change Californians are aware of the peril our state faces due to anthropogenic climate change and have supported some of the earliest actions taken by any state government to reduce emissions. Many California legislators and regulators are working hard to create a state climate policy that leads the nation in measures to address the climate crisis. Yet even Californias efforts to date are far less than needed to surmount the monumental and urgent challenge we face. Continued fracking will facilitate the exploitation of Californias massive unconventional shale oil resources, a scenario that is simply incompatible with any successful strategy to achieve the emissions reductions on the scale required to avert climate catastrophe. Current atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases are already resulting in severe and significant climate change impacts that are projected to worsen as emissions rise.67 Key changes include warming temperatures, the increasing frequency of extreme weather events, rapidly melting glaciers, ice sheets, and sea ice, rising sea levels, and a thirty percent increase in surface ocean acidity.68 Many climate change risks are substantially greater than assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007,69 and the rates of many negative changes are tracking the worst case
65 66 67
68
FracFocus I. Id.
U.S. Global Change Research Program, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009). Id. 69 Hans-Martin Fussel. An Updated Assessment of the Risks from Climate Change Based on Research Published Since the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, 97 Climatic Change 469 (2009) (Fussel); Joel B. Smith et al., Assessing
scenarios projected by the IPCC.70 As summarized by Fussel (2009), many risks are now assessed as stronger than in the AR4 [IPCC Fourth Assessment Report], including the risk of large sea-level rise already in the current century, the amplification of global warming due to biological and geological carbon-cycle feedbacks, a large magnitude of committed warming currently concealed by a strong aerosol mask, substantial increases in climate variability and extreme weather events, and the risks to marine ecosystems from climate change and ocean acidification. 71 Current emissions trends and impacts from warming to date are summarized in Exhibit A, Climate Change Science Summary. Scientists have dubbed the next ten years the critical decade because the window to avoid catastrophic climate impacts is closing. This is because climate impacts from the greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere have not been fully realized, and many climate impacts will be very long-lasting. Due to thermal inertia in the climate system, there is a time lag between the emission of greenhouse gases and the full physical climate response to those emissions, called the climate commitment. If greenhouse gases were to be maintained near todays levels, the Earth would be committed to additional warming estimated at 0.6C to 1.6C within this century, depending on the level of aerosol unmasking.72 While we are already committed, unfortunately, to very serious and damaging impacts, the choices that we make today will determine how much worse things will get. As NASA climate scientist Dr. James Hansen and colleagues have concluded, if humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm [equivalent to ~1.5C], but likely less than that. 73 Further, a 350 ppm target must be achieved within decades to prevent dangerous tipping points and the possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.74 In order to preserve a likely chance of limiting overall temperature increases to 1.5 C [corresponding, roughly to temperature change associated with atmospheric CO2 of 350 ppm] or 2C above pre-industrial levels, recent scientific assessments have found that global emissions must peak within the next several years, decline very sharply thereafter, reach zero net emissions by mid-century, and become net-negative after 2050
Dangerous Climate Change Through an Update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reasons for Concern, 106 Proc. of the Natl. Acad. of Sciences of the U.S. 4133 (2009). 70 A.D. Rogers & D. Laffoley, IPSO Oxford, International Earth system expert workshop on ocean stresses and impacts Summary Report (2011). 71 Fussel. 72 Aerosols are human-generated pollution particles like sulfates and nitrates that block solar radiation and produce a cooling effect that masks the full extent of global warming. When these particles are removed by air pollution control technologies, their cooling effect is reduced and warming is unmasked. G.A. Meehl, et al., Global Climate Projections in Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC (Susan Solomon et al., eds. 2007); V. Ramanathan & Y. Feng, On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system: formidable challenges ahead, 105 Proc. Natl. Acad. of Sciences 14245 (2008). 73 James Hansen et al., Target atmospheric CO2: Where should humanity aim? 2 Open Atmospheric Science Journal 217 (2008); atmospheric CO2 levels are currently 395 ppm. http://co2now.org/ (last visited July 26, 2012). 74 Id.
(i.e. where more carbon is removed from the atmosphere than is produced).75 Scientists have estimated that cumulative CO2 emissions must not exceed 1000 GtCO2 (gigatonnes CO2) between 2000 and 2050 in order to have a 75% chance of staying below 2C 76 and must not exceed 750 to 824 GtCO2 between 2000 and 2050 to meet a 350ppm CO2/1.5C target.77 Because pathways for 1.5C and 2C require staying within a tight cumulative carbon budget, continuing increases in greenhouse gas emissions and corresponding delays in reaching a global emissions peak make it increasingly difficult to meet these targets. For example, global emissions from 2000 to 2010 accounted for roughly 360 GtCO2, which is a third of the allowed emissions until 2050 consistent with a 75% chance of staying within 2C and nearly half of the allowed emissions until 2050 consistent with staying within 1.5C.78 Thus, global emissions in the past decade have eliminated a large portion of the available carbon budget, and every year at current emissions (~33 GtCO2) consumes a significant share and makes meeting this budget less feasible. Every additional contribution to global greenhouse gas emissions, especially over the next few decades, means that meeting a 1.5C or 2C target becomes less likely and pushes the Earth further toward tipping points, enhances positive feedback loops that amplify warming, and increases the probability of dangerous climatic changes. The urgency of the challenge we face requires a full scale mobilization to reduce emissions and energy policies that promote a rapid transition to truly clean and renewable energy sources. While, as discussed further below, there are many emissions associated with oil and gas extraction, storage, and transmission that can and must be reduced through regulations (both for conventional and unconventional production like fracking), there is currently no way to eliminate the impact from the combustion of additional fossil fuels. In short, extracting and combusting the 15 billion barrels of unconventional shale oil that lies within the Monterey Shale is simply incompatible with any rational attempt to achieve emissions reductions of the scale required to avert massive climate disruption. California should not allow fracking because a bright future for the state simply does not lie with exploiting its massive unconventional fossil fuel resources. They must be left in the ground. B. Water Contamination Among frackings most significant other impacts is the risk it poses to water resources, both because it has the potential to open new areas to oil and gas development and because the fracking process poses unique dangers. This section first discusses
N. Hhne et al., Ecofys, Emission pathways towards 2C (September 2009), www.ecofys.com; P. Baer et al., EcoEquity & SEI, A 350 ppm Emergency Pathway (2009)., http://gdrights.org; this pathway reaches 350 ppm CO2 by 2100; N. Hhne et al., Climate Analytics & Ecofys, Copenhagen Climate DealHow to Close the Gap? Briefing Paper. (2009); United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), The Emissions Gap Report: Are the Copenhagen Accord Pledges Sufficient to Limit Global Warming to 2C or 1.5C? (2010), www.unep.org. 76 Meinshausen, M. et al., Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2C, 458 Nature 1158 (2009); National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Stabilization Targets for Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Concentrations (2010), http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12877.html. 77 Frank Ackerman et al., Economics for Equity and Environment, The Economics of 350: The Benefits and Costs of Climate Stabilization (2009), www.e3network.org; P. Baer et al., EcoEquity & SEI, A 350 ppm Emergency Pathway (2009), http://gdrights.org. 78 N. Hhne et al., Ecofys, Emission pathways towards 2C (September 2009), www.ecofys.com.
75
harms from the expansion of oil and gas operations in general, and then discusses the dangers of fracking in particular. 1. Harms to water resources from oil and gas operations. Oil and gas operations can cause significant damage to water resources. Exploration, development, and production wastes may leak or spill into the environment, allowing pollutants associated with those operations to reach water resources.79 Common causes of water contamination and pollution include surface pits, underground injection of waste, unintentional spills and releases, and construction of oil and gas infrastructure. Surface pits, in particular, are a major source of water pollution. For instance, in California, a Kern County farmer was awarded $8.5 million in damages in 2009 after his almond trees died when he irrigated them with well water that had been tainted by nearby oil and gas operations. The contamination was traced to unlined pits where Aera Energy LLC, one of Californias largest oil and gas producers, had for decades dumped billions of gallons of wastewater that slowly leached pollutants into nearby groundwater.80 Also, New Mexico data, summarized by the Oil and Gas Accountability Project, shows 743 instances of ground water contamination, almost all of it occurring over the last three decades. Three hundred and ninety eight of those incidents over half are linked to faulty pits.81 Similar incidents are occurring across the country.82 In Colorado, spills have contaminated well water and drinking water. A petition requesting additional regulations to prevent pollutants from oil and gas activities escaping into the environment noted the following: In La Plata County, a landowner reported the possible contamination of his well by an unlined reserve pit located a mere 350 feet uphill from his well. The [Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC)] eventually concluded that it appear[ed] that fluids from the unlined reserve pit infiltrated into the shallow groundwater, flowed downhill and impacted the Thomson water well. The COGCC has documented numerous other incidents where pits have leaked, overflowed, or been unlined, thereby allowing their contents to be absorbed by unprotected ground. In May, 2008, a Colorado citizen drank water from his spring and fell ill. The COGCC found benzene in the groundwater that exceeded standards by 32 times
79
Natural Resources Defense Council, Petition for Rulemaking Pursuant to Section 6974(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Concerning the Regulation of Wastes Associated with the Exploration, Development, or Production of Crude Oil or Natural Gas or Geothermal Energy at 17 (Sep. 8, 2010). (NRDC Petition for Rulemaking) 80 Environmental Working Group, California Regulators: See No Fracking, Speak No Fracking, 6 (2012). 81 New Mexico Oil Conservation Division, OGAP Analysis of data provided in New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Dept, Oil and Conservation Div., Cases Where Pit Substances Contaminated New Mexicos Ground Water (2008). 82 See generally NRDC Petition for Rulemaking.
and benzene in faucet water that exceeded standards by 13 times, as well as elevated levels of toluene and xylenes. . . . In July, 2010, the COGCC found that the operator failed to properly permit, construct, maintain, and repair the pit, leading to a release or releases of E&P waste that impacted groundwater. The agency found that the liner had been stretched over rocks and had improperly sealed seams.83 Also, in Pennsylvania, state authorities were forced to quarantine cattle after a pit leaked into their field, creating a pool that killed the grass,84 and in Ohio, compromised pit liners and pit wall failures have sent pollution spilling out into the environment.85 The underground injection of waste is the most widely used disposal method, and it too poses threats to water resources. If wastes are injected into a formation that does not meet certain levels of permeability, porosity, and low reservoir pressure, the formation can form a poor seal around the waste, and the waste can escape into the environment.86 The failure of these wells is not uncommon; there are numerous known examples of Class II underground injection wells contaminating drinking water supplies.87 And this is particularly great cause for concern because U.S. EPA has found DOGGRs Class II underground injection well program to be insufficiently protective of groundwater resources.88 In fact, EPA found that at least one injection in California likely caused groundwater contamination. The report states: One injection well, the Aera Energy Orradre 51-68-2 well in the San Ardo field, was suspected of causing USDW contamination in the past ten years. The well was ordered shut in and the case was referred to the RWQB for resolution, which is standard procedure in contamination cases. The RWQB required monitoring and fluid samples to be taken and analyzed. The cause was casing failure in a packerless steamflood completion that allowed injection fluid to enter an USDW.89 Also, many other spills and releases occur before those wastes reach storage or disposal sites. These other releases can be the result of equipment failure, accidents, negligence, or intentional dumping. These spills can be very harmful. A January 2007 oil spill at the Sespe Oil Field Tar Creek Lease released more than 800 gallons of oil and an unknown amount of wastewater into Tar Creek.90 This discharge coated more than three miles of Tar Creek with oil along the edge of the Sespe Condor Sanctuary.91
NRDC Petition for Rulemaking at 19 (commenters altered the text to include the full name of the COGCC). 84 Kusnetz, Nicholas, A Fracking First in Pennsylvania: Cattle Quanrantine (July 2, 2010), Pro Publica (July 2, 2010), http://www.propublica.org/article/a-fracking-first-in-pennsylvania-cattle-quarantine. 85 NRDC Petition for Rulemaking at 20. 86 Id. at 25. 87 Id. 88 See 89 Walker, James, California Class II Underground Injection Control Program Review, Final Report submitted to Ground Water Office USEPA Region 9 (June 2011). (original in italics). 90 U.S. Dept. of Fish and Game, Environmental Incident Report: Vintage Production California LLC Tar
83
Construction of oil and gas infrastructure, such as well pads and roads, can also harm water quality by increasing sediment levels. A paper published last year in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment details this threat: Excessive sediment levels are one of the primary threats to US surface waters . . . and have multiple negative effects in lotic (river, stream, or spring) food webs . . . Gas-well installation activities can negatively affect lotic ecosystems by increasing sediment inputs from well pads and supporting infrastructure (eg roads, pipelines, stream crossings), as well as loss of riparian area. Typically, . . . land must be cleared for each well pad, depending on the number of wells per pad; where these occur in high densities, well pads can cumulatively alter the landscape. Land clearing and stream disturbance during well and infrastructure development can increase sediments in surface-water runoff . . . , resulting in increased suspended and benthic sediments in surface waters. Nutrients, such as phosphorus, bound to these sediments may also have negative impacts on surface waters by contributing to eutrophication.92 2. Harms to water resources from fracking Fracking poses additional and unique harms to water resources. Fracture fluid can involve hundreds of toxic chemicals and there are numerous ways that these chemicals can escape into the environment and pollute groundwater. a. Pollutants in the hydraulic fracturing process In April 2011, the United States House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce issued a report resulting from an investigation into the practice of fracking and its potential impacts on water quality. Based on voluntary responses from fourteen companies engaged in fracking, the report provided a minimum estimate of the chemicals companies are using in fracking.93 While this report provides only a partial picture of what companies are pumping into the ground, it is nevertheless disturbing. It states: Between 2005 and 2009, the 14 oil and gas service companies used more than 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 chemicals and other components. Overall, these companies used 780 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products not including water added at the well site between 2005 and 2009. .
Creek Crude Oil and Produced Water Spills, January 30, 2007 and February 6, 2007. 91 Id. 92 Sally Entrekin et al., Rapid Expansion of Natural Gas Development Poses a Threat to Surface Waters, 9 Front Ecol Environ 503, 507 (2011). 93 House Fracking Report at 5.
Between 2005 and 2009, the oil and gas service companies used hydraulic fracturing products containing 29 chemicals that are (1) known or possible human carcinogens, (2) regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act for their risks to human health, or (3) listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. These 29 chemicals were components of more than 650 different products used in hydraulic fracturing.94 The report further stated that: The BTEX compounds benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene appeared in 60 of the hydraulic fracturing products used between 2005 and 2009. Each BTEX compound is a regulated contaminant under the Safe Drinking Water Act and a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Benzene also is a known human carcinogen. The hydraulic fracturing companies injected 11.4 million gallons of products containing at least one BTEX chemical over the five year period.95 Diesel fuel, a frequent contaminant of drinking water, also is used in fracking fluid; a recent summary indicated that over 32 million gallons of fluids containing diesel fuel were injected into wells during fracking operations in 19 states.96 As discussed further below, these companies reported injecting over 26,000 gallons of diesel fuel in California between 2005 and 2009, apparently illegally. The exact composition of a companys fracking fluid, however, is often shrouded in mystery because industry has fought to prevent disclosure and has asserted that the identity of the chemicals used is proprietary. Industry is so fiercely protective of these secrets that they have even fought allowing doctor access to information to treat patients potentially harmed by fracking.97 In Pennsylvania, doctors now have access, [b]ut theres a catch: Doctors can get the chemical names only if they sign a confidentiality agreement and agree not to share that information.98 To make matters worse, [i]ts not even clear whether the doctor can share the trade-secret ingredient with the patient or the patient's neighbors, co-workers or primary care doctor.99 The threat of being sued by an aggressive corporation with essentially limitless funds to pursue the litigation is making doctors nervous. One stated: As I understand it, its legally binding, so if 20 years from now I hiccup that someone was exposed to [a chemical used in fracking], I'm legally liable for that.100
94 95
House Fracking Report at 1. Id. at 2. 96 Letter from Waxman, Markey, and DeGette, Ranking Members of the U.S. House of Representatives to Lisa Jackson, Administrator, U.S. EPA at 1 (Jan. 31, 2011). 97 NPR, Pennsylvania Doctors Worry Over Fracking 'Gag Rule' (May 17, 2012), http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=152268501 98 Id. 99 Id. 100 Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
In addition to what companies intentionally add to the fracking fluids, flowback and produced water can contain harmful substances the fracking process has released from deep underground. EPA has stated that these waters can have high concentrations of several ions (e.g., barium, bromide, calcium, chloride, iron, magnesium, sodium, strontium, bicarbonate) . . . .101 Additionally, [f]lowback likely contains radionuclides, with the concentration varying by formation; [v]olatile organic compounds (VOCs), including but not limited to benzene, toluene, xylenes, and acetone, have also been detected; and a limited time series monitoring program of post-fracturing flowback fluids in the Marcellus Shale indicated increased concentrations over time of [total dissolved solids], chloride, barium, and calcium; water hardness; and levels of radioactivity . . . .102 b. Fracking can harm water resources through a variety of mechanisms Fracking creates risk to water resources both on the surface and underground. As detailed below, frackings first water impact is the need for an enormous amount of water to frack each well, water which must come from somewhere. Next, on the surface, fracking can contaminate water resources through the spilling or leaking of fracking fluids, flowback, or produced water. Underground, fracking can contaminate waters through the migration of fracking fluid by way of faulty well construction, cementing, or casing or newly created fractures, neighboring wells, or natural fracture networks. i. Depletion of Water Resources Fracking affects water resources due to an operators need to obtain an enormous amount of water, up to five million gallons or more, to frack each well.103 Moreover, each well may be fracked up to eighteen times and each well pad may have up to ten wells.104 The serious impacts of this water use are widely recognized. As summarized by the IEA: In areas of water-scarcity, the extraction of water for drilling and hydraulic fracturing can have broad and serious environmental effects. It can lower the water table, affect biodiversity and harm the local ecosystem. It can also reduce the availability of water for use by local communities and in other productive activities, such as agriculture.105 Water may be obtained locally, creating potential serious impacts on water availability in the vicinity of the drilling, or it may be brought in from elsewhere, creating other attendant impacts such as increase in truck traffic. The enormous amount of water needed for the continued expansion of fracking in California is a very serious consideration for our water-stressed state.
USEPA, Draft Investigation of Ground Water Contamination Near Pavillion, Wyoming, 43 (Nov. 2011). Id. 103 Pennsylvania Alliance for Clean Water and Air, Frequently Asked Questions, http://www.pacwa.org/FAQ-Photos.html. 104 Id. 105 International Energy Agency, Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas (2012) at 31-32.
102 101
ii. Surface Spills and Leaks of Fracking Fluids, Flowback, or Produced Water On the surface, the hazardous fluids used or produced in the fracking process can be spilled or leak in numerous ways. After fracking, flowback and produced water that comes to the surface can be toxic. The oil and gas industry creates hundreds of billions of gallons of this type of waste each year.106 These fluids are stored on the surface in pits or tanks. As described supra, the leaking of pits is a very common cause of water contamination, and there are many instances of these pits leaking fracking waste in particular. Pennsylvanias Department of Environmental Protection has documented that at two of Atlas Resources LLCs well sites in Pennsylvania, compromised pit liners allowed fracturing flowback fluids to escape.107 Fracking waste is also injected underground into injection wells. As much as 90 percent of Marcellus Shale fracking fluid remains underground due in large part to this reinjection.108 As described supra, these injection wells can leak, and California is already having problems with its underground injection program. Also, many fluids must be transported to and/or from the well, and this presents another opportunity for leaks or spills. In one instance in Pennsylvania, a trucker transporting fluids rolled off the road and down an embankment.109 Much of the 5,000 gallons of fluid the truck was transporting leaked into the environment, and some of it reached a nearby stream, killing fish.110 Fracking fluid can also spill during the fracking process. Mechanical failure or operator error during the process can cause leaks from tank, valves, pipes, etc., and this leakage has the potential to contaminate groundwater and surface water.111 For example: In 2009, Pennsylvania regulators ordered the Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation to cease all fracking in Susquehanna County after three spills at one well within a week polluted a wetland and caused a fishkill in a local creek. The spills leaked 8,420 gallons of fracking fluid containing a Halliburton-manufactured lubricant that is a potential carcinogen. Fracking had so polluted water wells that some families could no longer drink from their taps.112 One investigative journalism report identified more than 1,000 cases of water contamination near drilling sites documented by courts, states and local governments
Id. NRDC Petition for Rulemaking at 20. 108 NRDC Petition at 27. 109 Kathie Warco, Fracking Truck Runs Off Road, Contents Spill, ObserverReporter.Com, October 21, 2010. 110 Id. 111 Natural Resources Defense Council, Water Facts: Hydraulic Fracturing can potentially Contaminate Drinking Water Sources (2012) at 2. 112 Food & Water Watch, The Case for a Ban on Fracking (2012), at 5.
107
106
around the country prior to 2009. 113 Pennsylvania regulators cited 451 Marcellus Shale gas wells for 1,544 violations in 2010 alone.114 iii. Faulty Well Construction, Cementing, or Casing Oil and gas wells are constructed using layers of steel pipe, called casing, that are cemented, either completely or partially, into the surrounding rock and to each other. This casing and cement helps to prevent oil, gas, and fluids in the well and in the rock from contaminating groundwater. However, when operators construct these parts of the well improperly, the casing and cement can fail to act as a barrier and can allow contaminants into the groundwater. As a result many cases of groundwater contamination, either by methane or fracking wastewater, are due to faulty casing. In 2004, the natural gas company Encana reportedly cemented improperly a natural gas well it fractured in Colorado.115 Contaminants migrated about 4,000 feet laterally, where they polluted a stream known as Divide Creek and nearby groundwater with unsafe levels of the known carcinogen benzene.116 As of the summer of 2011, the groundwater still contained unsafe levels of benzene.117 iv. Newly created fractures, neighboring wells, natural fracture networks One of the most serious risks of fracking is that it creates a permanent threat of contamination. According to the EPA . . . , studies conducted by the oil and gas industry, and interviews with industry and regulators, 20 to 85% of fracturing fluids may remain in the formation . . . .118 The amount of time the resulting pollution stays underground raises the risk of migration, even if that migration takes many years. Thus, it is cause for great concern that recent studies indicate that fracking pollutants can and will migrate through man-made or natural fractures. The Draft EPA Investigation of Ground Water Contamination near Pavillion, Wyoming, found that chemicals found in samples of groundwater were consistent with the migration of contaminants from fracked wells.119 The findings of EPAs draft report were confirmed by hydrologic consultant Tom Myers, who stated that, ultimately, EPAs findings were not that surprising: Because there are not any significant horizontal confining units within the Pavillion Field, the upward vertical contaminant transport is partially due to dispersion through relatively porous media. In areas with extensive horizontal confining layers, such as the Marcellus shale areas, transport through vertical fractures, similar to that through wellbores, could
Food & Water Watch at 5. Food & Water Watch at 5. 115 Horwitt, Dusty, Senior Counsel for the Environmental Working Group, Public Testimony, Oversight Hearing on the Revised Environmental Impact Statement on Hydraulic Fracturing and New York Citys Upstate Drinking Water Supply Infrastructure, Before the New York City Council Committee on Environmental Protection (Sep. 22, 2011). 116 Id. 117 Id. 118 Earthworks , Hydraulic Fracturing 101, at 10. 119 USEPA, Draft Investigation of Ground Water Contamination Near Pavillion, Wyoming, 43 (Nov. 2011).
114 113
transport substantial contaminant mass through the impervious zones . . . . If the bulk media bounding the fractures have conductivity less than one hundredth that in the fracture, the contaminants will transport with little dispersion, or loss, into the bulk media . . . . This appears to be the case in the Pavillion Field, given the existing geology. Thus, unless fracking is very carefully done, and well bores are solidly (not intermittently) bonded, this result is to be expected.120 Another study by the same consultant found, based on modeling, that active transport to aquifers could occur in less than 10 years.121 The study concludes that [t]wo potential pathwaysadvective transport through bulk media and preferential flow through fracturescould allow the transport of contaminants from the fractured shale to aquifers.122 Abandoned wells provided another way for contaminants to reach water resources. In the last 150 years, prospectors and energy companies have drilled as many as 12 million holes across the United States in search of oil and gas.123 Many of the wells drilled are now old and decaying, or are in unknown locations. For instance, [i]n Pennsylvania alone, regulators estimate that 184,000 wells were drilled before records were kept. Many of those wells were plugged with stumps, rocks or nothing at all.124 If fractures from a fracked well intersect one of these abandoned wells, the contaminants can reach the aquifer through the abandoned well. C. Air Pollution The expansion of fracking in California brings with it not only all of the air pollution associated with conventional oil and gas development, but additional air impacts unique to this unconventional process. Emisisons from fracking include both greenhouse emissions and traditional pollutants. In other areas of the country where fracking has facilitated a large increase in oil and gas production, it has caused severe air pollution problems, particularly ozone pollution. Some rural areas now experience ozone pollution levels akin to those in downtown Los Angeles which are caused almost entirely by fracking related activity. The increase in air pollution brought by fracking is of particular importance to California because areas of our state already suffer from the worst air quality in the nation. Moreover, increased temperatures due to global warming will increase ozone formation and further exacerbate the situation. Adding new, major sources of air pollution to this already dangerous situation is simply untenable.
Myers, Tom, Review of DRAFT: Investigation of Ground Water Contamination near Pavillion Wyoming Prepared by the Environmental Protection Agency, Ada OK (Apr. 30, 2012). 121 Myers, Tom, Potential Contaminant Pathways from Hydraulically Fractured Shale to Aquifers (Feb. 2012). 122 Id. 123 Kusnetz, Nicholas, Deteriorating Oil and Gas Wells Threaten Drinking Water, Homes Across the Country, ProPublica (April 4, 2011), http://www.propublica.org/article/deteriorating-oil-and-gas-wellsthreaten-drinking-water-homes-across-the-co. 124 Id.
120
1. Greenhouse gas emissions Fracking and the associated exploration, drilling, production, storage, and transportation activities are a major source of the greenhouse gases methane (and, thus, ozone), and carbon dioxide. Natural gas emissions are generally about 84 percent methane.125 Methane is a potent greenhouse gas that contributes substantially to global climate change. It has an effect on the climate that is approximately 33 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide over a 100-year time frame and 105 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide over a 20-year time frame.126 EPA has found that methane, because of its effects on the climate, endangers public health and welfare within the meaning of the Clean Air Act.127 Indeed, addressing methane emissions in the short term is particularly important because methanes powerful near-term effects increase the risk that humanity will cross tipping points that inflict irreversible damage before we can address climate change.128 Oil and gas operations result in the emission of large amounts of methane. For natural gas operations, production generates the largest amount; however, these emissions occur in all sectors of the natural gas industry, from drilling and production, to processing, transmission, and distribution. 129 For the oil industry, emissions result primarily from field production operations . . . , oil storage tanks, and production-related equipment . . . .130 Emissions occur both expectedly, during normal operations and routine maintenance, but also unexpectedly due to leaks and system upsets.131 Significant sources of emissions include well venting and flaring, pneumatic devices, dehydrators and pumps, compressors, meters and pipelines, and storage tank venting.132 Although the total amount of methane from oil and gas operations is unclear due to a lack of direct measurements, the amount is substantial. [A]ccording to the EPA
Memorandum from Heather Brown, P.E. to Bruce Moore, USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD re Composition of Natural Gas for use in the Oil and Natural Gas Sector Rulemaking, July 28, 2011 at 3. 126 Howarth, Robert, et al., Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations, Climactic Change (Mar. 31, 2011) at 7; Shindell, Drew, Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions, 326 Science 716 (2009). See also Howarth, Robert, et al., Venting and Leaking of Methane from Shale Gas Development: Response to Cathles et al., (2012), available at http://ecowatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/report.pdf. 127 EPA, Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases, 74 Fed. Reg. 66,496, 66,516 (Dec. 15, 2009). 128 Hansen, James, Global Warming twenty years later: Tipping Points Near (2008), available at http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2008/TwentyYearsLater_20080623.pdf. 129 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Gas STAR Program Basic Information, http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/basic-information/index.html#sources. (EPA Natural Gas STAR Program Basic Info) 130 Megan Williams & Cindy Copeland, Earthjustice, Methane Controls for the Oil and Gas Production Sector (2010) at 6. 131 Id. 132 EPA Natural Gas STAR Program Basic Info
125
Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gases and Sinks: 1990-2009, dated April 2011, oil and gas systems are the largest human-made source of methane emissions and account for 37 percent of methane emissions in the United States or 3.8 percent of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the United States.133 Similarly, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4th Assessment Report (2007) found that total methane emissions from the oil and gas industry represent about 40 percent of the total methane emissions from all sources and account for about 5 percent of all CO2e emissions in the United States.134 Also, in a report on opportunities to capture lost natural gas on federal leases, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) states that: [f]or onshore federal leases, operators reported to [the Oil and Gas Operators Report] that about 0.13 percent of the natural gas produced was vented and flared, while EPA estimates showed the volume to be about 4.2 percent, and estimates based on [Western Regional Air Partnership] data showed it to be as high as 5 percent.135 Similarly, a 2011 study estimates that conventional natural gas operations lose between 1.7 percent and 6.0 percent of all methane produced, and shale gas operations could lose between 3.6 and 7.9 percent of all methane produced.136 In other words, shale operations result in methane emissions [that] are at least 30% more than and perhaps more than twice as great as those from conventional gas.137 Some argue that producing natural gas for use as fuel actually provides a carbon benefit because it will replace other, more carbon-intensive fuels, like coal. Recent studies have shown, however, that the total lifecycle emissions of natural gas power production will exceed those of coal when there is a high methane leakage rate during production. Researchers have shown that in order for natural gas to provide a greenhouse emissions benefit over a modern coal plant, leakage from the natural gas system must be less than 3.2%.138 Yet leakage rates well above 3.2% are estimated both for conventional and unconventional wells. Thus, it is highly unlikely that natural gas, in the absence of strong methane controls during production, storage, and transmission, provides much if any greenhouse benefit over coal-fired generation, and can in fact be worse. Additional information on methane emissions is available from EPAs Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. EPA has recently updated emissions factors for the oil and gas sector, finding that previous emission factors underestimated emissions at various steps in the process by a factor of over 1000 in many cases:
Id. US EPA, Oil and Natural Gas Sector: NSPS and NESHAP for Air Pollutants Reviews, 76 Fed. Reg. 52738 (2011) at 52,791-92. 135 U.S. GAO, Federal Oil and Gas Leases, Opportunities Exist to Capture Vented and Flared Natural Gas, Which Would Increase Royalty Payments and Reduce Greenhouse Gases (2010) at 10. 136 Howarth, 2011 at 1. 137 Id. 138 Alvarez, Ramon et al., Greater focus needed on methane leakage from natural gas infrastructure, Proc of Nat'l Acad. Science Early Edition (Feb 13, 2012) at 3.
134 133
The following emissions sources are believed to be significantly underestimated in the U.S. greenhouse gas Inventory: well venting for liquids unloading; gas well venting during well completions; gas well venting during well workovers; crude oil and condensate storage tanks; centrifugal compressor wet seal degassing venting; scrubber dump valves; onshore combustion; and flaring. The understatement of emissions in the U.S. greenhouse gas Inventory were revised using publicly available information for all sources and included in the analysis, except crude oil and condensate storage tanks and flares, and scrubber dump valves. . . . . Table 2 provides a comparison of emissions from each segment of the natural gas industry as available in the U.S. greenhouse gas Inventory and as calculated based on the revised estimates for the four underestimated sources.139 Table 1: Comparison of Emissions Factors from Four Updated Emissions Sources Emissions Source Name EPA/GRI Revised Units Emissions Emissions Factor Factor 1) Well venting for 1.02 11 CH4 metric liquids unloading tons/yearwell 2) Gas well venting during completions 0.02 0.71 CH4 metric Conventional well tons/yearcompletion completions 0.02 177 CH4 metric Unconventional well tons/yearcompletion completions 3) Gas well venting during well workovers 0.05 0.05 CH4 metric Conventional well tons/yearworkover completions 0.05 177 CH4 metric Unconventional well tons/yearworkover completions 4) Centrifugal 0 233 CH4 metric compressor wet seal tons/yearcompressor degassing venting Table 2: Comparison of Process Emissions from each Segment of the Natural Gas and Petroleum Industries Segment Name U.S. greenhouse gas Revised Estimate for Year Inventory Estimate for Year 2006 (MMTCO2e) 2006 (MMTCO2e) Production 90.2 198.0 Processing 35.9 39.5 Transmission and Storage 48.4 52.6
139
Id. at 8-9.
Distribution
27.3
27.3
In short, oil and gas production emissions are far larger than has generally been thought, and fracking in shale wells emits far more methane than conventional wells in the absence of controls. In addition to its impact as a greenhouse gas, methane contributes to increased concentrations of ground-level ozone, the primary component of smog.140 This is because methane is an ozone precursor, meaning that once emitted into the atmosphere, methane reacts with other compounds to form ozone.141 The effect of methane on tropospheric ozone levels can be substantial. One scientific paper found that [r]educing anthropogenic CH4 emissions by 50% nearly halves the incidence of U.S. high-O3 events . . . .142 Ozone is particularly harmful to human health and the environment. It is one of only six pollutants for which the EPA has issued a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS).143 Ozone is associated with respiratory morbidity, including asthma attacks, hospital and emergency room visits, lost school days, and premature mortality.144 It can also injure vegetation.145 2. VOCs and NOX Oil and gas operations also emit large amounts of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NOX, which similarly contribute to the formation of ozone.146 VOCs have severe impacts both due to air toxics and ozone precursors included in this category of air pollutants. NOx contributes to acid deposition and is also an ozone precursor. VOCs make up about 3.5 percent of the natural gas emitted by oil or gas operations.147 This includes emissions of the particularly harmful BTEX compounds benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylenewhich Congress listed as Hazardous Air Pollutants under the Clean Air Act.148 Flaring does not eliminate these pollutants: The Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, in California has estimated that the following air pollutants may be released from natural gas flares: benzene, formaldehyde, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs, including naphthalene), acetaldehyde, acrolein, propylene, toluene, xylenes, ethyl benzene and hexane.149
76 Fed. Reg. 52,738, 52,791-92.; Tropospheric ozone is itself also a greenhouse gas. Id. 142 Fiore et al., Linking ozone pollution and climate change: The case for controlling methane, 29 Geophys. Res Letters 19, 1919 (2002), available at http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/amf0201.pdf. 143 See 40 C.F.R. 50.9-.10. 144 76 Fed. Reg. 52.738 at 52,791. 145 Id. 146 Sierra Club comments on New Source Performance Standards: Oil and Natural Gas Sector Review and Proposed Rule for Subpart 0000 (Nov 30, 2011) at 13. 147 Memorandum from Heather Brown, P.E. to Bruce Moore, USEPA/OAQPS/SPPD, July 28, 2011, at 3. 148 42 U.S.C. 7412(b). 149 Earthworks, Sources of Oil and Gas Pollution, available at http://earthworksaction.org/issues/detail/sources_of_oil_and_gas_air_pollution (Earthworks II)
141
140
Hundreds of chemicals are used in the fracking process, and according to one published study, more than 75% could affect the skin, eyes, respiratory, and gastrointestinal systems, 40-50% could affect the brain/nervous system, immune and cardiovascular systems, and the kidneys, 37% could affect the endocrine system, and 25% could cause cancer and mutations.150 Approximately 37% of these chemicals are volatile and can pollute the air.151 Of the volatile compounds, more than 89% can harm the eyes, skin, sensory organs, respiratory tract, gastrointestinal tract, or liver. Approximately 81% of the volatile chemicals can cause harm to the brain and nervous system, 71% can harm the cardiovascular system and blood, and 66% can harm the kidneys.152 Also, in DISH, Texas, residents who lived near 11 natural gas compression stations became concerned about the health problems they were experiencing, included headaches and blackouts.153 A private environmental consultant found that air samples contained high levels of neurotoxins and carcinogens.154 The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality found airborne benzene, which can cause immune disorders and cancer, near Barnett Shale wells at levels of 500 to 1,000 parts per billion more than five times higher than allowable limits.155 With regard to NOX, its primary sources are compressor engines, turbines, and other engines used in drilling and hydraulic fracturing.156 NOX is also produced when gas is flared or used for heating.157 Both VOCs and NOX are ozone precursors. As such, many regions around the country with substantial oil and gas operations are now suffering from extreme ozone levels. In the Dallas Fort Worth area of Texas, oil and gas development has led to serious ozone pollution problems. Of the nine counties surrounding the Dallas Forth Worth area that EPA has designated as nonattainment for ozone, five contain significant oil and gas development.158 A 2009 study found that summertime emissions of smog-forming
Colburn et al. 2011 at 1039. Id. at 1046. 152 Id. 153 Food & Water Watch, The Case for a Ban on Fracking (2012). (Food and Water Watch I) 154 Id. 155 Food & Water Watch I. 156 See, e.g., EPA, Oil and Natural Gas Sector: Standards of Performance for Crude Oil and Natural Gas Production, Transmission, and Distribution, Background Technical Support Document for the Proposed Rules (TSD) (July 2011); See also Armendariz, Al, Emissions for Natural Gas Production in the Barnett Shale Area and Opportunities for Cost-Effective Improvements (2009) at 24. TRC Environmental Corporation, Air Quality Impact Analysis Technical Support Document for the Revised Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Pinedale Anticline Oil and Gas Exploration and Development Project (2006), at 11 (Table 2.1). 157 TSD at 36; Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Colorado Visibility and Regional Haze State Implementation Plan for the Twelve Mandatory Class I Federal Areas in Colorado (2011)., Appendix D at 1. 158 Armendariz, Al, Emissions for Natural Gas Production in the Barnett Shale Area and Opportunities for Cost-Effective Improvements (2009) at 1, 3.
151
150
pollutants from the oil and gas industry in these areas contributed nearly as much smogforming pollution as total emissions from motor vehicles in the area.159 Rural areas are now also experiencing serious ozone problems as a result of oil and gas development. For instance, on March 12, 2009, the governor of Wyoming recommended that the state designate Wyomings Upper Green River Basin as an ozone nonattainment area.160 The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality assessed the ozone pollution problem and found that it was primarily due to local emissions from oil and gas . . . development activities: drilling, production, storage, transport, and treating.161 In 2011 alone, the residents of Sublette County had thirteen unhealthy ozone days, under EPAs current air quality index, including days when the ozone pollution levels exceeded the worst days of smog pollution in Los Angeles.162 Ozone problems are appearing in other Rocky Mountain states, as well. Northeastern Utah has recorded unprecedented ozone levels in the Uintah Basin in recent years. In the first three months of 2010which was the first time that winter ozone was monitored in the regionair quality monitors measured more than 68 exceedances of the federal health standard, and on three of these days, the levels were almost twice the federal standard.163 Between January and March 2011, there were 24 days where the NAAQS for ozone were exceeded in the area, again with ozone levels nearly doubling federal standards.164 BLM has noted that the many oil and gas wells in the region are the primary cause of the problem.165 The pollution problem has now become so severe that recently a coalition of public health and conservation groups sued EPA over the agencys failure to protect the Uinta Basin from dangerously high ozone levels.166
Id. at 1, 25-26: Emissions of smog-forming compounds in 2009 from all oil and gas sources were estimated to be approximately 191 tpd on an annual average, with peak summer emissions of 307 tpd. The portion of those emissions originating from the 5-counties in the D-FW metropolitan area with significant oil and gas production was 165 tpd during the summer. For comparison, 2009 emission inventories recently used by state and federal regulators estimated smog-forming emissions from all airports in the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area to be 16 tpd. In addition, these same inventories had emission estimates for onroad motor vehicles (cars, trucks, etc.) in the 9-county Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area of 273 tpd. 160 See Letter from Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal to Carol Rushin, Acting Regional Administrator, USEPA Region 8, (Mar. 12, 2009); Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Technical Support Document I for Recommended 8-hour Ozone Designation of the Upper Green River Basin (March 26, 2009). 161 Id. 162 USEPA, Daily Ozone AQI Levels in 2011 for Sublette County, Wyoming; see also Wendy Koch, Wyoming's Smog Exceeds Los Angeles' Due to Gas Drilling, USA Today; Craft, Elena, Environmental Defense Fund, Do Shale Gas Activities Play a Role in Rising Ozone Levels? http://blogs.edf.org/texascleanairmatters/2012/07/10/do-shale-gas-activities-play-a-role-in-rising-ozonelevels/ 163 Scott Streater, Air Quality Concerns May Dictate Uintah Basin's Natural Gas Drilling Future, N.Y. TIMES, http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/10/01/01greenwire-air-quality-concerns-may-dictate-uintahbasins-30342.html?pagewanted=all 164 Sierra Club Comments at 15. 165 BLM, GASCO Energy Inc. Uinta Basin Natural Gas Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement (GASCO DEIS), at 3-13., http://www.blm.gov/ut/st/en/fo/vernal/planning/nepa_.html 166 Enews Park Forest, Groups Seek Relief From Smog Pollution In Utahs Uinta Basin, (July 23, 2012), http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/science-a-environmental/34958-groups-seek-relief-from-smogpollution-in-utahs-uinta-basin.html.
159
Oil and gas development in Colorado and New Mexico is also generating high ozone levels. In 2008, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment concluded that the smog forming emissions from oil and gas operations exceed vehicle emissions for the entire state.167 Moreover, significant additional drilling has occurred since 2008. Colorado now has roughly 48,000 wells, while in July of 2008, there were about 35,000 wells.168 There is also significant development in the San Juan Basin in southeastern Colorado and northwestern New Mexico, and this development has contributed greatly to the regions ozone problems.169 This pollution is harming residents, with the New Mexico Department of Public Health documenting increased emergency room visits associated with high ozone levels in the area.170 The San Juan Basins air quality problem from oil and gas development is threatening to harm national parks and wilderness areas. A study has found that protected wilderness areas in this region that are likely to be impacted by increased ozone include Mesa Verde National Park and Weminuche Wilderness Area in Colorado and San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area, Bandelier Wilderness Area, Pecos Wilderness Area, and Wheeler Peak Wilderness Area in New Mexico.171 While the air quality impacts of the fracking-induced oil and gas boom are obvious, to date the federal and state regulatory response has been hindered by a lack of direct air emissions monitoring for the oil and gas industry. As discussed further below, collection of adequate baseline data and adequate monitoring of emissions is an essential part of any regulatory system.172 There are also measures readily available that can reduce emissions of methane, VOCs, NOx, and other pollutants. These measures are cost effective and in many cases cost-positive. Requiring the adoption of all such measures to reduce air pollution is another essential component of any regulatory system, as discussed below. However, adoption of all such measures will reduce, but will not eliminate, the air quality impacts of a fracking-induced increase in oil and gas activity. 3. Hydrogen Sulfide Oil and gas operations can also emit hydrogen sulfide. Some natural gas contains hydrogen sulfide, and when hydrogen sulfide levels are above a specific threshold, gas is
Sierra Club Comments at 15. Four Corners Air Quality Group, Task Force Report of Mitigation Options (2007) at 12, http://cogcc.state.co.us/Library/Statistics/CoWkly&MnthlyO&GStats.pdf 169 Id at vii (Nov. 1, 2007). 170 Myers, Orrin et al., The Association Between Ambient Air Quality Ozone Levels and Medical Visits for Asthma in San Juan County (Aug. 2007). 171 Rodriguez et al., Regional Impacts of Oil and Gas Development on Ozone Formation in the Western United States, J. Air & Waste Manage. Assoc. 59:11111118 (2009). 172 The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection recently determined that it would begin sampling air quality around certain oil and gas activities to determine air pollution levels, including ozone. Laura Olson, Pa. to study air qulity at shale sites, Post-gazette.com (July 24, 2012), http://www.postgazette.com/stories/local/marcellusshale/pa-to-study-air-quality-at-shale-sites-645949/.
168 167
classified as sour gas.173 Long term exposure to hydrogen sulfide is linked to respiratory infections, eye, nose, and throat irritation, breathlessness, nausea, dizziness, confusion, and headaches.174 Hydrogen sulfide may be emitted during all stages of development, including exploration, extraction, treatment and storage, transportation, and refining.175 EPA has identified large parts of California (roughly co-extensive with the Monterey Shale) as areas where natural gas tends to contain hydrogen sulfide. .176 4. Particulate Matter Numerous elements of oil and gas activities can emit particulate matter. Particulate matter consists of tiny particles suspended in the air. These particles include inhalable coarse particles, which are smaller than ten micrometers in diameter (PM10), and fine particulate matter, which are particles less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5). PM10 is primarily formed from crushing, grinding or abrasion of surfaces, and PM2.5 is primarily formed by incomplete combustion of fuels or through secondary formation in the atmosphere.177 Some of the health effects associated with particulate matter exposure are premature mortality, increased hospital admissions and emergency department visits, and development of chronic respiratory disease.178 Sensitive populations, include the elderly, children, and people with existing heart or lung problems, are most at risk from particulate matter pollution.179 The oil and gas industry is a major source of particulate matter. Heavy equipment, such as drilling, completion and workover trucks, rigs and equipment such as pumps employ diesel engines, and the burning of diesel fuel generates fine particulate matter.180 Research indicates that the particulate matter emitted by diesel engines is particularly harmful to health.181 Vehicles also generate fugitive dust by traveling on unpaved roads
Sierra Club Comments. USEPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Report to Congress on Hydrogen Sulfide Air Emissions Associated with the Extraction of Oil and Natural Gas (EPA453/R93045), at i (Oct. 1993). 175 Id. 176 Id. at 100. California received a grisly reminder of the presence of hydrogen sulfide in the state last year when a Chevron worker died after falling into a sinkhole containing scalding hot water and hydrogen sulfide. Siders, David, Capitol Alert: Chevron oil worker died in area with history of spills, seeps, The Modesto Bee (May 21, 2012), http://www.modbee.com/2012/05/21/2209299/capitol-alert-chevron-oilworker.html. 177 GASCO DEIS at 3-7. 178 US Environmental Protection Agency, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter Proposed Rule, 77 Fed. Reg. 38,890, 38,893 (June 29, 2012). 179 World Health Organization, Health Aspects of Air Pollution with Partiuclate Matter, Ozone, and Nitrogen Dioxide (2003) at 17, http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/112199/E79097.pdf 180 Earthworks II. 181 BAAQMD, Particulate Matter Overview, Particulate Matter and Human Health, http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/Particulate-Matter.aspx#dpm (last visited Aug 1, 2012).
174
173
during drilling, completion, and production activities.182 Particulate matter precursors include pollutants discussed above, such as NOX and VOCs.183 Particulate matter emissions from oil and gas operations are causing problems for certain communities. For example, monitors in Uintah County and Duchesne County, Utah have repeatedly measured wintertime PM2.5 concentrations above federal standards, and these elevated levels are linked to oil and gas activities in the Uinta Basin.184 5. Technologies available to reduce emissions Numerous technologies are available to reduce methane and VOC, hydrogen sulfide, and particulate matter emissions from fracking operations. a. Methane and VOCs i. Compressors Fugitive natural gas emissions from compressors are a very large source of natural gas emissions. All told, methane emissions from compressors reportedly account for at least one fifth of all methane emission from oil and gas systems,185 and as a result must also be responsible for large amounts of VOC emissions. Compressor stations are used to transport gas through transmission lines throughout the United States. Natural gas is highly pressurized as it travels by pipeline. To ensure the pressurization of the gas flowing through a pipeline, compression of the natural gas is required periodically along the pipe. Compressor stations are usually placed at 40 to 100 mile intervals to accomplish this. The natural gas enters the compressor station, and is compressed by a turbine, motor, or engine.186 There are a number of methods of reducing emissions from compressors. First, operators can cut leakage by implementing a proper schedule for replacing packing rings and piston rods and requiring state-of-the-art rod-packing technology.187 Operators can establish baseline leakage rates and corresponding replacement frequencies in order to minimize the uneconomical and environmentally harmful leakage of natural gas. Such a program will carry the added benefit of extending the life of other equipment.188 Also, operators should use advanced new technology that prevents leaks from compressors. For example, [n]ew packing ring materials, types, and entirely new packing systems are available now and becoming more common and [t]here are many examples of
USEPA, Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter (June 2012) at 2-2, http://www.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/PMRIACombinedFile_Bookmarked.pdf 183 USEPA RIA at 2-2. 184 BLM, GASCO DEIS at 3-13. 185 Williams & Copeland at 11. 186 NaturalGas.org, The Transportation of Natural Gas, http://www.naturalgas.org/naturalgas/transport.asp (last visited Aug 1, 2012). 187 Williams & Copeland at 13. 188 Id. at 14.
182
companies that provide new low emission packing rings and packing case assemblies.189 Estimates by EPA indicate that the use of these technologies could reduce methane emissions by very large amounts.190 Second, replacing wet seals used on the rotating shafts of compressors with dry seals can achieve great reductions in gas emissions, and in fact, installing two or more dry seals in series is even more effective. According to EPA, multiple dry seals result in less than 1 percent of the leakage of a wet seal system and also cost considerably less to operate. Third, gas starters that use natural gas to run compressor starter motors release gas to the atmosphere, but starters that use compressed air or electricity do not generate gas emissions. EPAs Natural Gas STAR program reports that the use of compressed air or electric starters is a cost-effective control technique.191 ii. Wellhead facilities Well venting activities, including well completion, well blowdown, and well workover, are significant sources of methane and VOC emissions. However, available technology can greatly reduceor even eliminatethese emissions. One method of reducing methane emissions that the GAO identifies is the use of reduced emission completions (RECs) equipment, also known as green completions, during the natural gas drilling phase.192 This process separates the mud and debris to capture the gas or condensate, instead of venting or flaring the gas into the atmosphere.193 It can be highly effective. Indeed, EPA Natural Gas STAR partners report that RECs can recover up to 100% of completion gas.194 Further, this method of slashing emissions has been proven cost-effective by partners in EPAs Natural Gas STAR program for over five years.195 RECs produce
Id. Id.; USEPA, Lessons Learned from Natural Gas STAR Partners, Reducing Methane Emissions from Compressor Rod Packing Systems, October 2006, http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/documents/ll_rodpack.pdf. 191 See EPA Natural Gas STAR Program Partner Reported Opportunities (PRO), PRO Fact Sheet Nos. 103 and 105, http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/documents/replacegas.pdf and http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/documents/installelectricstarters.pdf. 192 GAO REPORT, supra note 8, at 7. 193 Id. 194 See US Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Gas STAR Program, Lessons Learned: Reducing Methane Emissions During Completion Operations, 2006 Natural Gas STAR Annual Implementation Workshop, Houston, TX, October 24, 2006, http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/documents/vincent.pdf (last visited Apr. 19, 2011). 195 See e.g., USEPA, Natural Gas STAR Program, Lessons Learned: Reduced Emissions Completions for Hydraulically Fractured Natural Gas Wells (2011), http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/documents/reduced_emissions_completions.pdf, (last visited Aug 1, 2012); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Gas STAR Program, Reducing Methane Emissions During Completion Operations (Oct. 24, 2006); US Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Gas STAR Program, Lessons Learned: Reducing Methane Emissions During Completion Operations, 2006 Natural Gas STAR Annual Implementation Workshop, Houston, TX, October 24, 2006, http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/documents/vincent.pdf (last visited Apr. 19, 2011); and US Environmental
190 189
additional revenue from the recovery of produced natural gas and gas liquids while resulting in less solid waste, less water pollution, and safer operating conditions. To illustrate cost-effectiveness, consider BPs $1.2 million investment in reduced emission completions since 2000.196 This change not only prevented over 2,000 metric tons of methane and 100,000 of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere, it increased revenues by almost $5.8 million, according to company documents.197 Another significant source of methane emissions results from the venting of mature gas wells to the atmosphere in order to remove accumulated fluids, also known as blowdown operations. The GAO states that the installation of plunger lift systems in gas wells will reduce methane emissions from these operations. During drilling, liquids collect in wells and slow or stop the flow of gas completely. Operators often re-establish flow by closing the well to build pressure and then opening the well to the atmosphere. This succeeds in removing the liquid, but it also vents the harmful gases. The best available technology to minimize this waste is a plunger lift system.198 The system drops the plunger to the bottom of the well, creating a barrier between gas and liquid. When the built-up gas pressure pushes the plunger to the surface, the plunger brings liquids with it, allowing the operator to remove the liquids while efficiently routing the gas to the gas line rather than venting it to the ambient air. Plunger lift systems also use computerized timers to adjust the dropping of the plunger according to the rate of fluid accumulation, further reducing the venting of methane.199 Plunger lift systems can be cost effective. According to the EPA, they can significantly reduce gas losses, eliminate or reduce the frequency of future well treatments, and improve well productivity.200 For example, in analyzing a plunger lift installation program implemented by Amoco, the EPA found that [f]or the first year of operation, the company realized an average annual savings of approximately $90,200 per well at 2006 prices. In addition the company realized approximately $41,500 per well from salvage of the beam lift equipment at 2006 costs.201 iii. Vapor recovery units Storage tanks are another major source of methane and VOC emissions. Emissions can occur several ways: losses resulting from the reduction of pressure in the tank; losses due to the filling and emptying of a tank; and losses caused by environmental conditions triggering tank gas expansion or contraction. Significantly, according to EPA,
Protection Agency, Natural Gas STAR Program, Lessons Learned, Natural Gas STAR Partners, Reducing Methane Emissions from Production Wells: Reduced Emission Completions, May 11, 2010, http://epa.gov/gasstar/documents/workshops/farmington-2010/08_recs_farmington_nm_final.pdf (last visited Apr. 19, 2011). 196 GAO REPORT, supra note 8, at 23. 197 Id. 198 Id. at 8. 199 Id. 200 USEPA, Natural Gas STAR Partners, Lessons Learned: Installing Plunger Lift Systems in Gas Wells (2006), http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/documents/ll_plungerlift.pdf (last visited Apr. 19, 2011). 201 Id. at 11.
storage tank emissions are likely higher than currently reported in the U.S. GHG Inventory.202 Thus, substantial uncertainties regarding how much storage tanks may contribute to emissions warrant rigorous standards preventing storage tank emissions. Vapor recovery units are an available technology that can cost effectively reduce methane and VOC emissions from storage tanks.203 Instead of allowing the gas to vaporize from the tank into the atmosphere, the vapor recovery unit captures the gas and transmits it directly to the pipeline.204 The GAO recommends the installation of these vapor recovery units to capture the gas vapor from the condensate storage tanks and send it into the pipeline to maximize recovery. EPA agrees with the GAO that vapor recovery can provide generous returns to the relatively low cost of the technology,205 providing both economic and environmental benefits. Vapor recovery units are highly efficient at capturing gas, and recognizing this, states have begun requiring that operators use units that capture a high proportion of emissions. For example, Wyoming requires 98 percent control for all new facilities or modified facilities with new and existing flashing emissions.206 iv. Dehydrators Technologies are available to reduce emissions from dehydrators. Saturated water found in produced gas must be removed prior to transmitting the gas. Glycol dehydrators are the most common technology used to remove this water from the gas. Normally a dehydrator circulates the chemical glycol to absorb moisture in the gas; unfortunately, this also absorbs small amounts of gas, which is later released into the atmosphere when water vapor is released from the glycol.207 These emissions can be greatly reduced through the use of zero emission dehydrators, which combine several technologies to virtually eliminate emissions.208 Zero emissions dehydrators employ flash tanks, which capture gas that flashes or evaporates from water wet glycol in an energy-exchange pump, as well as electric pumps and electric control valves. Zero emissions dehydrators are also designed to collect all condensable components from the still column vapor and use the remaining noncondensable still vapor (methane and ethane) as fuel for the glycol reboiler.209 EPA
USEPA, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting from the Petroleum and Natural Gas Industry Background Technical Support Document, Climate Change Division Washington D.C. (2010). 203 USEPA, Natural Gas STAR Partners, Lessons Learned: Installing Vapor Recovery Units on Crude Oil Storage Tanks (October 2006), http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/documents/ll_final_vap.pdf (last visited Apr. 19, 2011). 204 Id. at 9. 205 Id. at 6. 206 Wyoming DEQ, Oil and Gas Production Facilities Permitting Guidance Chapter 6, Section 2, at 5 (March 2010). 207 Id. 208 US Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Gas STAR Program, Partner Reported Opportunities for Reducing Methane Fact Sheet No. 206 (2012), http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/documents/zeroemissionsdehy.pdf 209 Id.
202
findings show that due to gas savings, zero emission dehydrators can payback their implementation cost in under a year, making them economically efficient. Another way to reduce methane and VOC emissions from glycol dehydrators is to optimize the circulation rates of the glycol. Methane emissions from a glycol dehydrator are proportional to the amount of glycol circulated through the system. However, production rates at wells decrease over time and circulation rates designed for early production exceed the necessary circulation rates for a mature well. Thus, optimizing circulation rates throughout a wells period of production can reduce emissions. There are cases in which the use of zero emissions dehydrators or glycol dehydrators will not be feasible. Glycol dehydrators require electric utilities or an engine generator set to achieve zero emissions210 However, solid desiccant dehydrators reduce methane by 99 percent compared with glycol dehydrators and have lower operating and maintenance costs.211 Solid desiccant dehydrators are very simple devices with no moving parts and no external power supply needs, and are appropriate for use in a wide variety of applications. v. Pneumatic devices Pneumatic devices utilized by the natural gas industry in all sectors of its business are also substantial methane and VOC emissions sources. Pneumatic devices are tools and instruments that generate and utilize compressed air. Unfortunately, the natural gas industrys pneumatic devices are typically powered by natural gas and vent large amounts of methane to the atmosphere as part of their normal operation. Some pneumatic devices bleed methane into the atmosphere continuously, while others release gas intermittently. By replacing the pneumatic devices that bleed gas at a high rate with more efficient devices that do not utilize natural gas (instrument air controls) or devices that bleed at a lower rate (low-bleed pneumatics), the natural gas industry can effectively capture additional natural gas, thus protecting the environment and producing additional revenue.212 Pneumatic controls that use instrument air rather than natural gas can achieve 100 percent emission reductions. Instrument air technology can be used where electrical power is available, or instrument air devices can be converted to solar powered, battery operated devices. A number of Natural Gas STAR partners have had success employing solar power technology.213 Also, pneumatic controllers can use mechanical control, nitrogen gas, or electrical valve controllers. The most common mechanical control device is a level controller, which translates the position of a liquid-level float to the drain valve position with mechanical linkages. There is no gas usage in either the process
Id. Williams & Copeland at 26-27. 212 Id. at 9-10. 213 USEPA, Natural Gas STAR Partners, Lessons Learned: Solar Power Applications for Methane Emissions Mitigation, at 15-23 (2009).
211
210
measurement or valve actuation, and reliability is very high.214 The use of nitrogen gas or electric valve controllers is more limited, but could provide an effective, low-emission alternative for certain operations.215 If the use of non-gas powered devices that achieve a 100 percent emissions reduction is not possible, low-bleed pneumonic devices should be used to effectively cut emissions. According to the EPA, the cost of switching from high-bleed to low-bleed pneumatic devices ranges from $700 to $3,000 per device, which can be recovered quickly by operators.216 Switching to low-bleed devices involves replacing, retrofitting, and maintaining devices to achieve a substantially reduced emissions rate. This has the added benefit of increasing operational efficiencies by improving system performance and reliability, and monitoring of important parameters. The use of low-bleed pneumonic devices should be required where 100 percent methane reduction cannot be achieved because the use of low-bleed devices has been proven feasible. Colorado and Wyoming already have programs in place that require lowbleed pneumatic devices. With certain exceptions, Colorado requires that new pneumatic devices must be low-bleedmeaning that it emits 6 standard cubic feet per hour (scfh) of natural gas or lessand that existing devices that do not meet this standard must be retrofitted to meet it.217 Wyoming requires that new facilities with natural gas operated pneumatic controllers must not emit more than 6 scfh or the controller discharge system must be routed to a closed loop system.218 vi. Pipelines Operators transport natural gas from the gas fields through pressurized pipelines. According to U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory data, pipeline leaks account for a large proportionabout 8 percentof methane emissions from the transmission sector.219 An important factor in facilitating or limiting leakage is the material from which the pipeline is constructed. Cast iron and steel piping materials used in underground gas distribution systems tend to leak more than any other distribution piping materials.220 On the opposite end of the spectrum is plastic pipe, which EPA states has the lowest leakage rate.221 Further, while using plastic pipe is not always feasible, an operator should always be able to use plastic insert liners that have the potential to significantly reduce emissions.222
USEPA, Natural Gas STAR Partners, Partner Reported Opportunities for Reducing Methane Fact Sheet No. 301: Convert Pneumatics to Mechanical Controls, at 1-2 (2004). 215 Id. 216 Id. at 21-22. 217 Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Air Quality Control Commission, Regulation Number 7, XVIII.C (2011). 218 Wyoming DEQ, Oil and Gas Production Facilities Permitting Guidance, March 2010, at 10, 19. 219 USEPA, Natural Gas STAR Program, Basic Information, Major Methane Emisssion Sources and Opportunities to Reduce Methane Emissions, http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/basicinformation/index.html#sources (last visited Aug 1, 2012). 220 See EPA Natural Gas STAR Program Partner Reported Opportunities (PRO), PRO Fact SheetsNo. 403, Insert Gas Main Flexible Liners, http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/documents/insertgasmainflexibleliners.pdf. 221 Id. 222 Williams & Copeland at 47.
214
Additionally, substantial amounts of gas are leaked to the atmosphere during pipeline maintenance and repair. A number of techniques can reduce emissions in these circumstances, including pump-down techniques to reduce the gas line pressure in the pipeline before venting or the use of an ejector or inert gases and pigs to purge pipelines.223 Also, hot tapping allows for a new pipeline connection while the pipeline is kept in service, avoiding product loss, methane emissions, and disruption of service to customers.224 Lastly, gas line breaks can result in unexpected emissions of methane gas into the ambient air. These emissions can be avoided through the installation of excess flow valves that ensure an automated shutoff of a ruptured gas line.225 vii. Direct inspection and maintenance Gas plants annually lose more than 24 billion cubic feet of methane due to fugitive emissions from leaking compressors and other equipment components such as valves, connectors, seals, and open-ended lines.226 The implementation of direct inspection and maintenance (DI&M) programs is a cost-effective method of detecting, measuring, prioritizing, and repairing equipment leaks to reduce methane emissions.227 In fact, Natural Gas STAR partners have shown that a DI&M program can eliminate 96 percent of gas losses and a corresponding 80 percent of methane emissions.228 There are numerous methods that are effective in detecting leaks. Soap bubble screening, which involves spraying soap on a component, is a fast, easy, and low-cost technique.229 Electronic screening uses a small handheld gas detector to identify leaks, and is also fast and convenient.230 Organic Vapor Analyzers and Toxic Vapor Analyzers are portable hydrocarbon detectors that can be used to spot and quantify leaks.231 Devices are also available that spot leaks by detecting the acoustic signature created by a gas leak.232 Infrared cameras are able to identify gas leaks because hydrocarbon emissions absorb infrared light of a certain wavelength. These cameras are particularly effective due their ability to screen hundreds of components per hour and to identify leaks from inaccessible equipment. They can even be used in aerial inspection to screen many miles of transmissions pipelines and dispersed equipment to detect plumes.233
Id. at 48. Id. 225 Id. 226 USEPA, Natural Gas STAR Partners, Lessons Learned: Directed Inspection and Maintenance at Gas Processing Plants and Booster Stations (2003), http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/documents/ll_dimgasproc.pdf. 227 Id. 228 Id. 229 Id. 230 Id. 231 Id. 232 Id. 233 Id.
224
223
b. Hydrogen sulfide Hydrogen sulfide may be emitted during all stages of development, including exploration, extraction, treatment and storage, transportation, and refining.234 Technologies are readily available to control these emissions. For example, vendors offer membrane-based removal systems, amine-based removal systems to scavenge H2S at wells and in tanks, and compounds that can prevent bacteria from producing H2S.235 c. Particulate matter There are numerous technologies available to control emissions of particulate matter. In particular, diesel engines are the source of fine particulate matter, which is particularly harmful. Thus, a highly effective control would be to eliminate diesel engines, and to replace those engines with cleaner burning natural gas engines, powered by gas collected from operations. This would cut down substantially on particulate matter emissions. Also, BLM should require that lessees employ the most effective diesel particulate filters on their fleet of trucks, as well as any other diesel engines that cannot be substituted for gas engines. This would cut down substantially on particulate matter emissions. D. Induced Seismic Activity The potential for fracking activities to induce earthquakes is a critical issue in California. Although most earthquakes have natural causes, some of these events are related to human activity and are called induced seismic events. Such events are well documented, with reports going back to the 1920s.236 Energy technologies that involve injection or withdrawal of fluids from the subsurface have caused earthquakes large enough to be felt and measured.237 The expansion of fracking clearly increase the risk of induced earthquakes in California, both from the fracking itself and, perhaps even more significantly, from the disposal of the massive amounts of fracking related wastewater in injection wells. The National Research Council, which recently released a study of induced seismicity and energy technologies, explains the mechanism for induced seismicity as follows: Seismicity induced by human activity related to energy technologies is caused by change in pore pressure and/or change in stress taking place in the presence of (1) faults with specific properties and orientations, and (2) a critical state of stress in the rocks. In general, existing faults and fractures are stable (or are not sliding) under the natural horizontal and vertical stresses acting on subsurface rocks.
Sierra Club Comments at 17. Sierra Club Comments at 87-88. 236 National Research Council, Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies at 3 (2012). (NRC II) 237 Id.
235 234
However, the crustal stress in any given area is perpetually in a state in which any stress change, for example through a change in subsurface pore pressure due to injecting or extracting fluid from a well, may change the stress acting on a nearby fault. This change in stress may result in slip or movement along that fault creating a seismic event. Abrupt or nearly instantaneous slip along a fault releases energy in the form of energy waves (seismic waves) that travel through the Earth and can be recorded and used to infer characteristics of energy release on the fault.238 Importantly, when adequate knowledge exists of local crustal stress, rock properties, fault locations and properties, and the shape and size of the reservoir into which fluids are injected or withdrawn, the NRC notes that the possibility exists to make accurate predictions of earthquake occurrences.239 In the past several years, increasing rates of induced seismic events related to energy development projects have drawn heightened public attention.240 A recent study by United States Geological Survey scientists linked this increase to oil and gas activities in particular, stating that the increase was almost certainly man made.241 The scientists noted that [a] remarkable increase in the rate of [magnitude] 3 and greater earthquakes is currently in progress in the US midcontinent. The average number of [magnitude] >= 3 earthquakes/year increased starting in 2001, culminating in a six-fold increase over 20th century levels in 2011.242 The changes in fracking technology and the resulting increase in oil and gas activity are tied to this increase in the number of earthquakes.243 In particular, the increased amount of fluid produced by hydraulic fracturing is likely contributing. The USGS has stated that a possible explanation for the higher rate of these induced seismic events is the increase in the number of wells drilled over the past decade and the increase in fluid used in the hydraulic fracturing of each well.244 Indeed, the volume of fluid used has increased dramatically. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that between 1991 and 2000, oil and gas companies drilled 245,000 wells in the U.S. compared to 405,000 wells between 2001 and 2010 a 65 percent increase. As an example of how much more fracking fluid is used, New York states review of oil and natural gas
NRC II at 5. Id. 240 NRC II at 1; William Ellsworth et al., Abstract: Are Seismicity Rate Changes in the Mid-continent Natural or Man-made? Seismological Society of America (2012) (Ellsworth); Supra note 10. 241 Ellsworth; Dusty Horwitt & Alex Formuzis, Environmental Working Group, USGS: Recent Earthquakes Almost Certainly Manmade http://www.ewg.org/analysis/usgs-recent-earthquakes-almost-certainlymanmade (last visited May 2, 2012). (Horwitt & Formuzis) 242 Ellsworth. 243 Aminzadeh, Fred, Hydraulic Fracturing and Induced Seismicity, Current State of the Art, University of Southern California (2012); Drajem, Mark, Fracking Tied to Unusual Rise in Earthquakes in U.S., Bloomberg (April 12, 2012), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-12/earthquake-outbreak-in-centralu-s-tied-to-drilling-wastewater.html (last visted Aug 1, 2012). 244 Horwitt & Formuzis.
239 238
drilling regulations in 1988 assumed that companies would use between 20,000 and 80,000 gallons of fluid for hydraulic fracturing per well. The states 2011 review of regulations for natural gas drilling in shale formations assumed that companies would use 2.4 million to 7.8 million gallons of fluid per well a 100fold increase.245 Cornell scientist Anthony Ingraffea, who has conducted research on fracking, agrees that these earthquakes are likely linked to the fracking activities exploding across the nation. Ingraffea links the increased rate to the drilling of more wells and the use of more fluids, stating: the increase in both the number of wells drilled and the amount of hydraulic fracturing fluid used per well has been driven by a shift of drilling into so-called unconventional formations such as shale in which gas and oil are distributed over very large volumes of rock, which need stimulation by fracking. . . . In unconventional formations . . . energy companies must drill more wells because the energy deposits are widely dispersed. Drillers must also use significantly more fracturing fluid to create larger fractures that can access a broader area of oil or gas.246 Induced seismic activity from oil and gas development has occurred all across the country, including in locations where earthquakes are almost unheard of. With regard to induced seismicity from energy operations in general, the NRC reports that seismic events caused by or likely related to energy development have been measured and felt in Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Texas.247 For oil and gas activities in particular, the USGS notes that these activities have triggered earthquakes in areas ranging from Alabama to the Northern Rockies.248 The NRC reports one suspected and one confirmed induced seismic event due to fracking as well as eight confirmed induced events from wastewater injection wells.249 Figure 1: Sites in the United States and Canada with documented reports of seismicity caused by or likely related to energy development from various energy technologies. As noted by the NRC, the reporting of the occurrence of small induced seismic events is limited by the detection and location thresholds of local surface-based seismic monitoring networks. Source: NRC 2012 at 4.
Id. Id. 247 National Research Council, Induced Seismicity Potential in Energy Technologies at 1 (2012). (NRC II) 248 Horwitt & Formuzis 249 NRC II.
246
245
In California, oil and gas extraction has in the past likely induced strong quakes likely related to oil extraction in California, two of which occurred in or near Fresno County.250 In May 1983, oil extraction activities likely triggered a magnitude 6.5 earthquake in Coalinga, Fresno County.251 In August 1985, oil extraction activities likely triggered a magnitude 6.1 earthquake at the Kettleman North Dome, which occurs in both Fresno and Kings counties.252 In October 1987, oil extraction activities likely caused a magnitude 5.9 earthquake in Wittier Narrows, Southern California.
In Ohio, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources has linked twelve recent earthquakes near Youngstown to the injection of wastewater from hydraulic fracturing into a single well.253 Officials actually shut down an underground disposal well after a
Id. at 28 (citing McGarr, A., D. Simpson, and L. Seeber. 2002. Case histories of induced and triggered seismicity. International Handbook of Earthquake and Engineering Seismology, Part A, W.H.K. Lee et al., eds., Academic Press, 647-661). 251 Id.at 28. 252 Id. at 28. 253 Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Executive Summary: Preliminary Report on the Northstar 1 Class II Injection Well and the Seismic Events in the Youngstown, Ohio, Area (2012), http://media.cleveland.com/business_impact/other/UICReport.pdf
250
magnitude 4.0 earthquake hit hard enough to be felt in Toronto.254 The agency found it compelling that seismic activity began roughly three months after a well began injection operations, and that the first seismic events were fairly close to the well.255 In January 2011 in Oklahoma, hydraulic fracturing likely resulted in a swarm of earthquakes.256 Local residents in Elmore City reported feeling earthquakes throughout the night, and those residents also reported that there was an active hydraulic fracturing project nearby.257 An analysis of these events reports that shortly after hydraulic fracturing began small earthquakes started occurring, and more than 50 were identified, of which 43 were large enough to be located.258 Most of the earthquakes occurred within 24 hours of the cessation of the fracking, and most of them had epicenters located within five kilometers of the well.259 The analysis stated that the earthquakes had a unique character that made them appear different than other regionally recorded earthquakes.260 It also reported that clearly the changes in fluid pressure within the well were sufficient to encourage seismicity.261 Homeowners in Prague, Oklahoma, reported about $50,000 in damage to their home from earthquakes in November, 2011, that were also likely caused by fracking or wastewater injection.262 Another study has linked earthquakes in the Dallas-Fort Worth area to injection wells. On October 31 and November 1, 2008, residents called 911 to report experiencing several small earthquakes.263 The epicenters of the earthquakes were less than 0.5 kilometers from a saltwater disposal well where injection began on September 12, 2008.264 The study noted that prior to 29 October, we detected no earthquakes occurring near [Dallas-Fort Worth] . . . .265 The study concluded that [t]he spatial and time correlations are consistent with an induced or triggered source.266
Fountain, Henry, Disposal Halted at Well After New Quake in Ohio, New York Times (January 1, 2012), http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/science/earth/youngstown-injection-well-stays-shut-afterearthquake.html?_r=2&ref=us (last visited Aug 1, 2012). 255 Ohio Dept of Natural Resources, Executive Summary: Preliminary Report on the Northstar 1 Class II Injection Well and the Seismic Events in the Youngstown Ohio Area (March 2012) available at http://ohiodnr.com/downloads/northstar/UICExecSummary.pdf. 256 Holland, Austin, Examination of possibly induced seismicity from hydraulic fracturing in the Eola Field, Garvin County, Oklahoma, Oklahoma Geological Survey Open-File Report OF1-2011 (2011). 257 Id. 258 Id. at 1. 259 Id. at 2, 21. 260 Id. at 12. 261 Id. at 22. 262 Soraghan, M. 2012. Victims think drilling triggered shaking, and that's OK. E&E News, July 24, 2012. 263 Frohlich, Cliff and Eric Potter, Dallas-Fort Worth earthquakes coincident with activity associated with natural gas production, The Leading Edge 270 (March 10, 2010), available at http://www.ig.utexas.edu/people/staff/cliff/publications.htm/ 264 Id. 265 Id. 266 Id. at 274; see also Frohlich et al., Location and Felt Reports for the 25 April 2010 mbLg 3.9 Earthquake near Alice, Texas (We conclude it is plausible, although not proven definitively, that production in the Stratton field contributed to the occurrence of the 2010 Alice earthquake and an earlier similar earthquake
254
Another recent study also concludes that the deep injection of oil and gas wastewater appears to be causing more earthquakes than previously believed.267 Thus the potential for increased induced seismic activity as fracking expands in California is clear. This is a particularly important issue because California is a seismically active state and [f]ormation[s] with less consolidated rocks and active fault blocks are more likely to generate large triggering events.268 Further, California already regularly employs underground injection, having approximately 30,000 underground injection wells, which is second only to Texas in the United States;269 fracking will generate massive amounts of wastewater, some subset of which would almost certainly be disposed of in injection wells, and some of the areas of the state have already experienced earthquakes of a magnitude greater than 6.0 due to oil and gas activities. E. Industrialization, Traffic, and other Community and Land Use Impacts DOGGR must halt fracking because of the numerous negative social impacts associated with the practice. In particular, boom and bust cycles associated with this type of development create great harm. Also, fracking, as compared to other types of oil and gas development, amplifies harms because it is more intensive. As a general matter, it requires more drilling since shale has lower permeability than conventional deposits of oil or gas; it uses up huge amounts of water; and it employs specialized technologies about which individuals within affected communities will usually know little. Thus, fracking will tend to affect communities more greatly. The Bakken shale oil boom and the Marcellus shale gas booms are excellent examples of this, and many of the sections below draw example from these booms. 1. Economic impacts The positive job related and economic impacts associated with fracking are usually exaggerated,270 and the negative effects, especially those to the host community, are generally minimized or ignored. Development and revenue tend to follow the boom and bust cycle typical in energy development regions,271 which is incompatible with
that occurred on 24 March 1997.); Healy, J.H. et al., The Denver Earthquakes, 161 Science 3848, 1301 (1968) (finding it to be remote that earthquakes in Denver coincidentally followed the injection of fluid into a deep injection well); Fletcher, Jon B. and Lynn R. Sykes, Earthquakes related to hydraulic mining and natural seismic activity in Western New York State, 82 J. of Geophys. Res 3768 (1977). 267 Frohlich, Cliff, Two-year survey comparing earthquake activity and injection-well locations in the Barnett Shale, Texas, PNAS Early Edition (2012). 268 Aminzadeh, Fred, Hydraulic Fracturing and Induced Seismicity, Current State of the Art, University of Southern California (2012). 269 NRC II at 108. 270 See, e.g., Food & Water Watch, Exposing the Oil and Gas Industrys False Jobs Promise for Shale Gas Development (2011), available at http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/reports/exposing-the-oil-and-gasindustrys-false-jobs-promise/. 271 PortageCitizens.org, Oil/Gas DrillingMyth v. Reality, http://www.portagecitizens.org/neogap/wpcontent/uploads/2011/04/1102-Myth-v-Reality-FINAL-copy.pdf (2011).
economic stability.272 Most boom-associated employment appears during the development stage, 273 but the benefits to the local community can be minimal. Evidence from already developed shale plays indicates that shale gas drilling relies mostly on outof-state workers,274 who are often highly mobile and transient, since the new jobs require specialized skills local workers do not have.275 Local employment is concentrated in trucking, construction and retail jobs -- many of which are part-time, short-term, or low-pay.276 To make matters worse, the oil or gas development can destroy economic diversity, having an especially hard impact on jobs related to tourism, farming, or experiencing nature.277 Also, once development slows down or halts, the local economy can contract painfully.278 During a drilling boom, communities expand to accommodate the new industry; however, when drilling ends, jobs and population exit. This leaves community members with no jobs and an ill-fitting infrastructure built to support boomtown oil and gas activities.279 For the Western Slope of Colorado, May 2, 1982, is remembered as Black Sunday because Exxon laid off 2,200 workers on that day.280 An article on natural resources development in Colorado states: The Colony Project, as it was called, had such a profound impact on the region that when Exxon walked away, small businesses in the area quickly mothballed, entire towns emptied out, there was a run on a local bank, and a bank president committed suicide.
Brown, Matthew, Bakken Oil Booms, Police Expect Rise in Drug Trafficking Prostitution, Gun Crimes on Northern Plains, Huffington Post (April 23, 2012), http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/23/bakkenoil-crime_n_1445410.html. 273 Jacquet, Jeffrey, Community and Economic Impacts Of Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Development at 8, http://www.cce.cornell.edu/EnergyClimateChange/NaturalGasDev/Documents/PDFs/CCE%20Webinar%2 0social%20and%20economic%20impacts%20051210.pdf 274 Save Colorado from Fracking, http://www.savecoloradofromfracking.org/harm/economic.html 275 Brown, William, Draft Summary of Local Economic Impacts of Natural Gas Development in Valle Vidal, http://www.docstoc.com/docs/20014683/Summary-of-Local-Economic-Impacts-of-Natural-GasDevelopment. See also Power, Thomas, The Local Impacts of Natural Gas Development in Valle Vidal, New Mexico, University of Montana (2005). 276 Save Colorado from Fracking.org, Economic Impacts, http://www.savecoloradofromfracking.org/harm/economic.html (last visited Aug 1, 2012); Food & Water Watch, Exposing the Oil and Gas Industrys False Jobs Promise for Shale Gas Development, http://documents.foodandwaterwatch.org/doc/FalseJobsPromiseReport.pdf. 277 Save Colorado from Fracking.org, Economic Impacts, http://www.savecoloradofromfracking.org/harm/economic.html (last visited Aug 1, 2012); PortageCitizens.org, Oil/Gas DrillingMyth v. Reality, http://www.portagecitizens.org/neogap/wpcontent/uploads/2011/04/1102-Myth-v-Reality-FINAL-copy.pdf (2011). 278 Jacquet, 279 Save Colorado from Fracking.org, Economic Impacts, http://www.savecoloradofromfracking.org/harm/economic.html (last visited Aug 1, 2012). 280 Hooper, Troy, Black Sunday lessons from 30 years ago coloring Colorado oil shale debate today, Colorado Independent (May 2, 2012), http://coloradoindependent.com/119367/black-sunday-lessons-from30-years-ago-coloring-colorado-oil-shale-debate-today
272
The best business to be in at the time would have been the moving business, said [resident Herb Bacon], noting that thousands of residents fled the Grand Valley, which without warning was left in dire straits. It was total chaos. There was a big boom and an even bigger bust, said Andrew Gulliford, a history professor at Fort Lewis College in Durango who authored Boomtown Blues: Colorado Oil Shale. . . . It took a decade before the region bounced back.281 Fracking development affects housing. With the influx of new workers, rental prices, both residential and commercial, go up quickly.282 Consider New Town, North Dakota, where: United Prairie Cooperative bought the litter-strewn and dilapidated Prairie Winds trailer park south of the train tracks. About 90 families, mostly Native Americans from the Three Affiliated Tribes, have called this home for decades. The new owner doubled the rents, according to residents, and then issued eviction orders to make way for new housing for oil workers.283 The impact on property values, however, can be mixed. In some cases with oil and gas development, property values will go up for a period,284 but oil and gas activities can also destroy property values for residents. Fracking is particularly hard on property values due to the environmental contamination issues noted throughout this letter, and the public fears fracking creates. DISH, Texas, has fallen victim to this effect of fracking. Former Mayor of DISH, Calvin Tillman, has said: Although you may see a boost in your tax rolls for the short term, you will pay in the long run with the drop in property values. For a small growing community like DISH it especially provides an obstacle for quality growth. There have been four large tracts of property for sale in DISH for several years with no real interest in purchasing the property. If you do manage to get some interest in the property, it will likely be something like a pipeyard or something else that continues to devalue the surrounding property. So getting quality growth in an area that has a large amount of exploration proves to be a large hurdle if not impossible.285 In areas overlying the Marcellus Shale that companies are fracking, interest in a property can disappear once the public learns of the presence of fracking. Pennsylvania
Id. Jacquet. 283 Mufson, Steven, In North Dakota, the gritty side of an oil boom, The Washington Post (July 18, 2012), http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/in-north-dakota-the-gritty-side-of-an-oilboom/2012/07/18/gJQAZk5ZuW_story.html. 284 Jacquet at 28. 285 Save Colorado from Fracking.org, Economic Impacts, http://www.savecoloradofromfracking.org/harm/economic.html (last visited Aug 1, 2012).
282
281
real estate agent Jennifer Canfield laments that the potential for future revenue from gas development cannot make up for potential buyers fear of fracking activities: Even if sellers want to hand over the revenue derived from a future well, the clientele Ive always relied upon dont care to come here for that. . . . In my own case, the phone stopped ringing when it became widely known how many thousands of acres were signed up.286 2. Aesthetic impacts Fracking can destroy the charm a community may posses, leave it gritty and cheerless.287 Often the mineral rights for a property were sold years ago, leaving the current owner with little to no control over what activity ultimately occurs on their land. In North Dakota, where fracking has spawned the biggest U.S. oil rush in decades, property owners are seeing unwanted wells pop up on their rural land and having to deal with drilling waste, spills, and decades-old storage tanks eaten away by chemicals.288 Regulators do not even have the capacity to keep up with the development, so residents frequently complain of waste disposal, flaring, and small spills or leaks.289 Additionally, gas flares [that] can be seen almost everywhere, makeshift camps for workers, . . . explosion[s] of heavy truck traffic and crime[, and] [s]tacks of pipe l[ying] along the road create an ugly, unhealthy place to live.290 These effects can be particularly devastating to individuals who have moved to small towns to enjoy the peace and clean environments those communities provide, and to escape the types of impacts fracking creates in overwhelming amounts. 3. Impacts to infrastructure and institutions Fracking overwhelms public infrastructure and institutions, yet does not provide enough revenue to local governments to deal with these problems. As one report notes about North Dakota, [e]ven as the oil industry has rushed into a new era here, the states infrastructure housing, roads, schools and pipelines is better suited to 1985. Now, communities are finding themselves constantly trying to play catch up, rather than planning for more services, and they are doing so with too little money to deal with impacts.291 Increased traffic is a major difficulty, and this issue is amplified with fracking, since the practice requires the trucking in of massive amounts of water. Because most oil and gas activity occurs in the unincorporated rural portions of counties, [the] roads are not developed for commuter traffic loads or consistent use by heavy equipment vehicles such as drill rigs or service semis. Consequently, oil and gas development clogs the
286 287
Id. Mufson. 288 Id. 289 Id. 290 Id. 291 Id.
roads with traffic.292 In North Dakotas oil producing area, the number of oversize and overweight trucks using roads and bridges . . . more than doubled over the past three years . . . .293 Cogan House Township in northern Lycoming County, Pennsylvania, experienced exponentially increased traffic levels. For one local road, [b]efore natural gas drilling began, 10 to 20 vehicles a week used the road. Now, upwards of 200 trucks use it daily when fracking occurs.294 Communities are left footing the bill for these roads, often with little help from the companies responsible for tearing up the roads. McKenzie County, [North Dakota,] with about 7,000 residents, needed nearly $200 million to repair roads damaged by [oil industry] truck traffic.295 A town supervisor in New York has described a company called Norse Energy generating damage to roads and then strongly resisting helping to pay for repairs. The company delayed for nearly 18 months the implementation of a simple $10,000 road bond agreement that evolved into a $30,000 discussion with some strong resistance on their part, long enough for our town to experience road impacts that exceeded $300,000 in repair costs.296 Other aspects of local infrastructure must strain to accommodate other changes as well, since the new residents will be relying on a police department, fire department, and school system prepared to serve a much smaller population.297 However, communities have trouble adapting these institutions because government jobs do not pay enough to remain attractive within the boomtown economy. For instance, in Rifle, Colorado, [i]n the summer of 2007, more than 20 prospective teachers turned down job offers because they could not afford housing in town.298 Additionally, these boomtown economies are associated with rapid increases in crime rates, and local police departments can have trouble keeping pace with heightened crime.299 4. Increased crime Fracking boomtowns are associated with high rates of crime. One article notes that these problems are blamed largely on an influx of young men who find themselves with lots of money in their pockets and nothing to do after they get off work.300 Regardless of the exact cause, oil and gas development can increase rates of drunken
Save Colorado from Fracking.org, Economic Impacts, http://www.savecoloradofromfracking.org/harm/economic.html (last visited Aug 1, 2012). 293 Mufson. 294 Save Colorado from Fracking.org, Economic Impacts, http://www.savecoloradofromfracking.org/harm/economic.html (last visited Aug 1, 2012). 295 Mufson. 296 Save Colorado from Fracking.org, Economic Impacts, http://www.savecoloradofromfracking.org/harm/economic.html (last visited Aug 1, 2012). 297 Mufson. 298 Save Colorado from Fracking.org, Economic Impacts, http://www.savecoloradofromfracking.org/harm/economic.html (last visited Aug 1, 2012). 299 Save Colorado from Fracking.org, Economic Impacts, http://www.savecoloradofromfracking.org/harm/economic.html (last visited Aug 1, 2012). 300 Levy, Marc, Crime is up in gas boom towns, Times Union (Oct 26, 2011), http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Crime-is-up-in-gas-boom-towns-2238332.php#ixzz223ILz3iU
292
driving and sexual assault,301 and result in the appearance of drug trafficking and prostitution rings.302 The Bakken oil shale boom has caused a dramatic increase in crime. Drug crimes in eastern Montana have more than doubled. Assaults in Dickinson, N.D., have increased fivefold in just two years. And the once-sleepy town of Plentywood, Mont., has seen three assaults with weapons in the past few months a prospect previously unheard of in the tiny community tucked against the Canada border.303 In a case that has received large a great deal of attention, a schoolteacher and mother of two, was murdered while jogging near her home in Sidney, Montana. The two men accused of killing her are believed to have come north for work, and one was arrested in Williston, at the center of the oil rush.304 Residents resent the chilling effect the crime is having on their community,305 with some longing for the days that they could leave their doors unlocked or send their kids to the pool without worry.306 F. Impacts to Californias Sensitive Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems Oil and gas operations pose a significant threat to Californias sensitive plants and animals. Oil and gas operations can harm species in numerous ways, including through the degradation or fragmentation of habitat, the introduction of predator species or elimination of prey species, directly killing species, for instance by vehicle strike, or through spills of oil or brine or other substances. Fracking exacerbates these impacts both by increasing drilling activities and allowing their expansion into new areas, and because it brings its own unique risks. The unique impacts of fracking include the use of hundreds of dangerous and potentially dangerous chemicals, which as discussed above can be released into the environment both through underground migration of fluid and through surface spills. Wildlife may that encounter such chemicals may be harmed or killed. In addition, fracking is usually accompanied by an intense level of development, including the drilling of multiple wells and many truck and other vehicle trips. These impacts present particularly grave threats to wildlife from habitat fragmentation, vehicle strikes, and other impacts. A review of scientific literature and other sources illustrating some of the specific risks that fracking poses to wildlife is attached as Appendix B.307 This review found impacts to wildlife from fracking in three categories:
Id.; Save Colorado from Fracking.org, Increased Crime Rates, http://www.savecoloradofromfracking.org/harm/index.html (last visited Aug. 1, 2011). 302 Brown, Matthew
303 304
301
Id. Mufson. 305 Brown, Matthew. 306 Mufson. See also Infocast, Conference Speakers say Bakken has huge potential, Infocast In the News (Oct 26, 2011), http://www.infocastinc.com/index.php/news/74.; Brown, Matthew. 307 Kadaba, Dipika and Shaye Wolf, Impacts of fracking on wildlife- A review (July 30, 2012).
[I] Health impacts caused by proximity to fracking activity Regular drilling activity that utilizes hydraulic fracturing has been linked to number of negative impacts on wildlife, even when drilling is done in accordance with state rules and no accidents are reported. Proximity to fracking activity is associated with decreased richness of aquatic species and the spread of invasive species, death and deformities of wildlife and domestic animals, and an increased risk of the spread of wildlife disease. [II] Health impacts caused by accidental contamination There have been numerous cases of spills, blowouts, and improper fencing that exposed fish and other wildlife to fracking chemicals. These accidents caused large scale fish kills, and a range of negative health effects to wildlife and domestic animals, from birth defects to death. [III] Population impacts caused by habitat loss and degradation Numerous studies have found that sensitive bird species and other wildlife are affected by truck traffic, human presence, and edge effects from gas drilling infrastructure one study found that a single drilling station can affect 30 acres of forest. These effects of habitat degradation on wildlife include interference with behavior, migration, and reproduction. Because studies and reports on the impacts of oil and gas development do not always specify whether hydraulic fracturing was employed, this summary represents an incomplete snapshot of the full impacts of this activity on wildlife. Additionally, there are significant research gaps on the effects of fracking on wildlife, and many fracking impacts are likely never reported or even observed. Nevertheless, the summary illustrates the threat that fracking poses to Californias plants and animals.
Appendix B: The Impacts of Fracking on Wildlife- A Review
Impacts of Fracking on Wildlife- A Review Center for Biological Diversity Dipika Kadaba, Shaye Wolf Updated July 30, 2012
Methods: The primary sources of information included in this review are publications in scientific journals, and government, news and advocacy group reports. An internet search was performed using Google Scholar and Web of Science to locate scientific publications, and Google search to locate other reports. All searches used a combination of the keywords hydraulic fracturing, fracking, wildlife, and animals. These keywords primarily yielded publications about the impacts of fracking activity on the health, behavior, and habitat of wildlife and other animals. Accounts of livestock and pet animals were included along with wildlife as they are environmentally impacted in similar ways. The bibliographies of scientific papers and fracking summary reports by advocacy groups also served as sources of current information on the impacts of fracking on wildlife. An extensive Google search using the above mentioned keywords also yielded numerous news reports and a small amount of literature that was not included in the reviewed summary reports. This search method allowed the identification of literature specific drilling activity aided by hydraulic fracturing, as opposed to other kinds of oil and gas development. Summary: Our review found 25 accounts of the impacts of hydraulic fracturing on wildlife, in the following 3 areas: [I] Impacts caused by proximity to fracking activity, [II] Impacts caused by accidental contamination, and [III] Population impacts caused by habitat loss and degradation [I] Impacts caused by proximity to fracking activity, Regular drilling activity that utilizes hydraulic fracturing has been linked to number of negative impacts on wildlife, even when drilling is done in accordance with state rules and no accidents are reported. Proximity to fracking activity is associated with decreased richness of aquatic species and the spread of invasive species, death and deformities of wildlife and domestic animals, and an increased risk of the spread of wildlife disease. [II] Impacts caused by accidental contamination There have been numerous cases of spills, blowouts, and improper fencing that exposed fish and other wildlife to fracking chemicals. These accidents caused large scale fish kills, kills of threatened species, and a range of negative health effects to wildlife and domestic animals, from birth defects to death. [III] Population impacts caused by habitat loss and degradation Numerous studies found that sensitive bird species and other wildlife are affected by truck traffic, human presence, and edge effects from gas drilling infrastructure one study found Appendix B to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 1 of 10
that a single drilling station can affect 30 acres of forest. These effects of habitat degradation on wildlife include interference with behavior, migration, and reproduction. These accounts are also classified by type of publication: News article, Video news report, Magazine article, Journal article, Peer-reviewed paper, Press release, State report, Advocacy group report, Non-profit association report, or Institutional report. Impacts to wildlife that were not included in this review, but which are common to oil and gas development in general, include the effects of noise and light pollution and the spread of invasive species. Noise pollution from energy facilities has been linked to lower densities and reproductive success of birds. One study on noise pollution impacts found that songbirds that were found in areas near noiseless energy facilities had a total density 1.5 times higher than areas near noise-producing sites, indicating avoidance of noise producing infrastructure.1 Another study showed that the reproductive success of ovenbirds was diminished by chronic background noise originating from wellpads.2 The impacts of lighting of oil and gas infrastructure have been cited as a cause of concern for wildlife.3 Effects include attracting night-flying insects to artificial light sources, thus depleting the prey of wildlife that depend on them.4 Construction activity can affect air, soils, nutrient cycling, and wildlife habitat. The discharge of produced water into native streams affects water chemistry and water availability, thus disturbing native ecosystems.5 Controlled studies have also shown that natural gas development activity and associated disturbance may facilitate the establishment of non-native plants.6 This review represents and incomplete overview of the full impacts of fracking activity on wildlife for several reasons: (1) studies and reports on the impacts of oil and gas development do not always specify whether hydraulic fracturing was employed; (2) there are significant research gaps on the effects of fracking on wildlife; and (3) many fracking impacts are likely never reported or even observed. [I] Wildlife impacts caused by proximity to fracking activity
Bayne E.M., Habib, L., and Boutin, S. 2008. Impacts of Chronic Anthropogenic Noise from Energy-sector Activity on the abundance of songbirds in the boreal forest. Conservation Biology 22(5):1186-93. 2 Habib, L., Bayne E.M., and Boutin, S. 2007. Chronic industrial noise affects pairing success and age structure of ovenbirds Seiurus aurocapilla. Journal of Applied Ecology, 44(1):176-184. 3 New York State Deparment Of Environmental Conservation. 2011. Revised Draft SGEIS on the Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program. http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/75370.htm. 4 Kiviat, E. and Schneller-McDonald, K. 2011. Fracking and Biodiversity: Unaddressed issues in the New York debate. News from Hudsonia, 25(1&2). 5 Bureau of Land Management (BLM): (2003). Final environmental impact statement and proposed plan amendment for the powder river basin oil and gas project. Volume 1 of 4.WY-070-02-065. US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Buffalo Field Office. 6 Bergquist, E., Evangelista, P., Stohlgren, T.J., and Alley, N. 2007. Invasive species and coal bed methane development in the Powder River Basin, Wyoming. Environ Monit Assess 128:381-394.
1
Appendix B to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 2 of 10
[Peer-reviewed paper] 1) Negative health impacts to wildlife, pets, and domestic animals caused by exposure to fracking activity Animal owners and veterinarians were surveyed in six states (Colorado, Louisiana, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas) affected by gas drilling. The following cases of negative health impacts related to exposure to fracking infrastructure or wastewater were reported: Among wildlife, fish experienced sudden death and dermatological abnormalities, and song birds and amphibians experienced sudden death as well. Pet dogs and cats experienced various systemic impacts, and also sudden death. Farm animals such as bovines, horses, poultry, and llamas suffered a range of impacts, from poor reproduction and systemic problems, to sudden death. Some health impacts also resulted from accidental spills of fracking wastewater. Bamberger, M. and Oswald, R.E. 2012. Impacts of gas drilling on human and animal health. New Solutions, 22(1):51-77. [News article] 2) Decreased species richness and increased water pollution found in streams near natural gas drilling activity A preliminary study investigating the effects of drilling for natural gas on stream life and water quality found reduced aquatic species richness in streams close to drilling activity. They reported, as the density of well pads increased, the number of types of stream insects decreased. They also reported higher levels of water pollutants in areas with high density drilling. The results of the complete study will be published at the end of 2012. Susan Phillips, Researchers Wade Into Streams to Study Gas Drilling Impacts, State Impact, NPR, October 6, 2011, http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2011/10/06/researchers-wade-into-streams-tostudy-gas-drilling-impacts/ (accessed June 26, 2012) [Journal Article] 3) Invasive algae suspected to be introduced by drilling tankers caused massive fish kill Drunkard Creek is a tributary to the Monongahela River, where there is intensive hydraulic fracturing activity. An algal bloom caused the sudden death of thousands of fish, mussels, and salamanders along 30 miles of the creek. Equipment used for the withdrawal and transport of water for fracking activity are potential mechanisms for the introduction of invasive aquatic species that thrive in waters already suffering from diminished water quality due to drilling. Renner, R. 2009. Salt-loving algae wipe out fish in Appalachian stream. Environmental Science and Technology, 43(24):9046-7
[Peer-reviewed Paper] 4) Bird mortality caused by oil field wastewater disposal facilities Hydraulic fracturing fluids are sometimes disposed of in commercial and centralized oilfield wastewater disposal facilities (COWDFs), which are used in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. Birds are attracted to these large ponds which can potentially cause wildlife mortality. Field inspections in Wyoming found 269 bird carcasses most commonly grebes and waterfowl. Sodium toxicity and surfactants which are found in hydraulic fracturing fluids were suspected to be the cause of death at three of the inspected COWDFs. Ramirez, P. Jr. 2010. Bird Mortality in Oil Field Wastewater Disposal Facilities Environ manage. 46(5):820-6 [Peer-reviewed paper] 5) Coalbed methane extraction, which commonly utilizes hydraulic fracturing, is linked to an increased risk of West Nile Virus to threatened Greater sage-grouse in Wyoming The survival rate of the greater sage-grouse in Wyoming has declined by 25% in recent years. Coalbed Methane Development in the area causes large volumes of water to be discharged and impounded during natural gas extraction, which creates aquatic habitats that can support mosquito development. There was a 75% increase in potential habitat for mosquito larvae due to an increase in small discharge ponds in this region. The mosquito Culex tarsalis, which is found in the area, spreads West Nile Virus to susceptible species. This implies the Greater Sage-grouse is at increased risk of exposure to West Nile Virus due to Coalbed Methane Development. Zou, L., Miller, S.N., and Schmidtmann, E.T. 2006. Mosquito Larval Habitat Mapping Using Remote Sensing and GIS: Implications of Coalbed Methane Development and West Nile Virus. J Med Entomol, 43(5):1034:41 [News article and State report] 6) Fracking waste water suspected to be cause of fish abnormalities in Susquehanna River There is intense natural gas drilling in the basin of the Susquehanna River, and over 15 water treatment plants in Pennsylvania had been accepting waste water from hydraulic fracturing activity, subsequently discharging it into streams.1 Fish in the Susquehanna River have been exhibiting abnormalities for example, 40% of adult small-bass within one river section had black spots and lesions1, and in some cases, 90-100% of fish observed were cases of intersex, possibly due to endocrine disruption.2 1. Betsey Piette, BP oil spill, fracking cause wildlife abnormalities, Workers World, April 27, 2012, http://www.workers.org/2012/us/bp_oil_spill_fracking_0503/ (accessed June 26, 2012). 2. Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission, Ongoing problems with the Susquehanna River smallmouth bass, A case for impairment, May 23, 2012, Appendix B to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 4 of 10
www.fish.state.pa.us/newsreleases/2012press/senate_susq/SMB_ConservationIssuesForum _Lycoming.pdf (accessed June 26, 2012). [Video news report] 7) Death and deformities in domestic animals in Garfield County, Colorado In an interview with the New York Times, a family living near natural gas wells and storage tanks reported congenital abnormalities in goats born on their property, as well as the death of their poultry. Erik Olsen, Natural Gas and Polluted Air, The New York Times, February 2011, http://video.nytimes.com/video/2011/02/26/us/100000000650773/natgas.html (accessed June 26, 2012) [Non-profit association report] 8) Mortality in pets and domestic animals, as reported by an individual, to the Monongahela Basin Watershed Group An individual living near a seven-acre impoundment pool reported deaths of dogs and goats. An autopsy revealed arsenic in a dog, and a horse on the property also became sick. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) detected Ethyl glycol and arsenic in water samples on the property. Upper Monongahela River Association, WV/PA Monongahela Area Watersheds compacts, Minutes Seventh Meeting, March 23, 2011, http://www.uppermon.org/Mon_Watershed_Group/minutes-23Mar11.html (accessed June 26, 2012) [II] Impacts caused by accidental contamination [Government Report] 9) Unlawfully discharged fracking fluids kill aquatic invertebrates and fish, including Blackside Dace, a threatened species A company in Kentucky illegally discharged fracking fluids into a stream, contaminating it with hydrochloric acid and other chemicals. According to the report, the discharges killed virtually all aquatic wildlife in a significant portion of the fork, including fish and invertebrates. Among the aquatic wildlife killed, bodies of blackside dace - a fish species listed as threatened under federal law were also recovered. Office of Law Enforcement, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Case at a Glance: U.S. v. Nami Resources Company, LLC. www.fws.gov/home/feature/2009/pdf/NamiInvestigation.pdf (accessed on July 20, 2010). [State Report] 10) Accidental release of wastewater causes death of fish and invertebrates Appendix B to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 5 of 10
In Washington County, PA, a pipeline at Cross Creek Wells accidentally discharged an estimated 4,200 gallons of wastewater, as well as sediments. A report by the Oil and Gas Management Program of the Department of Environmental Protection concluded, The creek was impacted by sediments all the way down to the lake and there was evidence of a fish kill as invertebrates and fish were observed lying dead in the creek. Department of Environmental protection, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Inspection Report, May 27, 2009. www.marcellus-shale.us/pdf/CC-Spill_DEP-Insp-Rpt.pdf (accessed on June 26, 2012). [Institutional report] 11) Wildlife mortality reported in incidents associated with natural gas drilling operations Figure 1: Table of incidents of wildlife mortality associated with Natural Gas drilling operations Location State Year Main Issue Reported Damage Dimock PA 2009 Spill of lubricant gel used in Contaminated wetland, fracture fluid at the drilling site caused fish kill due to failed pipe connections Drunkard PA 2009 Algae growth in river allegedly Fish kill along 43-mile Creek caused by high salinity from stretch of creek caused fracture flowback fluids by spread of invasive algae Hopewell PA 2009 Broken transmission line led to Contaminated stream, Township spill of 7,750 barrels of diluted killing over 100 fish in fracture fluids area rich in biodiversity MIT Energy Initiative. 2011. The future of Natural Gas, An Interdisciplinary MIT study. http://web.mit.edu/mitei/research/studies/natural-gas-2011.shtml (accessed June 26, 2012) [Magazine Article] 12) Contaminated liquids cause cattle and wildlife mortality in Rosa Mesa, New Mexico In Rosa Mesa, NM, contaminated groundwater (or produced water) often leaks from storage tanks or is dumped, and antifreeze leaks from compressors used in gas production. This toxic standing liquid is consumed by cattle and wildlife. Ranchers frequently report death of their cattle, and observe carcasses of deer, elk, and other small mammals. Ted Williams, The Mad Gas Rush, March 2004, Audubon, http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/incite/incite0403.html (accessed June 26, 2012). [News Article] 13) A truck runs off the road and spills fracking liquid, causing the death of minnows Appendix B to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 6 of 10
In Washing County, PA, a tanker truck hauling fracking liquid ran off a road and spilled almost 5,000 gallons of liquid. The spill resulted in the contamination of a stream and the death of several minnows. Kathie O. Warco, Fracking truck runs off road; contents spill, The Observer-Reporter, October 21, 2010. http://www.observer-reporter.com/OR/Story/10-21-2010-frackingtruck-rolls (accessed July 20, 2012). [Advocacy group report] 14) Accidental blowout contaminates high-quality fishery In Clearfield County, PA, a blowout released nearly 1 million gallons of wastewater into nearby creeks. This accident led to the uncontrolled discharge of wastewater into a tributary of Little Laurel Run, a high-quality coldwater fishery. Michaels, C., Simpson, J.L, and Wegner, W. 2010. Fracture Communities, Case studies of the environmental impacts of industrial gas drilling, Riverkeeper, www.riverkeeper.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/09/Fractured-Communities-FINAL-September-2010.pdf (accesed June 26, 2012) [Press release] 15) Natural gas drilling fluids spilled into wetland and coldwater fishery A spill of used natural gas drilling fluids in Bradford County, PA, sent 4,200-6,300 gallons of fluids into a wetland and a tributary of Webier Creek, which drains into a coldwater fishery. Department of Environmental protection, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, DEP Fines Talisman Energy USA for Bradford County Drilling Wastewater Spill, Polluting Nearby Water Resource, August 2, 2010, http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/newsroom/14287?id=13249&t ypeid=1 (accessed June 26, 2012). [Advocacy group report] 16) Inadequate prevention of harm to wildlife by drilling operators Industrial gas drilling operators in Colorado committed numerous violations including failure to prevent unauthorized exploration and production waste discharges; failure to install appropriate fencing to prevent significant adverse environmental impacts resulting from access to a pit by wildlife, migratory birds, domestic animals, or members of the general public Michaels, C., Simpson, J.L, and Wegner, W. 2010. Fracture Communities, Case studies of the environmental impacts of industrial gas drilling, Riverkeeper, www.riverkeeper.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/09/Fractured-Communities-FINAL-September-2010.pdf (accesed June 26, 2012)
[III] Population impacts caused by habitat loss and degradation [Peer-reviewed paper] 17) Decline in habitat availability for pronghorn due to gas field development The Jonah and PAPA (Pinedale Anticline Project Area) gas fields occur in the wintering home range of the pronghorn the countrys longest terrestrial migrant. The habitat choices of female pronghorn demonstrated a fivefold decrease in the use of high-quality habitat patches and the abandonment of areas with the greatest habitat loss and industrial footprint. These results indicate a decline in the availability of high-quality habitat for pronghorn due to the behavioral impacts of habitat alteration associated with gas field development. Beckmann, J.P., Murray, K., Seidler, R.G., and Berger, J. 2012. Human-mediated shifts in animal habitat use: Sequential changes in pronghorn use of a natural gas field in Greater Yellowstone. Biological Conservation, 147(1):222-3 [Peer-reviewed paper] 18) Regional declines of some songbird species are exacerbated by increased energy development This study on the responses of the sagebrush bird community to oil and natural gas development in Wyoming found that an increasing density of wells in an area was associated with decreased numbers of Brewers sparrows, sage sparrows, and vesper sparrows. Interestingly, the abundance of several species was lowest in the oldest gas field, which suggests that the impacts of oil and gas development may compound over time, rather than showing signs of recovery or acclimation. Gilbert, M.M, and Chalfoun, A.D. 2011. Energy Development Affects Populations of Sagebrush Songbirds in Wyoming. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 75(4):816-824
[Peer-reviewed paper] 19) Dense oil and gas infrastructure adversely impact greater sage-grouse and elk habitat In the Big Piney-LaBarge field, Wyoming, the overall area of oil and gas infrastructure, including roads, pipelines, pads, and wastepits, covers 4% of the total area; however, the effect of that infrastructure on resident wildlife is much greater. 97% of the total area falls within one-quarter mile of infrastructure, thus impacting all the habitat of the greater sagegrouse in the area. The vast majority of the area also has road densities greater than two miles of road per square mile of the total area, which has adverse effects on elk. Weller, C., Thomson, J., and Aplet, G. 2002. Fragmenting Our Lands: The Ecological Footprint from Oil and Gas Development. The Wilderness Society, 80221(303):1-30.
[Peer-reviewed paper] 20) Current natural gas development stipulations insufficient to prevent declines of Greater Sage-grouse populations in the Powder River basin Current rules that prohibit development within a certain distance of sage-grouse mating areas (or leks) are inadequate to ensure sage-grouse persistence, and may impact their population over larger areas. Seasonal restrictions on drilling and construction do not address impacts caused by loss of sagebrush and incursion of infrastructure that can affect populations over long periods of time. Other indirect effects, such increased livestock grazing due to newly available water or changes in predator abundance due to drilling infrastructure may also negatively impact sage-grouse populations. Walker, B.L., Naugle, D.E., and Doherty, K.E. 2007. Greater Sage-Grouse Population Response to Energy. Journal of Wildlife Management, 71(8):2644-54. [Peer-reviewed paper] 21) Young greater-sage grouse have lower reproductive success due to natural-gas infrastructure Young greater-sage grouse avoid mating near infrastructure of natural-gas fields, and those that were reared near infrastructure had lower annual survival rates and were less successful at establishing breeding territories compared to those reared away from infrastructure. Holloran, M.J., Kaiser, R.C., and Hubert, W.A. 2010. Yearling Greater Sage-Grouse Response to Energy Development in Wyoming. Journal of Wildlife Management, 74(1):6572. [Peer-reviewed paper] 22) Natural gas development leads to habitat degradation and loss for Mule Deer Increased levels of natural gas exploration, development, and production across the Intermountain West have created a variety of concerns for mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) populations, including direct habitat loss due to road and well-pad construction. Mule deer are less likely to occupy areas in close proximity to well pads than those farther away. There was no evidence of well-pad acclimation by mule deer; rather, they selected areas farther from well pads as development progressed. The distribution of deer shifted toward lesspreferred and presumably less-suitable habitats. Sawyer, H., Nielson, R.M., Lindzey, F., and McDonald, L.L. 2006. Winter Habitat Selection of Mule Deer Before and During Development of a Natural Gas Field. Journal of Wildlife Management, 70(2):396403. [Press release] 23) A drilling company illegally filled in an acre of exceptional wetland The Department of Environmental Protection inspected a Bloss Township, Tioga County, site in March and found that Seneca Resources Corp. of Brookville had filled nearly one acre of exceptional value wetland without authorization, improperly built an impoundment, Appendix B to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 9 of 10
and caused sediment runoff by failing to institute erosion control best management practices. The unauthorized fill in a wetland and sediment runoff were violations of the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law and the Dam Safety and Encroachments Act. Department of Environmental protection, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, DEP Fines Seneca Resources Corp. $40,000 for Violations at Marcellus Operation in Tioga County, July 10, 2010, http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/newsroom/14287?id=14655&t ypeid=1 (accessed June 26, 2012). [Advocacy group report] 24) Area affected by drilling pads are compounded by edge effects, negatively impacting area-sensitive forest birds Almost 250 drilling pads on the Marcellus shale of Pennsylvania were studied; an average of 8.8 acres of forest had been cleared for each drilling pad, along with associated infrastructure. After accounting for ecological edge effects, it was found that each drilling station actually affected 30 acres of forest. The study predicted area-sensitive species such as the black-throated blue warbler and the scarlet tanager would be adversely affected by drilling infrastructure. Johnson, N. 2010. Pennsylvania energy impacts assessment: Report 1: Marcellus shale natural gas and wind, Nature Conservancy Pennsylvania Chapter, http://www.tcgasmap.org/media/PA%20Assessment%20of%20Gas%20Impacts%20TNC. pdf, (accessed June 26, 2012) [News article] 25) Fracking activity threatens fisheries by depleting water levels Where fracking water comes from is one of the major threats to fisheries. Trucking water in is expensive; its cheaper to run a fire hose to a local source. Because well sites are often in undeveloped highlands, these sources are often small trout streams. Regulations for drawing water vary among the states, and there are questions about how well current regulations protect waterways. There is also a question of enforcement. Four gas companies have already been caught withdrawing water from Pennsylvania trout streams without permission. Anthony Licata, Natural gas drilling threatens trout in Pennsylvania (and other Appalachian states), July 24, 2009, Field and Stream, http://www.troutrageous.com/2009/08/fieldstream-pa-natural-gas-drilling.html, (accessed June 27, 2012)
EXHIBIT C
Chemical Disclosure - Well Map
http://www.hydraulicfracturingdisclosure.org/fracfocusfind/
(http://www.fracfocus.org)
()
Map Search (Map.aspx) Standard Search (Default.aspx)

STATE: COUNTY: WELLS IN COUNTY: OPERATOR:
California
API WELL NUMBER:
Choose a State First

WELL NAME:
Choose a County First
Choose One
__-___-_____ Search Reset

Not Seeing Map Markers? Please Click The "Reset" Button (left).
All FracFocus well site information is voluntarily provided by participating oil and natural gas operators. Wells hydraulically fractured after January 1, 2011 will be added to the database over time. See the full list of participating production companies (http://www.fracfocus.org/links).
(http://www.gwpc.org/)
Copyright GWPC & IOGCC, 2011
(http://www.iogcc.state.ok.us/)
Terms of Use (http://www.fracfocus.org/terms-of-use)
1 of 1
8/9/2012 10:24 AM

CBD Comments Titan With Appendices 8-9-12

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CBD Comments Titan With Appendices 8-9-12

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

August 9, 2012 Via Email and Federal Express Overnight Delivery Compact Disks of Attachments Provided with Hard

Center for Biological Diversity Comments August 9, 2012 Page 3 of 23

Center for Biological Diversity Comments August 9, 2012 Page 6 of 23

Center for Biological Diversity Comments August 9, 2012 Page 7 of 23

SEAB First 90-day Report at 22.

Center for Biological Diversity Comments August 9, 2012 Page 8 of 23

Center for Biological Diversity Comments August 9, 2012 Page 9 of 23

Center for Biological Diversity Comments August 9, 2012 Page 11 of 23

Center for Biological Diversity Comments August 9, 2012 Page 12 of 23

Center for Biological Diversity Comments August 9, 2012 Page 18 of 23

Center for Biological Diversity Comments August 9, 2012 Page 23 of 23

Appendix A: The Impacts of Fracking in California

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 1 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 2 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 3 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 4 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 5 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 6 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 7 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 8 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 9 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 10 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 11 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 12 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 13 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 14 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 15 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 16 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 17 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 18 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 19 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 20 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 21 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 22 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 23 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 24 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 25 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 26 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 27 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 28 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 29 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 30 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 31 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 32 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 33 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 34 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 35 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 36 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 37 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 38 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 39 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 40 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 41 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 42 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 43 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 44 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 45 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 46 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 47 of 48

Appendix A to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 48 of 48

Appendix B: The Impacts of Fracking on Wildlife- A Review

Appendix B to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 2 of 10

Appendix B to Center for Biological Diversity Comments Page 3 of 10

-_-_____ Search Reset