SAN FRANCISCO Clean Water Action called on California regulators for a moratorium on fracking on the heels of a lawsuit recently filed charging the California Division of Oil Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) was lax in developing draft regulations regarding the process to extract oil and or natural gas known as fracking.
Neither the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) nor the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have yet a chance to make comment on the regulations, though Tim Moran Public Information Officer at SWRCB expressed concern about usage of the term ‘proprietary’ in the regulations. Stanley Young Public Officer for CAARB stated “we're working closely with DOGGR and we are always concerned about methane emissions from any source and want to examine how we can reduce fugitive methane emissions back into the atmosphere.”
In support for a moratorium on fracking
Environmental Attorney Todd Cardiff is in support of a moratorium until regulations can be properly enforced. Cardiff is skeptical of the new regulations, noting that the regulations seek to remove fracking from the underground injection control program - - an action that was specifically struck down by a federal court of appeal in reviewing Alabama’s fracking regulations.
Environmentalists have further charged that the terminology such as ‘proprietary’ is nothing more than trade secret provisions that bar the public from full disclosure as to what is being injected into their water supply as well as air. It is not yet known for example, what firms manufacture a fracking mix.
Does an industry of fracking mix manufacturers exist?
Current reporting from Robert A Mc Donald of the New Times in San Luis Obispo is that every gas company that fracks uses its own proprietary chemical mix to enhance the fracturing process.
In a drilling application submitted to Monterey County McDonald learned that oil driller Venoco for example, 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.” No one from Venoco returned communications to dispute the application.
Clean Water Action charges DOGGR’s ‘discussion draft’ regulations woefully inadequate
Clean Water Action charged DOGGR’s ‘discussion draft’ regulations released Tuesday, “woefully inadequate, and has therefore announced in a press release Thursday for the State regulatory body to “ issue a moratorium on any new hydraulic fracturing operations pending revision and adoption of protective regulations; and an independent investigation into the potential impacts of fracking in California.”
Clean Water Action program organizer Andrew Grinberg believes a moratorium is needed during the process of developing regulation. “Regulations could take many months or even years to adopt. Meanwhile fracking would be allowed with no safeguards in place.” Clean Water Action is a national organization of more than 1 million members, with 60,000 members in California.
Grinberg professed, “There has been little independent scientific review of the potential impacts of fracking on California, and the process in other states has been linked to air and water pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, induced seismic activity, massive water use, and dangerous worker conditions. The Brown Administration has remained steadfast in its stated intent to allow increased levels of fracking and other dangerous oil extraction techniques in California.”
The process used to develop the draft regulations on fracking in California
Ed Wilson Public Affairs Office California Department of Conservation stated that “a number of things were considered as the discussion draft of the regulations was developed, including input gathered last summer at seven informal workshops held around the state, existing regulations from the federal government and other states, and scientific studies of hydraulic fracturing culled from a number of sources.
Wilson added, "Although these discussion draft regulations ultimately will lead to the first hydraulic fracturing-specific regulations in California, we do want to point out that existing regulations have served to protect the environment and public health and safety.”
What clean water advocates would like to see in California’s regulations regarding fracking
In a Dec.18 letter to the Department of Conservation (DOC) and its Division of Oil Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), Clean Water Action and allies called for the moratorium on the oil and gas extraction that uses the fracking process having identified the following major areas of concern, which must be addressed before any regulations are finalized.
Later, in response to reviewing the draft regulations released Tuesday, Clean Water Action called for the following recommendations in their Thursday Dec.19, 2012 press release.
Process for public input: The input of affected parties, such as neighboring landowners, farmers, advocates for public health and environment, and scientific experts such as geologists, seismologists, toxicologists, and air and water quality experts is critical to the development of comprehensive and protective regulations.
Clean Water Action recommends the formation of a panel of experts to provide input and administer an independent study of the potential impacts of fracking on California before the state moves towards finalizing any regulations.
Water quality protections: Even though DOGGR has a responsibility to protect water quality, no monitoring of either ground or surface water is required.
Air quality protections: There are no proposed limits on air pollution, including smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) or greenhouse gas emissions. The regulations do not even require testing air quality or measuring pollution levels.
Reporting of well-casing failures: The regulations do not propose notification of well-casing failures, which can lead to contamination of groundwater, to the public, the regional water boards or water purveyors.
Public disclosure: The proposed regulations would allow data, such as the location of fracking sites and the types of chemicals injected into the ground to go unreported to the public for up to 60 days and do not require notice to nearby landowners or water users prior to fracking.
Trade secrets: Companies would be allowed to withhold information to the public about what kinds of chemicals they are using on site and injecting into the ground if they claim it to be a trade secret. This claim would also limit the ability of doctors to communicate about what kinds of chemicals patients have been exposed to, creating a potential public health disaster, allowing disclosure only to patients already showing symptoms.
Other dangerous extraction techniques: The proposed regulations do not address any of the other forms of enhanced oil recovery, which are used in California, such as acid washing or steam flooding and may pose similar risks.
More or less regulation of fracking as a partisan matter
Fracking on land has been strongly correlated with harm to both water and air quality in case specific scenarios most notably Pennsylvannia as documented in Gasland, where homeowners were able to light their drinking water on fire with a match. The allowance resulted in the injection of undisclosed and unregulated chemicals into aquifers across the country.
The action was born out of creating exemptions for the gas and oil drilling industries within both the Clean water and Safe water drinking acts championed by former Vice President Dick Cheney in 2005 Energy Policy Act and known as the “Halliburton Loophole."
Desmogblog reported just a week ago the Republican Governors Association (RGA) sent a letter to President Obama recommending that the federal government abandon a Bureau of land management (BLM) proposal to “express serious concerns with, and strong objection to, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) proposed rule to regulate hydraulic fracturing operations on federal and Indian lands.”
The State of Vermont has banned fracking – ‘Let the other states be the guinea pigs’
The State of Vermont banned fracking earlier this year. Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin (D) stated the ban “would ensure we do not inject chemicals into groundwater in a desperate pursuit for energy. It is a big moment. I hope other states will follow us. The science on fracking is uncertain at best. Let the other states be the guinea pigs. Let the Green Mountain State preserve its clean water, its lakes, its rivers and its quality of life."
The Environmental Defense Fund reported that just a year ago, only three states (Arkansas, Montana and Wyoming) required oil and gas producers to tell the public what chemicals they were using. Two other states (Colorado and Texas) were actively developing such rules. Today, just twelve months later, statutes or regulations mandating “frack” chemical disclosure are on the books in no fewer than 18 states, and proposals are pending or under consideration in several others.
Fracking techniques and issues specific to California
California Department of Conservation Director Mark Nechodom contends however that “The draft regulations build upon the current regulations in California, which are among the strongest in the nation.” Nechodom says he welcomes public input. “This is a discussion draft and we look forward to input from a broad range of stakeholders and the public.”
The majority of California's hydraulic fracturing operations are conducted for oil production, rather than natural gas production common in other states. The majority (up to 95%) of fluid produced from California's oil wells, with or without hydraulic fracturing, is brackish water.
Regulations to par with AB 32 Global Warming Solutions Act using “green completion technology”
California already has an underground injection control program to regulate injection wells for the disposal of brackish water. The produced and hydraulic fracturing flow back fluids are processed in enclosed systems. Again, it should be noted that California already has robust well construction regulations. The draft regulations focus on pre-hydraulic fracturing evaluation and monitoring during and post-hydraulic fracturing to ensure no compromise of the well’s integrity.
In California, air districts require either capture or flaring of any produced methane. This is markedly different than in other states that have shale gas production. There, methane is often allowed to flow freely with the flow-back of hydraulic fracturing fluids into open systems. In such states, “green completion technologies”, when implemented, are lauded for controlling methane rather than letting it flow to the atmosphere.
Wilson furthered, "California can be proud of having implemented “green completion technology” as a matter of practice before the term became more widely used. Again, hydraulic fracturing in California is mainly used for oil rather than natural gas and not at this time for shale gas."
Further resources:
Public with concerns can contact the Department of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources to review the regulations, comment, and be added to a mailing list here this link.
Public with more questions about supporting a moratorium can contact Clean Water Action California this link , or any state at the national site. Clean Water Action is a national organization of more than 1 million members, with 60,000 members in California.
FracFocus is an online registry that compiles information on hydraulic fracturing chemicals both for states where disclosure is voluntary and required, has been up and running for just 20 months, but already it houses approximately 800,000 records that include ingredients data. As of Dec. 5, 2012, this data represented 33,606 wells. The amount of information on the site continues to grow rapidly. You can enter your zip code into a search engine to learn about wells near your property of interest.
Fracttracker The FracTracker Alliance is a non-profit organization dedicated to enhancing the public’s understanding of the impacts of the global shale gas industry by collecting, interpreting, and sharing data and visualizations through their website, FracTracker.org.
DeSmogBlog thoroughly investigates the academic and industry backgrounds of those involved in Public Relations campaigns that confuse the public and stall action on climate change. If there is any individual or organization, ( i.e. scientist, self-professed "expert," think tank, industry association, company) that you would like to see researched and reported on DeSmogBlog, please contact them here and they will investigate.
