Hydraulic Fracturing For Gas—What Would It Mean for NC?

Sunrise Theater, Moore County June 15, 2011

Hope TaylorClean Water for North Carolina

Why is CWFNC involved in energy issues, fracking?

• Since 1984, worked for clean, safe communities; education, policy research and science-based advocacy to strengthen public participation in working for safe water, environmental health protective policies.

• Energy production/water usage are intimately linked• Environmental justice: Vulnerable populations are most

adversely impacted by energy costs and resource extraction. Rural, fewer services, low income.

• Protect drinking water >2.5 million NC well users.

What is Hydraulic Fracturing?

Hydraulic fracturing or “fracking” –method of extracting natural gas that involves drilling vertically into deep (3,000-8,000 ft) gas-bearing shales, and high pressure injection of a cocktail of sand, water and chemicals to open fissures for increased yield.

Often involves horizontal drilling, to increase yield for each vertical well, by turning drill to follow a horizontal shale formation for thousands of feet, then repeated fracking

Diagram of Fracking/Horizontal Drilling (USEPA)

Reid & MiliciNC Geological Survey

2005 Energy Policy Act Exemptions

Exempts oil and gas extraction from major parts of:• Safe Drinking Water Act (“imminent endangerment”)• Clean Air Act• Clean Water Act• Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know

Act (Toxic Releases Inventory)• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“Superfund”)

…Leaves a patchwork of limited state regulation

NC Current Regulations, Leases

• Horizontal Drilling—prohibited• Groundwater “best usage” in NC—drinking water, so don’t

inject potential contaminants • Limit pressure of injection at well head such that “does not

initiate new fractures or propagate existing fractures in the injection zone, initiate fractures in the confining zone, or cause the migration of injected or formation fluids outside the injection zone or area”

BUT…• Landowners, brokers have signed ~10,000 acres of

leases, often with predatory terms, small signing bonuses, relatively large royalties promised

Water Requirements for Fracking

• Amount used per “frack”: 3 - 5 million gallons each event. Sometimes over 20 frackings or “stimulations” in life of well.

• Moore County: Many streams have zero “7Q10 flows”, very limited sources both surface and ground. McGill Study: “Water Source Evaluation and Plan” says County’s water needs will soon outstrip supply. Estimated cost of >$7.5 M, and deal with IBT’s, to provide for near term water needs. Shouldn’t have to invest public $$ for additional supply for fracking operations.

• NC Water Allocation Study recommendation: “Enact a moratorium on withdrawals for development of shale gas until hydrologic models show no harm to existing water users.”

Fracking Chemicals Injected• Biggest initial concern: chemicals added to large

volumes of fracking water not disclosed• More than 60% of fracking fluids not recovered

• TDEX study MSDS sheets, EPA request under TSCA, then subpoena to Halliburton, Congressional study

• 14 oil and gas companies: – > 780 million gal of hydraulic fracturing products added

at site, not including water; – > 2,500 hydraulic fracturing formulations with 750

different chemicals, many endocrine disrupters, 29 known or possible carcinogens;

– FRAC Act pending in Congress

What’s Happened in Other States - Water

• New technology for deep shale gas extraction has far outpaced development of state regulatory programs

• Some poor well installation, very limited inspections, no oversight of fracturing events. Explosions, blowouts, leaks of methane, VOCs contaminate private wells

• No good options for return/produced water: – surface evaporation ponds - air emissions, liner leaks– direct surface discharge - fish kills, contamination– disposal at wastewater treatment plants - unable to remove

contaminants, downstream drinking water contaminated– deep injection - can cause seismic activity - Arkansas

What’s Happened in Other States?Air, Infrastructure, Landscape

• In areas of intense gas development, serious air quality impacts, toxic air pollutants and ozone, neurotoxic effects

• Infrastructure damage, heavy truck traffic to deliver millions of gallons per “frack”

• Extensive surface disturbance in areas of intensive drilling

• noise level of operations, often 24 hr

Marcellus Shale

EPA Study: Fracking Impacts on Drinking Water

• Mandated by Congress in 2010 • Calls for Independent sources of information;

Transparent, peer-reviewed process• Thousands showed up for hearings on study• Extensive study, but only $4 M for all costs• Scope has narrowed, few case studies, concerns

expressed by scientists, advocates about greater dependence on industry

• Results: prelim. end of 2012, final 2014

Fracking in the NC Legislature--Update

House Bill 242 (Stone, Gillespie) would increase bond for gas extraction from $5,000 to $10,000 (just to close wells). Study by May 1, 2012 of impacts and economics of fracking Passed House in May , now pending in Senate. Lacks landowner protections, incorporation of EPA study results.

Senate Bill 709 “Energy Jobs Act” (Rucho, Brown, Tucker) promotes off-shore oil drilling and onshore shale fracking, some wind, biofuels. Study to recommend regulatory changes before 2012 short session, which starts in May. Passed Senate May 10, House June 14, 68-49

“Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations”

R. Horwath, Cornell Univ. (2011)

• 3.6% - 7.9% of the methane from shale-gas production leaks over the life-time of a well. This is 30% to >100% more leakage of unburned fuel than a conventional gas well

• In the first 20 years after release, methane (CH4) is 105 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2 (33x was factor used by IPGCC for 100 year projection to compare CO2 and CH4)

• Over first 20 years, carbon footprint of shale gas over life of a well is far greater than conventional gas and oil, 20% to >100% greater than coal. At 100 years, greenhouse gas footprint comparable to coal.

• Shale gas can not be treated as a clean transition fuel.

“Front End Loaded” Drilling Cycle

• Production from shale well declines 50% in first year• Gas production uncertain after five years• Drilling permits in PA: 71 in 2007 to 1,984 in 2009 • Cumulative impacts of boom on communities.

MIT Energy Initiative, Interim Report, 2010

Local Costs of Shale DrillingSusan Christopherson, Cornell University

• Accelerated road maintenance

• Traffic congestion from heavy truck traffice (890 to 1,340 truck trips per well site for equipment, water, chemicals, waste)

• Higher public safety costs

• Increased demand for health and education services

• Increased demand on public administrative services

(e.g. planning and zoning, permitting, assessments, housing assistance)

• New service needs: emergency response capacity and environmental monitoring and remediation.

Regions Dependent On Resource Extraction OftenHave Poor Development Outcomes

• Volatile revenue leads to poor government planning and lack of accountability. Demands on government services rise.

• “Crowding out” -- the expectation of wealth from the resource works against economic diversification, and increases cost of doing business for other industries.

• Housing and labor costs rise.

• After the initial “ramp-up” construction phase, there are few jobs and income inequality increases.

In New York, when compared to adjacent counties or all of non-metropolitan New York, counties with significant natural gas drilling (1994-2009) are characterized by:

1. Population loss2. Smaller increases in real personal income

Methane in Drinking Water Wells Linked to Fracking Operations

Osborne, Vengosh, Warner, Jackson Duke Univ. (2011)

• Methane concentrations average 17 mg/liter in drinking water samples from NY and PA wells within 3,000 feet of active fracking operations, higher when closer. Methane generally absent when further from active fracking.

• Source of methane in these samples is confirmed by this study to be shale gas, rather than shallower “biogenic” gas sources, by isotopic analysis (different types of carbon and hydrogen atoms) and types of gases present (ie, ethane and propane are also present in shale gases and drinking water samples, but not in shallower biogenic gas)

• Mechanism for gas migration to drinking water not defined, could be badly cased gas wells or movement through new or existing fractures between shale and drinking water aquif.

Methane in Drinking Water Wells Linked to Fracking Operations

Osborne, Vengosh, Warner, Jackson Duke Univ. (2011)

Summary and Recommendations

• More impacts are being documented scientifically; regulations lag knowledge; budgets/staff inadequate

• Support ban on water withdrawals for hydraulic fracturing, not adequate water for existing uses

• Much longer time frame for NC study, wait for results of EPA study. Prohibit regulatory changes unless independent science documents geological and regulatory conditions to prevent risk of harm

• Increase scope of NC study to include adverse economic and social impacts, study background groundwater quality/quantity for well users

Contact and Questions

Hope Taylor Clean Water for North Carolina

Hope@cwfnc.org

Durham Office (919) 401-9600www.cwfnc.org

Reid & MiliciNC Geological Survey