Energy Exchange

National Clean Air Standards For The Oil And Gas Industry Provide A Trifecta

By EDF Blogs / Published: March 20, 2012

By: Peter Zalzal, EDF Staff Attorney, Climate & Air

Rigorous National Clean Air Standards for the Oil and Gas Industry are Needed to Protect the Health of Americans and our Communities

On April 3rd, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is due to finalize critically important standards to reduce harmful air pollution from oil and gas activities. These standards are a trifecta: they protect human health and the environment, reduce waste of an important domestic energy source and save industry money through sales of recovered natural gas product. For too long the industry has operated under insufficient, outdated standards that fail to protect Americans from the dangerous air pollution produced by oil and gas activities.

EPA’s proposed emission standards, which require companies to implement more efficient practices and technologies, will provide much-needed protections for human health and the environment and prevent extensive waste of a domestic energy resource. In fact, these proposed measures will save approximately 180 billion cubic feet of natural gas, comparable to the amount of gas needed to provide heat to 2.7 million American homes for a year.

Oil and gas facilities contribute to high levels of toxic air contaminants, ground-level ozone (“smog”) and methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Ground-level ozone has been linked to serious respiratory illnesses, including asthma in children and premature death. High levels of benzene, a known carcinogen, have been detected at locations in Texas and Colorado.

Major public health groups including the American Lung Association, American Thoracic Society, the American Public Health Association, Trust for America’s Health and the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America have urged EPA to finalize rigorous emission standards.

States with Strong Clean Air Standards Have Had Strong Growth in Oil and Gas Activities

Colorado and Wyoming have long carried out clean air protections similar to those now proposed by EPA. Environmental Defense Fund evaluated key oil and gas economic indicators — operational rotary rig counts, producing natural gas wells and natural gas gross withdrawals — in Wyoming and Colorado and compared those with overall national data as well as data for other key oil and gas producing states.

Between 2000 and 2009, both Wyoming and Colorado had the highest annual growth rates for gross withdrawals and the highest average annual growth in producing gas wells as compared to other major gas-producing states with less protective clean air standards on the books. In short, both Wyoming and Colorado have had strong growth in oil and gas activity while important clean air standards have been in place.

Root Causes Of Water Pollution From Oil And Gas Operations

By Scott Anderson / Published: March 13, 2012

I received a flurry of emails this morning congratulating me on comments I made that appeared in a Wall Street Journal article titled, “Faulty Wells, Not Fracking, Blamed for Water Pollution.”

It is a good article. It suggests that even if artificial channels created by hydraulic fracturing have not yet been shown to have caused drinking water pollution, action is required to correct pollution problems caused by other aspects of natural gas operations.

I would add three additional points to the information covered in the article:

While faulty well construction is a big problem, surface spills have caused an even higher number of underground water pollution cases attributable to oil and gas development. A recent study commissioned by the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) determined that roughly 70% of nearly 400 cases of ground water pollution caused by the oil and gas industry over two decades in Texas and Ohio stemmed from mistakes made at the surface rather than from downhole problems.
Why is it important that approximately one in 10 cement jobs requires remediation before the well is completed? This statistic doesn’t imply that one in every 10 wells is a pollution hazard. Instead, the high number of cement jobs that need to be repaired in order to keep wells from becoming pollution hazards illustrates that without careful oversight of cementing the frequency of problem wells could increase dramatically. During the years in which GWPC identified some 400 ground water pollution cases in Texas and Ohio, nearly 221,000 wells were drilled in those states. Fortunately, the cement jobs didn’t fail on 10 percent of those wells! But 35 of the 400 pollution cases were due to well construction problems – cement job failures were involved in many but not all of those 35 instances.
Although stronger regulatory oversight of well construction is needed, stronger oversight of hydraulic fracturing is also needed. No one should try to suggest that hydraulic fracturing is risk free. It is vital that regulators begin to more closely assess hydraulic fracturing plans and operations – especially in relatively shallow geologic contexts – to be sure that fractures will intersect neither drinking water nor transmissive faults or wellbores that in turn intersect drinking water.

To learn about aspects of oil and gas operations that need close regulatory oversight, see my blog, “If The Problem Isn’t Hydraulic Fracturing, What Is?”

Posted in Natural Gas / Tagged fracking | Comments are closed

If The Problem Isn’t Hydraulic Fracturing, Then What Is?

By Scott Anderson / Published: February 16, 2012

Today, at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Vancouver, the Energy Institute at the University of Texas at Austin released a major report titled, “Fact-Based Regulation for Environmental Protection in Shale Gas Development.” The report’s conclusions are those of the authors, though Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) helped the University of Texas at Austin define its scope of work and reviewed drafts during the course of the project.

What are the main conclusions? As has been the case in other inquiries, the University of Texas study did not find any confirmed cases of drinking water contamination due to pathways created by hydraulic fracturing. But this does not mean such contamination is impossible or that hydraulic fracturing chemicals can’t get loose in the environment in other ways (such as through spills of produced water). In fact, the study shines a light on the fact that there are a number of aspects of natural gas development that can pose significant environmental risk. And it highlights the fact that there are a number of ways in which current regulatory oversight is inadequate.

The following conclusions are particularly important:

Many reports of groundwater contamination occur in conventional oil and gas operations (e.g. failure of well-bore casing and cementing) and are not unique to hydraulic fracturing.
Surface spills of fracturing fluids appear to pose greater risks to groundwater than hydraulic fracturing itself.
Blowouts – uncontrolled fluid releases during construction and operation – are a rare occurrence, but subsurface blowouts appear to be under-reported.
The lack of baseline studies makes it difficult to evaluate the long-term, cumulative effects and risks associated with hydraulic fracturing.
Most state oil and gas regulations were written well before shale gas development became widespread.
Gaps remain in the regulation of well casing and cementing, water withdrawal and usage, and waste storage and disposal.
Enforcement capacity is highly variable among the states, particularly when measured by the ratio of staff to numbers of inspections conducted.

The report deserves widespread attention. But it is by no means the final word on these topics. Chip Groat, who led the study on behalf of the Energy Institute, plans to tackle additional topics in the future. These include air emissions from natural gas operations, induced seismicity and a field and laboratory investigation of whether hydrogeologic connectivity exists between the Barnett Shale and aquifers and other geologic units above and below the formation.

To read the complete report, visit http://energy.utexas.edu/

Posted in Natural Gas / Read 11 Responses

Though The NOAA Study Provides An Important New Set Of Data, It Is Only A Limited Snap Shot

By EDF Blogs / Published: February 16, 2012

By: Steven Hamburg, EDF’s Chief Scientist

This week the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released a study that estimates that natural gas producers in an area known as the Denver-Julesburg Basin are leaking roughly 4% of their gas – or methane – into the atmosphere. Leaks of that magnitude could undermine natural gas’ role as a lower carbon alternative to coal and oil. This is yet another contribution to the long running debate about exactly how much methane is vented or leaked during the production and distribution of natural gas. The questions are: Why does this matter, and why is what NOAA saying an interesting and new contribution to this debate?

A recent paper in Science illustrates that reducing methane emissions and black carbon can have a positive near-term impact on the climate system. It is becoming clearer that reducing methane emissions is key to reducing net radiative forcing (or the amount of energy reaching the surface of the earth), which – in turn – helps reduce the chances of a climate catastrophe. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas pollution shows that the oil and gas sector is the largest source of man-made methane, and most of those methane emissions are from leaks resulting from the production and transport of natural gas.

As we’ve mentioned before, it is clear that the actual combustion of natural gas is cleaner than the combustion of gasoline or diesel, but there are other emissions associated with the production, delivery and use of those fuels. Natural gas is largely methane, even when it comes out of the ground, and as a result is a potent greenhouse gas. Over the first 2o years after it is emitted, a pound of methane is 72 times more potent than a pound of carbon dioxide when it comes to trapping heat. As natural gas is produced and piped across the country, there are plenty of opportunities for it to leak into the atmosphere. EPA estimates that leak rate to be somewhere between 2-3%, but the exact amount is the subject of much debate.

At a 2-3% leak rate, natural gas-produced energy has a net benefit to the climate system as compared to producing energy using coal. If we want to reduce the risk of climate surprises and increasingly frequent extreme weather events, reducing leak rates from natural gas production is one of the most effective ways of doing so, at least in the short term.

Given that natural gas produced by un-conventional means already represents more than one third of US production, the key issue moving forward regarding leak rates is not whether they are high or low, but rather how to ensure that they are as low as technically possible. The NOAA study provides an important new set of data, but only one snap shot of what is happening in natural gas production fields.

Unfortunately, the news here is not good, in that it finds methane leak rates to be almost twice as high as the EPA estimates – which would mean that, in the short-term and absence of leak reductions, natural gas is unlikely to be better for the climate than is coal. Though there are a few larger studies that are gearing up which plan to use a diverse array of techniques that add to the NOAA study to better define overall leak rates, scientifically sound and rigorous sampling and monitoring is still much-needed to quantify the average amount of methane emissions that result from natural gas production. No matter what the data will show about leak rates, though, the next steps are clear – reduce leak rates!

One of the central questions that the forth coming research needs to answer is: Where are the leaks happening and, in turn, what needs to be done to minimize them? It is possible that a relatively small percentage of wells account for a large majority of emissions, meaning that getting practices right at just these high-emitting wells could reduce overall leak rates significantly.

Getting practices right entails implementing the Department of Energy’s Shale Gas Production Subcommittee’s recommendations, which propose a focused set of steps for strengthening environmental management in the shale gas industry. The Subcommitte’s report calls for measures to be taken to reduce emissions of air pollutants, ozone precursors, and methane as quickly as practicable and stresses the need for gathering the data necessary to determine whether, and to what degree, natural gas provides greenhouse gas benefits when substituted for coal or oil in energy production or transportation.

As EDF, and others, collect much-needed data the picture will quickly become clearer. Stay tuned to the Energy Exchange for more information on this topic.

Posted in Natural Gas / Read 1 Response

Clean Energy And The 2013 Budget Proposal

By Marita Mirzatuny / Published: February 15, 2012

Source: EcoWatch

In his State of the Union Address last month, President Obama made energy issues a focal point. Taking a clear stance, he said that it was time to “end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising.” With this statement, President Obama is addressing the reality that government support for new energy sources is the lowest it has been in any point in U.S. history, according to a report by DBL investors. “During the early years of what would become the U.S. oil and gas industries, federal subsidies for producers averaged half a percent of the federal budget. By contrast, the current support for renewables is barely a fifth that size, just one tenth of one percent of federal spending.”

Going further in addressing climate change the President said, “I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here’s the thing. Even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future, because the nation that leads the clean-energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy, and America must be that nation.”

On Monday he unveiled his budget proposal for FY 2013. So, how does it hold up to the goals of his speech with regards to a clean energy future?

The Good News:

– The world’s largest energy consumer, the Department of Defense (DOD), would receive approximately $1 billion for energy conservation efforts. This would further the DOD’s increasing commitment to renewable energy which now makes up 8.5 percent of its energy production and procurement.

– With a 3.2 percent increase from the year before, the budget proposes $27.2 billion for the Department of Energy. Of that:

Research and development for energy efficiency, advanced vehicles and biofuels would get $2.3 billion
Renewable energy sources will get a $522 million increase and an additional $174 million for a revamped industrial technology-advanced manufacturing program.
$12 million would be directed towards multi-year research investments in safer natural gas infrastructure in order to reduce risks associated with hydraulic fracturing in shale formations.
Furthermore, pipeline safety would receive a 70 percent, $64 million, increase.
This 3.2 percent increase comes just as a report vindicates the DOE loan program, confirming that the “overall loan portfolio as a whole is expected to perform well and holds less than the amount of risk envisioned by Congress when they designed and funded the program.” Energy Secretary Steven Chu states that, “we have always known that there were inherent risks in backing innovative technologies at full commercial scale, and it is very likely that there will be other companies in the portfolio that won’t succeed. But the vast majority of companies are expected to pay the loans back in full, on time and with about $8 billion in interest — while supporting a total of 60,000 American jobs and helping us compete for a rapidly growing global industry.”

The Bad News:

– Seeming to cave to current attacks, the fiscal 2013 budget proposes stifling cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

Reducing current agency funding levels by $105 million, the EPA is slated to receive $8.3 billion. This would make for the first time since 1994 that the agency’s budget was cut for three consecutive years.

– Counterproductive cuts to USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service:

Proposed cuts for Farm Bill conservation programs would be about $600 million.
Already Congress has cut conservation funding by $2.8 billion over the last five years, representing 81 percent of the nearly $3.5 billion in Farm Bill spending cuts over that time period(FY 2008-2012).

Despite some disappointment, overall we at EDF are pleased that the President chose to not only speak to the importance of a clean energy future but that his budget reflects this as well.

Elgie Holstein, our senior director for strategic planning here at EDF and a former associate director of the Office of Management and Budget for Natural Resources, Energy and Science, sums it up well, “despite some flaws, the president’s budget is a big net plus for the environment, and we urge Congress to embrace the positive aspects of it.” That latter part will be the true challenge.

Vice president of EDF’s Energy Program, Jim Marston continues: “The fact is: clean energy and responsible environmental policy make good economic policy as well because they create jobs, while cutting energy and medical bills for American families. Look at it this way: environmental conservation is cheaper than environmental cleanup, just like preventive medicine is cheaper than emergency room treatment. We applaud the President’s support of job-creating, clean energy programs.”

The President understands that getting our energy future on the right path is an essential foundation that our country needs to be competitive, provide jobs and protect our health and environment.

Also posted in Climate, Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy, Washington, DC / Read 2 Responses

Mixed Bag Out Of Pennsylvania On Hydraulic Fracturing Chemical Disclosure

By Matt Watson / Published: February 9, 2012

Last night the Pennsylvania (PA) General Assembly passed legislation on fracturing fluid chemical disclosure that, on the whole, isn’t half bad – particularly considering where they started. Unfortunately, the bill contains a major flaw that prevents us from being able to hold it up as a model for other states to follow. Still, there’s quite a bit to be liked. More on that below.

I should also point out that the disclosure legislation was part of a much larger bill that addresses a broad range of issue related to shale gas development in PA. The overall bill has been the target of quite a bit of criticism from local environmental groups – particularly for eliminating much of the discretion of local jurisdictions to manage and plan for oil and gas activities within their borders. We didn’t work on those provisions, so I’ll leave it to those who did to offer up their assessments and, for now, just give a run-down on the disclosure piece.

As originally drafted, the disclosure provisions in this bill were, quite frankly, useless. All they would have done is codify current rules at the PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Under those rules, companies only reveal the chemicals that have to get reported on material safety data sheets – which leaves out maybe half the chemicals used in fracturing fluids. And there was no requirement for posting disclosures on an easily accessible website for the public to see. That kind of regime comes nowhere close to what EDF calls “disclosure,” and it’s way behind the times in terms of where the national conversation is today. So, EDF teamed up with the Pennsylvania Environmental Council to improve the draft.

The Good

The first thing to understand is that PA will require two kinds of reporting. Operators will disclose chemical information on the well completion reports they turn in to the DEP after drilling, fracturing and beginning production on a well. And then, certain operators will be required to also post their disclosures on Frac Focus, the disclosure website run by the Ground Water Protection Council and the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission.

As for the well completion reporting requirements, they’re quite good. Operators will have to disclose all the chemicals they use, along with chemical concentrations. They’ll also disclose the trade-name additives they use and the purposes they serve. Taking it a step further than what other states have done, PA will also require operators to report their water sources and how much recycled wastewater they use in hydraulic fracturing treatments – an important step forward in disclosure requirements.

As with every other state disclosure rule, PA will allow operators to claim trade secret protections to keep certain chemical identities confidential. These claims will be governed by PA’s “Right to Know” law, which means PA will be on the leading edge of how states are currently dealing with trade secrets in fracturing chemical disclosure rules. Companies will be required to actually submit their trade secret information to the DEP (instead of completely withholding it, as some states allow). Citizens will have broad standing to challenge trade secret claims at the PA Office of Open Records; and when there are challenges, the burden will be on the DEP and operators to prove why a trade secret claim is legitimate. We’re aware that some in industry repeatedly tried to gut the Right to Know provisions in the bill, and credit is due to Governor Corbett’s office for fending off those attacks.

As we’ve mentioned before, we support the recommendation of the DOE Secretary of Energy Advisory Board that “the barrier to shield chemicals based on trade secrets should be set very high.”

Finally, the PA bill gives added emphasis to the need for making information available in formats that are useful and user friendly. Mirroring the language that was pioneered in the Colorado rule, PA is now the second state to call for improving the search functions on Frac Focus.

The Bad (and Ugly)

Unfortunately, the bill took a major wrong turn on one key point. While operators of all oil and gas wells will be required to disclose chemical information on their well completion reports, only operators of “unconventional” wells will be required to post their disclosures on Frac Focus. The bill defines unconventional wells as those that are drilled and fractured below the Elk Sandstone formation in PA. We’re not sure yet how many wells this will leave out, but it’s a fair guess it will be a lot. So, we’re really only getting partial public disclosure here.

That’s a shame. Public concern about fracturing chemicals doesn’t have anything to do with geologic stratigraphy. Spills, bad casing and cementing jobs, loss of well control and failures in waste containment facilities can happen regardless of the depth of your target formation. The potential pathways for contamination are there for all wells (and arguably, they’re even higher for shallower wells). So, there’s no rational reason why all wells shouldn’t be required to post their disclosures on Frac Focus.

PA is the only state that’s made this bizarre differentiation between conventional and unconventional wells. We’ll be looking to fix that problem in the future. And in the meantime, we’ll be working overtime to make sure no other state repeats this mistake.

Posted in Natural Gas / Tagged fracking, Hydraulic Fracturing | Read 1 Response