The US Congress and the White House this fall will examine what role, if any, the government should play in regulating hydraulic fracturing, industry and government sources said late last month.
In comments to the US Environmental Protection Agency, industry officials maintained that hydraulic fracturing is not the kind of underground injection the federal drinking water law was meant to regulate. They reiterated those statements last April before a Senate subcommittee.
Coalbed methane concerns
EPA last July said it was seeking more comment on the use of hydraulic fracturing in coalbed methane wells. The comment period ended Aug. 29, and regulators are analyzing the responses to see what action, if any, should be taken.
The agency will incorporate the comments and other existing information in a report.
Higher natural gas prices have made coalbed methane drilling in the Rocky Mountain region one of the more promising plays in the US.
But not everyone is happy with expanded coalbed methane drilling.
Some environmental groups say the practice endangers underground drinking water sources. State oil and gas agencies in areas with coalbed methane production disagree. They have told EPA that hydraulic fracturing generally does not contribute to water quality degradation.
In comments to the agency, Thomas Stewart, executive vice-president of the Ohio Oil & Gas Association, defended the use of hydraulic fracturing, saying it is a well-established technique to jump-start production of an existing well or to initiate production in unconventional formations such as coalbed methane, tight gas sands, and shale deposits.
Before 1997, EPA had not considered regulating hydraulic fracturing because the agency believed the well production stimulation process did not fall under drinking water or underground injection control statutes. But it was forced to consider regulation after Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation sued EPA on the issue in Alabama federal court. The trial court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said EPA should regulate fracturing in the state.
Since the decision, environmental interest groups have continued to maintain that practices associated with methane gas production from coal beds have caused underground drinking water contamination elsewhere (OGJ, Aug. 30, 1999, p. 37).
Congressional role
Industry officials hope EPA will decide not to regulate hydraulic fracturing in other states. Meanwhile, industry lobbyists are urging Congress to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to clarify that hydraulic fracturing should not be federally regulated.
It's unclear how sympathetic Congress will be to their argument, given that clean water issues often have broad support. For example, both Republicans and Democrats are seeking to overturn a White House decision not to impose new arsenic standards in drinking water. And closer to home for industry, refiners have suffered political fallout for groundwater contamination by the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether.
Now producers are in the crosshairs of a groundwater debate. Some lawmakers are expected to side with environmentalists in seeking aggressive EPA regulation. Others, from coalbed methane producing states, do not want any rules.
Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, has offered a compromise. He has filed a bill that would require a more-detailed study on the impacts of hydraulic fracturing than EPA is planning. The interagency study would be completed in 24 months and then be reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences.
