Hydraulic fracturing of oil and gas wells has been a controversial issue over the years and it has caused quite a bit of debate again recently because of alleged contamination of groundwater resources by drilling companies. Hydraulic fracturing is the process of pumping a fluid, or drilling mud, into a well in progress and pressurizing it in order to break apart certain porous rock formations and increase the efficiency of a well by allowing more oil and gas to flow to the main shaft. The "drilling mud" is usually mostly comprised of water and sand or clay in a low concentration that produces a slurry with a consistency similar to that of a milk shake, but sometimes additives are used to achieve different characteristics.
Where the EPA comes into play in this particular issue is that 12 out of 14 drilling services companies have admitted to using diesel fuel as an additive in 19 states, including North Dakota, and diesel fuel is outlawed in wells within some proximity to groundwater because the risk of contamination is too high. All of the companies claim they are using it within the restrictions of the environmental laws.
Aside from this story, hydraulic fracturing has come under so much scrutiny that some members of the public and government agencies have tried to outright universally ban it in the past. This is very relevant to those of us in North Dakota because all of the new oil and gas development here is in the formations known as the Bakken and Sanish/Three Forks which are oil shale formations and the reason oil activity has accelerated so rapidly in the past five years or so is because the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing is a fairly new technology and the current economic success of North Dakota depends on fracturing, in general, being allowed. As far as I know, there haven't been any problems linked to fracturing in ND, but other states have had legitimate problems with it. Seeing as there are a variety of geologic formations, I feel that it is probably best if the federal government takes an advisory stance on this issue and leaves the ultimate decisions up to state governments.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-01-31/halliburton-used-diesel-in-fracturing-lawmakers-say-update1-.html
I've seen the movie Gasland, and besides the usual criticism that it is just agitprop against oil companies, is there any concern that fracking could lead to the problems in ND that have developed in the other areas of the US where it has been used? Because of the population density differences in ND compared to TX or PA, is it just more unlikely that contaminated ground water will affect as many people?
ReplyDeleteI find that while fracking is an ingenious way to tap into oil and gas that would otherwise be cost-prohibitive, do you feel that state governments can effectively prescribe regulations to keep ground water for humans and the environment safe?
Also, from my viewing of Gasland, I seem to recall that a lot of fracking actually takes place on Federal/Public land. If so, shouldn't the Federal government have a say over the regulations and use of that land, no matter which state it is located?
It seems to me that the main issue with fracking is not the safety of it, but the issues with well developers irresponsibly cutting corners. Clearly, a government agency of some sort needs to make sure that the private companies play by the rules. My point was that the EPA should consider just coming up with recommended guidelines and leave it to the state governments to decide which ones to enforce. As far as state and federal properties go, the governments can make whatever rules they want. It's their right as the other party of a contract.
ReplyDeletethats silly, can not the land owners just say screw you and do wut they wants?
ReplyDelete