Blog

Fracking: New Rules, New Questions

Anna Zawisza : Monday December 5, 4:12PM

Today, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission held a public hearing regarding the disclosure of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing (a.k.a. fracking) process.  Although I was unable to attend the meeting, I spent a good portion of the weekend researching the existing rule and the overall process that has caused such a buzz these days.

In Colorado, the issue at hand is the current rule which allows oil and gas companies to avoid disclosing the makeup of their fracking fluids because of a trade secrets provision.  Protection of trade secrets is actually not a bad thing in and of itself – we want industry to put resources into the safest ways to extract natural gas from deep underground and be able to ensure  that their investments will be protected.  Therefore, allowing for a trade secrets provision is an important step in sustainable innovation for this type of “drilling”.

However, the current rule makes it possible for industry to evoke this protection without a formal process and without any oversight.  Specifically, it allows for an unlimited number of chemicals claimed to be trade secrets to be automatically exempted from disclosure without any justification or reason.  Furthermore, there is no requirement for a signed statement, no review process and no way to appeal the exemption.  It simply goes too far.

Reading about fracking in the October issue of Scientific American was eye opening.  While hydraulic fracturing has been used for over 20 years, it is only recently that the technology has allowed for drilling to happen horizontally, sometimes for thousands of feet at a time.  Moreover, the process can be repeated over and over in the same well leading to more and deeper fractures that can potentially connect with existing fissures in the ground.  This is one way that pollutants can travel to ground water sources.  There are many others.  The EPA is currently conducting a widespread study on fracking.  The study will be completed sometime in 2012 and should provide a good basis to know whether fracking is contaminating water supplies and potentially creating other hazards.  But we are not waiting for this study to be completed – many states are allowing new fracking operations to begin and more wells to be drilled on existing leases.  NPR recently did a short story about the effects of fracking on a small community in North Dakota.  It’s eye opening.  Do we want the same in Colorado? Wyoming? New York?

It’s a tough subject – natural gas has the ability to be a viable bridge fuel, has lower greenhouse gas emissions in the combustion process than coal, is a domestic fuel source, is an economic driver to many depressed areas, and there’s a lot of it in the United States.  On the flip side, the process uses millions of gallons of water, the used water is contaminated, it is an unproven technology regarding safety (mainly groundwater but others too), and it’s still not a renewable source of energy.  So, do the potential costs outweigh the benefits?

• All Posts by Anna Zawisza
• Categories:Alliance News, Energy, Natural Resource Conservation, Water
• Tags: economic development, energy technology, non-renewable energy, shale gas
• 1 Comment
• Permalink
• • 
  • 
  • 

---

Author Bio:

Anna manages the Education and Outreach Program area and also serves as the Deputy Director for the Alliance. She is responsible for advancing sustainability by increasing awareness of issues and building Colorado’s sustainability network. She is committed to working with all sectors of society in order to create a greater impact on sustainability. Prior to joining the nonprofit sector, Anna spent 12 years in the student loan industry focused on sales and marketing. Anna earned her B.S. in Management Science at SUNY Geneseo in 1994 and completed her M.B.A at Webster University in 2003.