Last week’s media coverage of the Obama administration’s newly-proposed fracking rules focused so heavily on how drilling companies would have to disclose the chemicals they use that it largely overlooked the toughest provisions: Drillers would be required to test the physical integrity of their wells, and more water would be protected from drilling. Since many wells fail because the cement and casings crack, the new tests could prevent dangerous leakages.

One major limitation: Although widely understood as “national” guidelines, the draft rules would in fact only apply to a sliver of the nation’s natural gas supply. That’s because they would apply to mineral rights managed by the Bureau of Land Management, which means areas beneath most BLM and tribal land, but scarcely any U.S. Forest Service, private or state-owned lands – where most drilling occurs. Industry has criticized the proposed rules as too restrictive.

The draft rules would require companies to conduct “mechanical integrity tests.” These include pressure tests to make sure that the well can withstand the highly pressurized fluid used for fracking. Ensuring that wells are properly sealed is considered critical for preventing water and ground contamination.

The proposed rules also expand the scope of water protected from drilling to include not just fresh water but all “usable water” – meaning lower quality water used for agriculture and construction, as well as water that can be treated to make potable. Currently, only water with up to 5,000 parts per million of total dissolved solids is protected by the BLM. The new rules would expand that definition to include water with up to 10,000 parts per million, which matches the EPA’s definition for an underground source of drinking water.

“The proposed rule will modernize our management of well stimulation activities – including hydraulic fracturing – to make sure that fracturing operations conducted on public and Indian lands follow common-sense industry best practices,” Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar said in a statement.

The lands covered by the proposed rules are the source of “11 percent of the Nation’s natural gas supply and five percent of its oil,” according to the BLM. About 3,400 wells are drilled on these lands each year, according to the bureau, and 90 percent of those wells use hydraulic fracturing, a technique to extract natural gas by injecting into the earth highly pressurized fluids laden with chemicals, sometimes including potentially toxic ones such as benzene and lead.

Environmental activists wonder how likely the rules are to be enforced. In New Mexico, for example, the BLM oversees more than 30,000 active wells ­– with only 69 inspectors. “However strong the rules are, enforcement is only as good as staff on the ground,” said attorney Erik Schlenker-Goodrich of the Western Environmental Law Center.

Environmentalists also lambasted a provision that would require companies to disclose the chemicals they use to frack on some public lands. At issue was timing: The draft rule would allow companies to complete drilling before they make public the chemicals they had injected into the ground. Although some drilling companies report the chemicals they use to online public registries, they are not always required to do so. Many drillers claim that disclosure would amount to revealing “trade secrets.”

The timing of disclosure matters. Landowners who want to see if a nearby well is polluting their land or water need a baseline assessment of chemicals that are present before drilling. If they don’t know the chemicals the company will inject, the only way to get a baseline reading is to test for a vast number of chemicals, an expensive and impractical undertaking.

“Knowing after the fact is nice, but does not allow for any steps to be taken if the chemicals being used are of concern to the public. I urge the Interior Department to strengthen this rule,” Congressman Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) said in a statement. Hinchey co-authored national legislation to give the EPA the power to monitor all fracking activities in the U.S., which under current law the agency cannot regulate.

The proposed disclosure rules would not demand much more than the standards some states already have in place. For example Colorado and Wyoming have large swaths of public lands targeted by the draft rules, but they already have disclosure regulations that are equally stringent, if not more so, than the federal proposal. Colorado requires that companies disclose the chemicals they use in addition to their concentrations within 60 days of fracking activities. Wyoming requires disclosure of chemicals both before and after fracking, although its regulation has been criticized for not making all of those disclosures public.

“It seems like BLM has looked at state rules as a ceiling, not as a floor, for what should be done,” said attorney Schlenker-Goodrich, who charged that the administration was putting forward “half-measures.”

Industry charges that the rules would slow down drilling too much. The Independent Petroleum Association of America and ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to requests for comment, but the IPAA head Barry Russell told Reuters that the rules will “will undoubtedly insert an unnecessary layer of rigidity into the permitting and development process.”

Once the draft rule is published in the Federal Register, the BLM will take comments for 60 days before it finalizes the rule.

by Lena Groeger, ProPublica, May 8, 2012, 12:04 p.m.

Image Courtesy of    billb1961

The article 40 Acres and a Rule: Draft Federal Fracking Regs Cover Only A Sliver of Land appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

In December of 2009, the average price of gasoline nationally reached $2.60. Republicans in Alaska and Florida, along with those in other coastal states, worked to build support for the expansion of offshore drilling efforts. The attractive potential of stabilized oil had much of Congress reconsidering the offshore ban of protected areas. The slogan “Drill, baby, drill!” a staple of the 2008 Republican Presidential campaign, became commonplace among the vernacular of the American people. For all intents and purposes, the country was moving in the direction of expanding offshore exploration.

But on April 20, 2010, the explosion of BP’s Deepwater Horizon platform accelerated the pulse of the nation. Oil spewed freely into the Gulf of Mexico for three months, causing what is being called the worst environmental disaster in the history of the United States. The progress of those jockeying to expand drilling was lost in a matter of hours. Many supporters quickly changed routes, instead opting to preserve career longevity. The drilling issue looked dead.

Now, though, the country may be forced to revisit the debate. Revolutions throughout the Middle East have thrown a major wrench into the oil importation strategies of the U.S. Because of the shutdowns of petroleum production sites throughout Northern Africa, prices have risen to over $3.50 a gallon (almost 80 cents more than numbers a year ago).  Economists are concerned that if unrest continues, high fuel costs could slow the already fragile global economy. So what are the alternatives for the United States?

Analysts predict that if the levels continue to dissipate, the United States can release supplies from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That strategy would have a minimal impact on prices, though, and only dent the nation’s reserve tanks.

Alternative energy gurus have touted progress for the last two decades; still no viable alternative fuel can be mass produced at the bulk necessary to sustain the American people. Sure, someone will one day find a way to harness solar energy or wind power into something realistic for automotive transport. But when? The country needs to find other means as soon as possible. Waiting for a legitimate fix is no longer an option.

Suddenly, we’ve gone full circle. The ball once again rests in the court of Congress.

The expansion of offshore petroleum exploration appears to hold the most opportunity. Many claim that an increase in production could drive prices back to reasonable areas. Tapping into new production would also provide many new jobs. Many policy makers now insist on the expansion of offshore drilling allowances. Florida lawmakers looked close to making the decision to allow drilling before the BP incident. Research into the other nations allowing offshore production could give the U.S. a good blueprint from which to work.

Many of the views against drilling off the coast of Florida have arisen from the think tanks of environmentalist groups. “Green” associations cite many reasons to continue the Florida offshore moratorium, many of which were strongly reiterated by the BP oil spill example. One of the main arguments of drilling opponents is the pollution factor. Oil rigs have oil spills. No oil rigs, no oil spills. The three-month long release of oil into the Gulf of Mexico provides much of the evidence needed to support the case. The opposition also cites the estimation that offshore production will not be enough to relieve the U.S. dependence on foreign oil. A study shows that offshore drilling (nationwide) will bring in an additional 18 million barrels – total.  The U.S. uses over 8 million barrels a year, according to statistics. Claims by anti-drilling advocates note that the continued importation of petroleum will not allow gas prices to subside. Another platform argues that drilling in Florida waters will damage the state’s profitable tourism industry ($61 billion in 2009). “The biggest con I see to offshore oil drilling is that no one wants to be looking at an offshore oil rig when they go out to the beach,” political blogger Mark Hutcherson testified. Like many arguments in the court of political opinion, this one too has two-sides.

Data gathered by the National Ocean Industries Association shows that each oil platform will provide up to 1,400 new jobs and an estimated $10 million in wages. The infrastructures of many states are not yet setup for offshore production; therefore, many new jobs will be created in the development and building of industrial refining facilities. Considering the number of employees required to run the facilities once they are constructed, the impact on the workforce will be seismic. Employment opportunities will filter down through the trucking and construction industries. New jobs with environmental agencies will also hatch.

The increased domestic production could also mean more government revenues, both nationally and locally. The current national debt is $13,679,284,890,000 plus. The royalties and taxes collected from the new drilling endeavors would allow policy makers to significantly reduce debt levels.  As Marco Rubio, U.S. Senator-elect notes, “The issue of offshore drilling is not going away because America and the world depend heavily on petroleum products.” Although Democrats have backed off their stance of promoting drilling (the then-Democrat-controlled house voted 236 to 189 in October 2008 to lift the moratorium), many Republicans insist on the benefits of increased drilling. If a larger share of the oil being consumed were produced in the United States, it would lessen the U.S. trade deficit with the rest of the world, economists realize.

Despite the recent BP incident, U.S. offshore facilities are generally environmentally sound. From 1971 to 2000, offshore facilities and pipelines were responsible for only 2 percent of the oil in U.S. waters (according to statistics compiled by the Environmental Protection Agency). The BP/Deepwater Horizon oil disaster is an outlier; in 40 years of aggressive oil exploration, the nation has never faced a spill of that magnitude. The odds of a major hurricane (Category 3, 4, or 5) landing in Florida are nine times greater than the state’s chances of facing a spill like the BP debacle. According to Coast Guard records, of the 44 oil spills reported in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, none were reported by offshore facilities.

Environmentalists also downplay the evidence that oil importation is actually more damaging than drilling in the United States. The countries from which the U.S. imports oil have lower environmental standards than us. For example, many countries elect to vent methane into the environment rather than spending money to capture it. Also, tankers are less reliable than platforms. As history has shown (until recently), the four largest offshore spills involved transportation vessels. Producing the oil off the coast of the U.S. would minimize sea transport of the product via tankers, therefore reducing the risk of transfer error. Also, transport vessels use tons of diesel fuel, which causes damaging exhaust fumes. Proponents of drilling also point out that the Bahamas and Cuba both drill just outside of Florida’s protected waters.

The potential benefits of drilling in coastal waters are just too significant to ignore. Opponents will continue to build allegations and claims about the evils of drilling, but in the end, necessity will win out. Why wait until offshore drilling becomes essential when we can reap the benefits now? The expansion of drilling into the coastal waters of the United States could lead to the creation of new jobs, higher government revenue, lower gas prices, safer oil transport and drilling, and cheaper prices on common household items.

How much must gas prices rise before we rehash the discussion?

The article Oil Drilling in the Gulf, Back on the Table? appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.