A federal study of hydraulic fracturing set to begin this spring is expected to provide the most expansive look yet at how the natural gas drilling process can affect drinking water supplies, according to interviews with EPA officials and a set of documents outlining the scope of the project. The research will take a substantial step beyond previous studies and focus on how a broad range of ancillary activity – not just the act of injecting fluids under pressure – may affect drinking water quality.

The oil and gas industry strongly opposes this new approach. The agency’s intended research “goes well beyond relationships between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water,” said Lee Fuller, vice president of government affairs for the Independent Petroleum Association of America in comments (PDF) he submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency.

The “lifecycle” approach will allow the agency to take into account hundreds of reports of water contamination in gas drilling fields across the country. Although the agency hasn’t settled on the exact details, researchers could examine both underground and surface water supplies, gas well construction errors, liquid waste disposal issues and chemical storage plans as part of its assessment.

The EPA begins public hearings today in Washington to nail down the scope of the study.

Plans for the study have attracted international attention and have been the focus of intense debate among lawmakers and the oil and gas industry. The findings could affect Congress’ decision whether to repeal an exemption that shields the fracturing process from federal regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The EPA is undertaking the study in response to a wave of reports of water contamination in drilling areas across the country and a Congressional mandate issued in an appropriations bill last fall. The agency had previously examined hydraulic fracturing in a 2004 study that was limited in scope and was widely criticized.

“When we did the 2004 study we were looking particularly for potential for impacts from hydraulic fracturing fluid underground to underground sources of drinking water,” said Cynthia Dougherty, the EPA’s director of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. “So it was a much narrower focus.”

For the latest study, the EPA sent its scoping document to its Science Advisory Board asking for the group’s input in designing the fracturing study. In the document, the EPA explained that information gained from looking at the impact from the start to the end of the process, called a lifecycle assessment “can help policymakers understand and make decisions about the breadth of issues related to hydraulic fracturing, including cross-media risks and the relationship to the entire natural gas production cycle.”

In past interviews with ProPublica, Fuller has explained that, in his view, hydraulic fracturing shouldn’t be blamed for any contamination unless the process of injecting fracturing fluids underground under pressure was “the sole” cause of contamination. If contamination seeped through cracks in a gas well’s protective casing under pressure of the fracturing process, for example, he wouldn’t attribute it to fracturing because the cracks may have existed before the fracturing process began and would be a well construction problem, not a fracturing problem.

Fuller’s definition of fracturing-related contamination helps explain the oil and gas industry’s steadfast claim that that there is not a single case in which hydraulic fracturing has been proven to have contaminated drinking water supplies.

An 18-month investigation by ProPublica, however, has shown more than 1,000 cases in which various aspects of the fracturing lifecycle have affected water supplies, including spills of fracturing fluid waste, cracking of underground cement and well casings meant to enclose the fracturing process, and methane gas traveling large distances underground through faults and fractures.

In planning its study, the EPA has made clear that for its purposes fracturing may play a role in many aspects of the drilling process and in many different environmental risks. The study could examine how well-construction activities have the potential to impact water, what specific materials or design practices would make a well suitable for fracturing, and what are the most effective methods for measuring well integrity.

The EPA hopes to complete its research by late 2012, the end of President Obama’s first term in office. Scientists say that may not be enough time to include substantial field monitoring and water analysis; policymakers say that is too long to wait for a decision from Congress.

The agency’s conclusions could have wide-ranging effects. Last month President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia said he would curtail natural gas production by the state company Gazprom until the study is completed. In part that’s because Medvedev isn’t sure there will be a viable market for Russian gas if the U.S. develops its domestic reserves, and because he believes that the regulations that could result from the EPA study could determine whether the U.S. drills its own gas, or imports it from overseas.

If the comments already submitted to the EPA by stakeholders are any indication, the research process will be contentious.

In Fuller’s comments (PDF) to the EPA, he said that the study shouldn’t focus on the harm fracturing could inflict on water supplies, but rather on whether current environmental regulations “effectively manage the environmental risks of the fracturing process.”

“If these risks are well managed, the other questions are meaningless,” he wrote. “The Scoping Materials Document fails to reflect this reality.”

In another letter (PDF), Ben Wallace, chief operating officer of Penneco Oil Co., wrote: “The clear historical record shows that hydraulic fracturing has been employed for decades successfully without incident. We are concerned that bureaucratic machinations have caused the EPA to hypothesize a problem and that EPA is now seeking research to justify a solution to a nonexistent problem.”

Environmental officials from New York City, who are concerned about how plans to drill for gas in the state’s Marcellus Shale will affect the city’s water supply, also submitted comments (PDF) to the EPA, urging the agency to follow through with its ambitious plans.

“The City concluded that horizontal drilling and high-volume hydraulic fracturing using the current technologies pose an unacceptable threat to the water supply of nine million New Yorkers, and cannot be safely permitted in the watershed,” wrote Caswell Holloway, commissioner of New York City’s Department of Environmental Protection. The city encouraged the Science Advisory Board and the EPA “to take a hard look at this activity and to recognize that the absence of contamination does not necessarily imply an activity is safe, but may actually reflect extensive gaps in monitoring information.”

Article by Abrahm Lustgarten appearing courtesy ProPublica

Related posts:

• U.S. Congress Tells EPA to Study Hydraulic Fracturing and Drinking Water
• EPA Launches National Study of Hydraulic Fracturing
• Hydrofracturing for Gas Also Releases Uranium from Shale, Study Says
• Drilling Chemicals Found In Drinking Water Near Natural Gas Sites
• Gas Drilling Companies Hold Data Needed by Researchers to Assess Risk to Water Quality

Responding to reports of environmental contamination in gas drilling areas across the country, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will conduct a nationwide scientific study to determine if the problems are caused by the practice of injecting chemicals and water underground to fracture the gas-bearing rock.

The study, announced Thursday but hinted at for months, will revisit research the agency published in 2004, which concluded that the process of hydraulic fracturing did not pose a threat to drinking water. The 2004 report has been widely criticized, in part because the agency didn’t conduct any water tests in reaching that conclusion.

“The use of hydraulic fracturing has significantly increased well beyond the scope of the 2004 study,” EPA spokesperson Enesta Jones wrote in response to questions from ProPublica. The old study, she said, did not address drilling in shale, which is common today. It also didn’t take into account the relatively new practice of drilling and hydraulically fracturing horizontally for up to a mile underground, which requires about five times more chemical-laden fluids than vertical drilling. “This study is the Agency’s response to public concern about this practice and Congressional request.”

The 2004 report was used by the Bush Administration and Congress to justify legislation exempting hydraulic fracturing from oversight under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The exemption came to be known in some quarters as the “Halliburton loophole” and has inhibited federal regulators ever since.

The fracturing technology, in which a mixture of chemicals and water is injected underground with sand at high pressure to crack the earth and release natural gas, made it possible for energy companies to open vast domestic energy reserves across the country and fueled a nationwide boom in drilling activity.

“EPA needs to finish what is started,” said Gwen Lachelt, director of the Oil and Gas Accountability Project, a Colorado-based advocacy group that represents landowners with contaminated water. “We need comprehensive studies of the entire exploration and production process, but this is an important place to start.”

The American Petroleum Institute released a statement saying it expects the study “to confirm what 60 years of experience and investigation have already demonstrated: that hydraulic fracturing is a safe and well understood technology for producing oil and natural gas.”

Lee Fuller, vice president of government affairs for the Independent Petroleum Association of America, said hydraulic fracturing is one of the industry’s “crowning achievements.”

“Adding another study to the impressive list of those that have already been conducted and completed is a welcome exercise,” he said.

A series of investigations by ProPublica found that fracturing is the common thread in more than 1,000 cases of water contamination across seven states. In some cases fracturing may have caused dozens of well failures where the cement or steel meant to protect aquifers from the gas and drilling fluids cracked under high pressure, allowing contaminants to seep into the water. In hundreds of other cases the waste and chemicals generated by hydraulic fracturing have been spilled or seeped into surface and groundwater supplies.

Fuller said that Congress’ efforts to allow the EPA to regulate the process “should come to a standstill until this study is completed.”

More than 50 members of the House of Representatives have co-sponsored the Frack Act, a bill that would reverse the drilling industry’s exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act and allow the EPA to regulate fracturing if it chose to do so. The Frack Act also would require companies to disclose the chemicals pumped underground in the process — information that is usually protected as trade secrets. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is also conducting a separate investigation of hydraulic fracturing’s impact on water resources.

The EPA has yet to say exactly how the new study will be conducted or when it will begin, but sources within the agency told ProPublica that it will likely involve a number of EPA regional offices in Colorado, Texas, New York, Pennsylvania and elsewhere, and could build off two related investigations the EPA is undertaking in Wyoming gas fields.

In its announcement Thursday, the agency said it will spend nearly $2 million on the research this year and is asking for more money for next year. It promised a transparent, peer-reviewed process that includes stakeholder input. The EPA is seeking input from its Science Advisory Board on exactly how the study should proceed.

Article by Abrahm Lustgarten appearing courtesy ProPublica

Related posts:

• U.S. Congress Tells EPA to Study Hydraulic Fracturing and Drinking Water
• Broad Scope of EPA’s Fracturing Study Raises Ire of Gas Industry
• Hydrofracturing for Gas Also Releases Uranium from Shale, Study Says
• U.S. Panel Endorses Fracking As Its Members Are Faulted for Industry Ties
• Congress Launches Investigation Into Gas Drilling Practices

A study of the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the world’s oceans from 1765 to the present shows that as humanity pumps more CO2 into the atmosphere, the capacity of the world’s oceans to continue absorbing carbon appears to be decreasing.

Researchers from Columbia University and NASA estimate that since 2000, the proportion of fossil-fuel emissions absorbed by the oceans may have declined by as much as 10 percent. In effect, researchers say that industrial activity has been producing so much C02 since 1950 that the oceans are slowly becoming saturated with the gas.

“The more carbon dioxide you put in, the more acidic the ocean becomes, reducing its ability to hold CO2,” said lead researcher Samar Khatiwala, an oceanographer at Columbia’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.

The study, published in the journal Nature, estimated that the oceans currently hold about 150 tons of industrial carbon — a third more than in the 1990s.

The researchers used data on ocean chemistry, salinity, temperature, and other measures to calculate the amount of industrial carbon in the ocean for the past 245 years.

The study showed that the land may now being absorbing more carbon than it is producing, perhaps because higher atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing the rate of photosynthesis.

Article appearing courtesy of Yale Environment 360

Related posts:

• Forests Ability To Absorb Carbon May Be Better Than First Thought
• New Climate Change Study With Important Findings On CO2 Absorption
• Global Warming Could Be Slowed With Three Geo-Engineering Ideas
• Ocean Acidification Varies Widely Across Globe, New Study Shows
• Marine Energy Could Provide Up to 240 GW by 2050