skip to main content

→ Top Stories:
Fracking
Safe Chemicals
Defending the Clean Air Act

Amy Mall’s Blog

GAO: The extent of risks of shale gas development is unknown at this time, and more

Amy Mall

Posted October 25, 2012 in Health and the Environment

Tags:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Share | | |

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently issued two comprehensive reports:Oil and Gas: Information on Shale Resources, Development, and Environmental and Public Health Risks (GAO-12-732); and Unconventional Oil and Gas Development: Key Environmental and Public Health Requirements (GAO-12-874). They total about 300 pages but the reading is well worth it due the thorough analysis and important findings. Among the highlights:

  • The Clean Water Act requires some oil and gas production sites, close to navigable waters and shorelines, to have an oil spill prevention, control and clean-up plan. EPA officials visited 120 sites in FY 2011 and found 105 were out of compliance: 87.5%. These do not have to be oil production sites. For example, natural gas pads may have an amount of fuel for drill rigs stored on site that would trigger this requirement.
  • The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) requires oil and gas producers to compile an annual inventory of hazardous or extremely hazardous chemicals being used or stored on site in amounts over certain thresholds. This inventory, including chemical information, must be submitted to state and local emergency planning authorities and local fire departments. Based on the thresholds, EPA told GAO that this statutory requirement could be triggered at every well site based on the amount of chemicals typically used on site including drilling mud, lubricants, and more. Does your local emergency planning authority and fire department have this for every well site in your community?
  • EPA officials do not always have information on the types of activities taking place or equipment being used at well sites, or even where the well sites are--making it difficult for their enforcement staff to know where and when to conduct inspections. EPA often does not have the resources to travel to the many well sites that it can identify. In many cases, the legal burden is on the oil and gas companies to report to EPA when they are subject to certain environmental laws. That does not seem like a recipe for success (see first bullet point).
  • Texas does not have any required setbacks from water sources.
  • Ohio does not have any pit lining requirements.
  • Colorado, Wyoming, Pennsylvania and Texas have no casing and cementing provisions specifically for horizontal wells.
  • Regarding shale development, the GAO concluded that the risks cannot be quantified and the magnitude or likelihood of potential adverse effects cannot be determined due to several factors, including insufficient scientific study.
Share | | |

Comments

Michael BerndtsonOct 25 2012 11:12 AM

Excellent summary of the state of environmental protection regulations - or bringing to light the lack of any protective measures. Combining your post with the NYT article on the "economics" of fracking, "After the Boom in Natural Gas" :
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/21/business/energy-environment/in-a-natural-gas-glut-big-winners-and-losers.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

And the admitted need for regulations from a business news source:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-21/fracking-needs-rules-not-flawed-studies.html

It is slowly but surely becoming evident that shale gas exploitation was simply another engineered bubble similar to the housing market. The No Regulation group is realizing that the entire shale play is: 1) economically not feasible without removing any and all ancillary costs (snark) such as fair mineral costs, environmental protection measures, environmental remediation set aside, etc., 2) technically not feasible given that shale gas is pretty much unextractable

Michael BerndtsonOct 25 2012 11:34 AM

Oops. I must have hit the submit button in mid-thought. Starting again with my stream of consciousness rant:

2 b) Shale gas extraction is technically less feasible then what has been sold. A great example if the downgrade in potential gas estimate from the sales push number of around 400 to 700 trillion cf to the engineering estimate by USGS of around 84 to 141 trillion cf. A more important example is the working production numbers being gathered from various well fields. The decline curves follow exactly what is predicted if flow of fluids through porous media equations are used - not forced curves based on past experience - or the production rates sink like a stone real quick.

3) Shale gas extraction has been way-way over sold. Here' s another interesting article from the blog "Energy Policy Forum" by Deborah Rodgers:
http://energypolicyforum.org/2012/10/21/the-bakken-another-drilling-treadmill/
The take away from this post is the citation from Rune Likvern a Norge petroleum guy reviewing the data for Statoil a big investor in US shale. He thinks shale gas extraction is a scheme similar in logic to Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass". (my note: Norge is a perfectly acceptable term for a person from Norway, said my Swedish grandfather).

Comments are closed for this post.

About

Switchboard is the staff blog of the Natural Resources Defense Council, the nation’s most effective environmental group. For more about our work, including in-depth policy documents, action alerts and ways you can contribute, visit NRDC.org.

Feeds: Amy Mall’s blog

Feeds: Stay Plugged In