Energy & Environmental Law Blog : Energy & Environmental Lawyer & Attorney : Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease Law Firm : Oil, Gas & Green Technology

We thought you might be interested in the testimony at a recent House Subcommittee hearing on U.S. EPA's hydraulic fracturing research in Pavillion, WY.  For example, from Tom Doll, State Oil & Gas Supervisor, Wyoming Oil & Gas Conservation Commission:  "The Pavillion Draft Report was issued with incomplete data and technically inadequate conclusions.  There was no opportunity to review and verify the data by Wyoming state agencies. The data was not verified by further testing or vetted through a peer review process. Based on a limited sampling and an inconclusive data set from Pavillion Wyoming ground water, EPA’s conclusion is now national and international fodder for the hydraulic fracturing debate. Now the quality of the hydraulic fracturing debate suffers and the EPA’s science itself is questioned."

For more, see here (including video).

• Email This
• Print

The WSJ is reporting that both Texas and Colorado have now adopted rules requiring disclosure of frac fluid constituents:  "The rules are part of a broader effort by states to show they are serious about regulating the rapidly expanding hydraulic fracturing ahead of possible new federal rules governing chemical disclosure, water disposal, air emissions and well construction."  (Note:  Subscription may be required.)  For more on the Texas program, see here (the Houston Chronicle) and here (for a copy of the rules).  For more on the Colorado program, see here (the Colorado Independent) and here (for a copy of the rules).

• Email This
• Print

The NYT is reporting on a recent study by U.S. EPA regarding complaints of water contamination in Pavillion, Wyoming:  "Chemicals used to hydraulically fracture rocks in drilling for natural gas in a remote valley in central Wyoming are the likely cause of contaminated local water supplies, federal regulators said Thursday."  For more, including a copy of the EPA report, see here.

A note of caution, however:  U.S. EPA's record on these issues isn't good so far.  See also here.

[Update:  For Encana's response to the report, see here (E.g., "Several of the man-made chemicals detected in the EPA deep wells have never been detected in any of the other wells sampled. They were, however, detected in many of the quality control (blank) samples - which are ultra purified water samples commonly used in testing to ensure no contamination from field sampling procedures."  Hmmm ...).  (Bumped.)]

• Email This
• Print

The Colorado Independent is reporting on new frac fluid disclosure rules being considered by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC):  The commission "will take at least another week to decide on the issue after hearing more than 11 hours of testimony from Colorado residents, elected officials, oil and gas industry representatives and drilling regulators in Denver."  Notably, one COGCC director defended various staff positions preserving trade secret protections according to the article.

Interesting.

• Email This
• Print

The scrutiny continues: The USEPA Office of Inspector General recently announced its FY 2012 Annual Plan.  As stated on USEPA's webpage, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) is an "independent office within the EPA that helps the Agency protect the environment in a more efficient and cost effective manner."  Basically, the OIG conducts audits, evaluations, inspections and investigations related to EPA programs.  The 2012 Annual Plan lists a "special review" carry over assignment from 2011 related to "Oversight of Hydraulic Fracturing Impact on Water Resources".  A new assignment for 2012 relates to "EPA's Protection of Human Health and the Environment From the Effects of Hydraulic Fracturing". 

• Email This
• Print

EPA announced on November 3 its final research plan on hydraulic fracturing. The Congressionally directed study will evaluate potential impacts on drinking water resources. In March 2010, EPA announced its intention to conduct the study in response to a request from Congress. Since then, the agency has held a series of public meetings across the nation to receive input from states, industry, environmental and public health groups, and individual citizens.

The initial research results and study findings are to be released to the public in 2012. The final report is to be delivered in 2014. The final study plan looks at the full cycle of water in hydraulic fracturing, from the acquisition of the water, through the mixing of chemicals and actual fracturing, to the post-fracturing stage, including the management of flowback and produced or used water as well as its ultimate treatment and disposal. Earlier this year, EPA announced its selection of locations for five retrospective and two prospective case studies - our previous post on these locations can be found here.

• Email This
• Print

The New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has proposed new regulations related to the use of high-volume hydraulic fracturing as part of a State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) general permit.  From the NYSDEC website:

NYSDEC has made a tentative decision to issue a SPDES general permit that will authorize point source discharges from high volume hydraulic fracturing (HVHF) operations to, in or over waters of the State. The SPDES general permit requires a Notice of Intent submittal to NYSDEC in order to discharge under this general permit. Permittees must develop a comprehensive Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implement control measures that minimize the discharge of pollutants to waters of the State. The NYSDEC reserves the right to require any applicant seeking coverage under this General Permit to apply for an individual SPDES permit. The General Permit has five year permit.

Public comments are due December 12, 2011.

• Email This
• Print

That aphorism comes to mind when considering U.S. EPA's new proposal to reduce air emissions from oil and gas operations. From its press release: "Today’s proposal would cut smog-forming volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from several types of processes and equipment used in the oil and gas industry, including a 95 percent reduction in VOCs emitted during the completion of new and modified hydraulically fractured wells."  But - it really helps industry make money:  "EPA’s analysis of the proposed changes, which also include requirements for storage tanks and other equipment, show they are highly cost-effective, with a net savings to the industry of tens of millions of dollars annually from the value of natural gas that would no longer escape to the air."  Really!  Thank goodness they're looking out for at your pocketbook.  (Emphasis is ours.)

You can find a copy of the rule package here.

• Email This
• Print

Earlier this week, acting West Virginia Governor Earl Ray Tomblin issued Executive Order No. 04-11 requiring the state's Department of Environmental Protection to develop rules regulating Marcellus Shale production.  "The rules will focus mostly on the 'fracking' process, in which millions of gallons of water are mixed with chemicals and pumped underground to fracture shale deposits. Among other things, the regulations will make companies that withdraw more than 210,000 gallons of water a month disclose the list of additives used in frack fluid, and file a water management plan with the DEP."  - from the Charleston Gazette.

We will post a copy of the order once we obtain it.

• Email This
• Print

The Wheeling Intelligencer has a free-market/regulatory success story for Ohio taxpayers (resulting in large part from cross-state regulatory program differences):  "For months, Pennsylvania gas drillers tapping into the Marcellus Shale have been shipping the hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, waste to eastern Ohio. The Buckeye State is on pace to gain nearly $1 million in fees from out-of-state drillers for accepting the brine."

Of course, there are the usual statements regarding environmental fears.  Still, interesting.

• Email This
• Print

The New York Department of Environmental Conservation (NY DEC) has released a series of documents related to its Preliminary Revised Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) issued in September 2009.  From the Executive Summary:  "The final SGEIS will apply statewide, except in areas that the Department proposes should be off-limits to surface drilling for natural gas using HVHF technology. As explained below, these areas include the watersheds associated with unfiltered water supplied to the New York City and Syracuse areas pursuant to Filtration Avoidance Determinations issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ('EPA'), reforestation areas, wildlife management areas, state parks, and 'primary' aquifers as defined by State regulations, and additional setback and buffer areas."

• Email This
• Print

This has got to hurt.  After all of the efforts by one of its reporters to mischaracterize hydraulic fracturing as an environmental disaster, the NYT is reporting that New York State's Governor Cuomo plans to lift the state's moratorium on the use of that process to develop its shale resources:  "The Cuomo administration is seeking to lift what has been, in effect, a moratorium on hydraulic fracturing, a controversial technology used to extract natural gas from shale, state environmental regulators said Thursday."

Ouch.

• Email This
• Print

With all of the negative media regarding hydraulic fracturing, we thought you might be interested in this video from reason.tv:

• Email This
• Print

That's the title to an article in the WSJ seeking to separate fact from myth regarding the claims about hydraulic fracturing:  "Fracking contaminates drinking water. One claim is that fracking creates cracks in rock formations that allow chemicals to leach into sources of fresh water. The problem with this argument is that the average shale formation is thousands of feet underground, while the average drinking well or aquifer is a few hundred feet deep. Separating the two is solid rock. This geological reality explains why EPA administrator Lisa Jackson, a determined enemy of fossil fuels, recently told Congress that there have been no 'proven cases where the fracking process itself has affected water.'"

• Email This
• Print

We have reported previously on the study being conducted by U.S. EPA regarding the claimed impacts of hydraulic fracturing on the environment (see here, for example).  U.S. EPA has settled on seven case studies (past and prospective) in various producing locations around the country, including several in Pennsylvania's Marcellus shale.  From the press release:

• Email This
• Print

The Daily Journal is reporting that the city of Morgantown, WV, has banned the use of hydraulic fracturing within the city and a one-mile radius:  "City officials say a ban on horizontal drilling and fracturing is necessary in and near city limits because of the proximity to large infrastructure."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

Signed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry, HB 3328 becomes effective September 1, 2011, requiring operators to disclose the chemicals used in their hydraulic fracturing operations.  For a copy of the legislation, and its history, see here.

Interestingly, it relies on the FracFocus registry created by the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.

• Email This
• Print

On Sunday May 29, 2011, the Texas House passed legislation that could require drilling companies to publicly disclose the chemicals they use to crack tight rock formations in their search for natural gas. Governor Rick Perry has not indicated whether he will sign bill or not.

• Email This
• Print

The Energy and Climate Change Committee of Britain's House of Commons has issued a report finding "no evidence that the hydraulic fracturing process involved in shale gas extraction – known as ‘fracking’ - poses a direct risk to underground water aquifers provided the drilling well is constructed properly."  For more see here.

• Email This
• Print

We've frequently noted the articles in the media on hydraulic fracturing.  The NYT had one on May 7th (mis)stating:  "But the practice [i.e., hydraulic fracturing] also pours millions of gallons of dangerous chemicals into the ground and into wastewater treatment systems, which in some cases cannot remove all the potential toxins. There are also numerous documented cases in which fracking fluids leaked into aquifers and contaminated drinking water."  (From Google cache; emphasis is ours).  

What you don't see often is the following:

Correction: May 17, 2011

An article on May 7 about the Obama administration’s appointment of a panel of experts to find ways to make hydraulic fracturing safer misstated the prevalence of cases in which fluids from the gas drilling process have been proven to have contaminated drinking water. There are few documented cases, not numerous ones, although federal and state investigations into reports of such incidents are continuing.

And even that isn't necessarily correct (what documented cases?) ...  Still, the NYT should be commended for trying.

• Email This
• Print

A couple of items to note regarding hydraulic fracturing in the news:

• The U.S. Department of Energy has initiated its own review of hydraulic fracturing (i.e., in addition to the study being done by U.S. EPA):  "A group of highly respected experts with experience in industry, environmental groups and state regulatory agencies will form a subcommittee of the Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board to conduct the review, and will work to identify, within 90 days of beginning their work, any immediate steps that can be taken to improve the safety and environmental performance of hydraulic fracturing. They will also develop, within six months of beginning their work, consensus recommended advice to the agencies on practices for shale extraction to ensure the protection of public health and the environment."  Why?

• Researchers at Duke University have issued a study finding systematic evidence of methane contamination in areas being drilled using hydraulic fracturing, according to this report in the Philadelphia Inquirer.  Interestingly, it found no chemical contamination:  "We found no evidence for contamination of drinking-water samples with deep saline brines or fracturing fluids."  For a copy of the report, see here.

• Email This
• Print

The Houston Chronicle is reporting that U.S. EPA will soon release guidance in fracking with diesel:  "Federal regulators will soon clarify the rules for natural gas companies that inject diesel fuel into the ground as part of their hydraulic fracturing operations, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency said Tuesday."  Don't they still need rules?

• Email This
• Print

New York's Attorney General has told the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and other federal agencies that he will sue if they fail to conduct a full review of proposed hydraulic fracturing regulations in the Delaware River Basin.  "'Both the law and common sense dictate that the federal government must fully assess the impact of its actions before opening the door to gas fracking in New York,' said Attorney General Schneiderman. 'New Yorkers are correctly concerned about fracking's potential dangers to their environment, health and communities, and I will use the full authority of my office, including aggressive legal action, to ensure the federal government is forced to address those concerns.'"  (See here for more.)

• Email This
• Print

There are a number of interesting updates regarding U.S. EPA's plan to study the use of hydraulic fracturing in E&P activities:

First, the members of the agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB) were announced earlier this month.  See here.  You will note, the group is heavy with academics.

Second, U.S. EPA has published a draft of its plan for review by the agency's Science Advisory Board.  According to the press release, "The scope of the proposed research includes the full lifespan of water in hydraulic fracturing, from acquisition of the water, through the mixing of chemicals and actual fracturing, to the post-fracturing stage, including the management of flowback and produced or used water and its ultimate treatment and disposal."

• Email This
• Print

The Houston Chronicle is a good source for updates on the frac study contemplated by U.S. EPA.  For example:  "The Environmental Protection Agency is close to launching a broad study on hydraulic fracturing, but the probe doesn’t guarantee that the federal government will step in and regulate the drilling technique, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said Wednesday."  The agency expects to have the work plan finished within the next month or two.

• Email This
• Print

The NYT is reporting on a letter sent by House Democrats alleging that some service companies have illegally used diesel fuel in their frac fluids:  "Oil and gas service companies injected tens of millions of gallons of diesel fuel into onshore wells in more than a dozen states from 2005 to 2009, Congressional investigators have charged. Those injections appear to have violated the Safe Water Drinking Act, the investigators said in a letter to the Environmental Protection Agency on Monday."

For a copy of the letter, see here.  According to industry (in the NYT article):  "Oil and gas companies acknowledged using diesel fuel in their fracking fluids, but they rejected the House Democrats’ assertion that it was illegal. They said that the E.P.A. had never properly developed rules and procedures to regulate the use of diesel in fracking, despite a clear grant of authority from Congress over the issue."

• Email This
• Print

The Akron Beacon Journal is reporting on a debate recently held on hydraulic fracturing:  "What evolved was a battle of dueling experts Thursday, as four speakers debated whether a controversial means used to extract natural gas, called hydraulic fracturing or fracking, is safe or whether it poses a threat to drinking-water wells."

• Email This
• Print

We've reported frequently on the efforts by U.S. EPA to inject itself (yes, pun intended) into the hydraulic fracturing debate.  Now the NYT is reporting that the Regional Director for EPA Region 6 has issued an order to a Texas producer to provide water supplies to residents whose water wells have been impacted by methane and benzene (see here).  To do so, however, EPA has ignored the work of the Texas Railroad Commission, which has stated that EPA's actions are premature:  "Texas officials accused EPA of grandstanding and making 'false claims' about its actions. 'If this is another EPA action designed to reach predetermined conclusions and to generate headlines rather than conduct a successful environmental investigation, then the public is poorly served,' TRC member Elizabeth Ames Jones said. 'The commission will not deny due process to the parties involved in spite of the false claims made against our investigative actions by the EPA staff.'"  (Emphasis is ours.)

• Email This
• Print

We've reported previously on the study being done by U.S. EPA on the potential impact of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water (see here, e.g.).  EPA announced yesterday that eight of the nine frac companies that it had sent a voluntary information request had agreed to provide the sought-after information.  Halliburton refused and is being chastised, by subpoena, by EPA.  From its cover letter:  "EPA believes that Halliburton's response is inadequate and inconsistent with the cooperation shown to date by the other eight companies.  Since Halliburton appears not to be committed to providing all the requested information on an expeditious schedule, EPA, therefore is ordering the submission of the information outlined in the enclosed Subpoena and Information Request, pursuant to the authorities cited therein."

For a copy of the related press release, see here; for a copy of the letter and subpoena, see here and here.

• Email This
• Print

As readers of this blog know, hydraulic fracturing is a hot topic across the country.  We thought you might be interested in one pundit's thoughts (from the WSJ):  "Those who value pastoral poverty and bucolic quietude over all this grubby commercialism will just have to adjust, as the fishermen and sportsmen and sun bathers of the Gulf Coast have learned to live with oil drillers (and vice versa)."  (Emphasis is ours.)  Ha!

(Note:  Subscription may be required.)

• Email This
• Print

We've previously mentioned the study on hydraulic fracturing now being considered by U.S. EPA (see here and here, e.g.).  The NYT is reporting that IPAA has objected to a couple of the experts proposed for the panel:  "'Unfortunately, a number of nominees' past comments betray a strong and unambiguous antipathy toward shale development in general, and hydraulic fracturing in particular,' IPAA President and CEO Barry Russell wrote."

• Email This
• Print

This is an interesting (read:  not bashing) article on hydraulic fracturing.  For example:  "Bob Anthony, Oklahoma Corporation Commissioner, said in an address to the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners in July, 'In my 20-plus years as a commissioner, I can't think of anything that can compare to the all-out assault on hydraulic fracturing by groups that are obviously using it to put a stop to the tapping of America's abundant natural gas supplies.'"

The comments are interesting as well.

• Email This
• Print

U.S. EPA has issued a "voluntary" information request from several service companies asking for data on the chemical composition of their frac fluids.  From EPA's press release:  "EPA has requested the information be provided on a voluntary basis within 30 days, and has asked the companies to respond within seven days to inform the agency whether they will provide all of the information sought. The data being sought by the agency is similar to information that has already been provided separately to Congress by the industry. Therefore, EPA expects the companies to cooperate with these voluntary requests. If not, EPA is prepared to use its authorities to require the information needed to carry out its study."  What authorities?

For more, including a copy of the letter sent by EPA, see here.

• Email This
• Print

U.S. EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office is seeking public recommendations of technical experts to assist in reviewing EPA's hydraulic fracturing study plan.  "Selection criteria to be used for Panel membership include: (a) Scientific and/or technical expertise, knowledge, and experience (primary factors); (b) availability and willingness to serve; (c) absence of financial conflicts of interest; (d) absence of an appearance of a lack of impartiality; and (e) skills working in committees, subcommittees and advisory panels; and, for the Panel as a whole, (f) diversity of expertise and viewpoints. EPA values and welcomes diversity. In an effort to increase diversity, we seek nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups."

Nominations are due August 10, 2010.

• Email This
• Print

We've reported previously on U.S. EPA's plans to conduct a study on the potential impact of hydraulic fracturing on the environment (see here, e.g.).  EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) was asked to review and make recommendations on the proposed scope of the study.  It has now published those recommendations here (see Final Report(s)).  Not surprisingly, it concludes that the overall approach and scope for the research plan was "appropriate and comprehensive."  Its suggestion:

[T]hat initial research be directed to study sources and pathways of potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on water resources, especially potential drinking water sources, and that investigations eventually occur on the impact on water resources more generally. To support this effort, ORD should consider performing in-depth case studies at five to ten different locations selected to represent the full range of regional variability of hydraulic fracturing across the nation. The SAB also recommends that ORD emphasize human health and environmental concerns specific to or significantly influenced by hydraulic fracturing rather than on concerns common to all oil and gas production activities.  (Emphasis is ours.)

Wonder which locations they are thinking of?

• Email This
• Print

We posted earlier on the hydraulic fracturing study that U.S. EPA plans to do (see here, e.g.).  EPA has announced that it will be holding four public meetings around the country to gather further input (including one on July 22 from 6 p.m. at the Hilton Garden Inn in Canonsburg, Pa.).

• Email This
• Print

Hydraulic fracturing has seen several legislative initiatives lately.  For example, the Kerry-Lieberman climate legislation introduced earlier this month (at just under 1,000 pages) contains the following 36-word provision:  "A hydraulic fracturing service company shall disclose all chemical constituents used in a hydraulic fracturing operation to the public on the Internet in order to provide adequate information for the public and State and local authorities."  See here (NYT article on legislation generally); here (Senator Kerry's website); here (text of bill itself).

Also, Representative DeGette (D-Colo.) planned last week to introduce an amendment to the Assistance, Quality and Affordability Act in the House Energy and Commerce Committee designed to accomplish the same thing, i.e., require public disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing.  See here (from the Dallas Morning News).  The NYT has reported that Rep. DeGette withdrew that amendment after considering the possibility of a compromise with industry.

Don't think it won't come up again ...

• Email This
• Print

The Houston Chronicle is reporting that BP, ConocoPhillips and Shell Oil Co., have proposed language for climate change legislation that would prohibit federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing, which is currently regulated by the states.  Among other things, "[t]he document recommends that states adopt standards for disclosing the contents of hydraulic fracturing chemicals 'to health professionals or state agencies' in order to protect health or environmental safety but maintain 'the confidentiality of trade secret information' in the fluids."

• Email This
• Print

U.S. EPA has announced that it intends to conduct a comprehensive study of hydraulic fracturing and its potential adverse impacts on the environment.  From the news release:  "The agency is proposing the process begin with (1) defining research questions and identifying data gaps; (2) conducting a robust process for stakeholder input and research prioritization; (3) with this input, developing a detailed study design that will undergo external peer-review, leading to (4) implementing the planned research studies."

An EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) meeting has been scheduled for April 7th and 8th to evaluate and comment on the proposed approach.

• Email This
• Print

The Charleston Daily Mail is reporting that legislation to require reporting on source water and disposal plans related to hydraulic fracturing, as well as the additives used in the frac fluids, has cleared the Senate Natural Resources Committee.  Next stop:  the Senate Energy, Industry and Mining Committee.

• Email This
• Print

On December 28, 2009, U.S. EPA issued a Notice of Availability of Preliminary 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan (74 Fed. Reg. 68599) (see here) and asked for comments on both its preliminary 2010 Plan and on its 2009 review of existing effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards, including comments on industrial categories not currently regulated by effluent guidelines and pretreatment standards.  See Docket No. EPA-821-R-09-006 at www.regulations.gov.

Comments were submitted by both industry and environmental groups on the appropriateness of effluent guidelines for the oil and gas industry.  Earthjustice, for example, submitted comments urging U.S. EPA to expand its study of CBM operations "to include all techniques that may result in contamination of surface water or groundwater, including hydraulic fracturing in all formations."  See here.  The American Petroleum Institute filed comments, on the other hand, noting that CBM operations should not be subject to national effluent limitations guidelines and objecting to an expansion of U.S. EPA's study of CBM extraction to oil and gas operations more generally.

• Email This
• Print

The Oklahoman is reporting that the House Energy and Commerce Committee will be investigating the environmental risks allegedly posed by hydraulic fracturing operations used to produce natural gas from many of our country's shale reservoirs.

[Update:  For a good summary, see this article from the NYT.]

• Email This
• Print

The WSJ is reporting that the Director of U.S. EPA's Drinking Water Protection Division believes that states are doing a good job of regulating hydraulic fracturing:  "'I have no information that states aren't doing a good job already,' Steve Heare*** said on the sidelines of a [NARUC] conference here. He also said despite claims by environmental organizations, he hadn't seen any documented cases that the hydro-fracking process was contaminating water supplies."

Interesting.  (Note:  Subscription required.)

• Email This
• Print

The deadline is fast approaching for filing comments on the NY rulemaking proposal regarding hydraulic fracturing (December 31, 2009).  There have been a number of articles on the comments that have been filed to date, including this one from the Albany Times Union.  For more on the issue generally, see here (NYDEC website).

• Email This
• Print

The NYT has an article on the growing debate surrounding the use of hydraulic fracturing to produce shale plays.  The hook - After noting the benefits of lower prices and "global warming" emissions, it asks, "What the drilling push will do to local environments is another matter."  And yet, the article acknowledges:  "So far, the evidence of groundwater pollution is thin."  Read and enjoy.

• Email This
• Print

We have reported several times on the conflict between environmentalists looking for greater disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and the service companies looking for protection for their trade secrets.  According to a NYT report, based on a few industry statements, "The natural gas industry is moving to disclose information about chemicals used in controversial extraction technologies in the wake of spills at drilling sites in Pennsylvania and as New York is proposing new regulations."

• Email This
• Print

Companion bills were introduced yesterday in both the U.S. House and Senate to repeal the exemption for hydraulic fracturing in the Safe Drinking Water Act and to require the disclosure of chemical constituents used in frac fluids (the "FRAC ACT" - Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act).  More information can be found here.  Copies of the legislation can be found here (Senate - S. 1215) and here (House - H.R. 2766).

[Update:  For more, see here (article from WSJ, subscription required); and here (from the Wayne Independent).]

• Email This
• Print

This article in the Fort Worth Business Press points out one of the major issues presented by recent efforts to more-strictly regulate the use of hydraulic fracturing in oil and gas development - who should have jurisdiction, the federal government or state oil and gas commissions?  Not a bad article.

• Email This
• Print

In earlier posts we have noted concerns regarding the hydraulic fracturing of natural gas wells and the potential for its regulation.  Legislation has been introduced in Congress to repeal the exemption for hydraulic fracturing under the SWDA, and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.  More from the Star-Telegram:  "A study by the Environmental Protection Agency determined that hydraulic fracturing posed little risk to water. Environmentalists say that the study is flawed and that the exemption poses health risks."  Not a bad article overall.

• Email This
• Print

Concerns over the impact of hydraulic fracturing have been raised with increasing frequency over the last several years.  This article from Scientific American is just one example of the kind of reporting we are seeing, challenging the exemption for frac water contained in the SWDA and a producer's community-right-to-know obligations.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks