| Action | Expanding disclosure of ingredients used in well stimulation & completion & reviewing best practices |
| Stage | Proposed |
| Comment Period | Ended on 12/4/2015 |
 |
19 comments
The DMME staff is well equipped to manage the implementation of gas and oil exploration in the Commonwealth, according to the existing laws and public interest.
The proposed update to Virginia’s gas drilling regulation, titled "4VAC25-150. Virginia Gas and Oil Regulation (amending 4VAC25-150-10, 4VAC25-150-30, 4VAC25-150-80, 4VAC25-150-100, 4VAC25-150-110, 4VAC25-150-160, 4VAC25-150-280, 4VAC25-150-300, 4VAC25-150-340, 4VAC25-150-360, 4VAC25-150-610; adding 4VAC25-150-95, 4VAC25-150-365, 4VAC25-150-535, 4VAC25-150-615", is woefully inadequate. It addresses only a few narrow issues and falls far short of what is needed to protect Virginians from the serious risks posed by new forms of shale gas drilling. In fact, the regulation raises more questions than it answers. DMME must undertake a comprehensive review of Virginia’s regulations in light of extensive new scientific and medical information about the risks of modern fracking to air, water, land and human health. The current proposal does not offer even lip-service to the many, extensive, and horrific threats such information contains or may contain. Only after such a review, the results of which should be made public, should DMME move forward with a proposed regulation.
A few examples follow of issues the Proposed Regulation should address and set enforceable requirements for, but does not:
• Prohibiting open fracking waste storage pits and establishing standards for such storage pits.
• Prohibiting disposal of fracking wastewater by spreading it on agricultural or forest land or any public land, by dumping it into rivers, streams, and other waterways, and even by forcibly injecting or otherwise putting it into the earth.
• Establishing setbacks from gas wells and infrastructure to protect springs, rivers, lakes, streams, flood plains, parks, playgrounds, schools and other important natural and community resources.
• Requiring drilling companies to have DMME approve (in advance of DMME approval of application) plans for thoroughly and safely testing, labeling, transporting, and disposing of drilling waste. Drilling waste must not simply be buried at the well site, as the draft regulation would allow in western Virginia. Using injection waste wells should not be allowed in seismically active parts of Virginia due to earthquake risks or in geologically unstable or unpredictable areas.
• Identifying and prohibiting serious air pollution risks, including methane leaks, from wells and related infrastructure.
• Prohibiting fracking in areas of Virginia with karst or similarly unstable or vulnerable topography. The fact that DMME focuses its proposed regulation on only 2 areas of Virginia does not mean that drilling companies won't apply to drill in other others of the State. It is unclear whether this regulation would even apply to areas other than the counties in southwest and Tidewater that the regulation lists.
• The validity and appropriateness of using Fracfocus as the repository database for the vitally important information about the specific chemicals that drilling companies use in fracking operations. Despite the fact that several states rely on Fracfocus, it is quite unclear whether and how this data is maintained and verified by either the Groundwater Protection Council or the Interstate Compact Oil and Gas Commission or how thorough and reliable are the data that the drilling companies provide. Fracfocus appears to "take the word" of the drilling companies with no independent verification. Serious questions exist about the transparency and neutrality/industry independence of these two organizations. Further, the proposed regulation does not offer an alternative repository as a back-up to Fracfocus. Also, the data is given only to first responders in the event of an emergency, when it will clearly be needed quickly by various other entities, such as the Department of Health and the Department of Environmental Quality to name but two, not to mention the public.
• Establishing definitive legal and compensatory consequences in the event of non-compliance of these regulations. Even if the DMME will be monitoring drilling company operations to ensure they comply with what few requirements this regulation places on them, and that is not clear, there is no indication of what legal authority the DMME has to issue citations, halt operations, or prosecute/fine violators. Nor is it clear that an applicant that has had violations in connection with a prior application will be either banned from further drilling or subject to more rigorous application standards.
The proposed regulation does not explain the basis for the one-quarter mile radius for groundwater baseline sampling data. Although the radius is enlarged, it is unclear how/why DMME chose this distance as opposed to some other, nearer or farther radial distance. Presumably, DMME considers this range to be more prudent and safer than the current much shorter one, but the regulation should set forth DMME’s rationale, preferably with its scientific basis. Also, it would seem that different topographies would mean different safety zone requirements, particularly when some topographies make it quite difficult if not impossible to contain the negative effects of unsafe water. It would seem reasonable to include not only the explanation for the one-quarter radius but also establish different, appropriate radii for different topographies. Also, the regulation should prohibit drilling within a specified distance (again based on scientific research by industry-independent and qualified sources) from populated areas. No one’s water supply should be jeopardized by nature’s whims at dispersing water tainted by chemicals (apparently unknown to them) that the drilling companies (ies) have used. The proposed regulation provides for follow-up testing after the well is completed. It is not clear if DMME or the drilling companies (ies) are required to notify potentially affected persons or businesses if the follow-up testing results fail to meet standards. Nor is it clear that DMME will prohibit operation of the well until further testing shows no violation. Nor is it clear if continuous or at least frequent water sampling will be required, and results reported, during the well’s operation and after it ceases operation. All of these omissions need to be addressed in the final regulations.
If a pre-application meeting is needed with respect to “potential drilling in Tidewater Virginia”, then it is surely needed for all areas of Virginia. As written, the proposed regulation apparently assumes that an applicant wishing to drill in other areas of Virginia already understands “the requirements of the environmental impact assessment required pursuant to § 62.1-195.1 of the Code of Virginia.” Surely this will not always be true. The final regulation should require such a pre-application meeting with all applicants, or least with all applicants who have never applied to and received DMME for drilling approval.
As noted at the outset of these comments, I request DMME to complete a much more thorough review and revision of gas drilling regulations than is evident from these proposed regulations before it considers any permits for shale or any other type of fracking. The proposed regulation is in serious need of improvement and the public deserves both the improvements and the opportunity to review them again prior to promulgation.
I look forward to your response to these comments.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed revisions to Virginia's Gas Drilling Regulations.
The natural gas industry would like to use unconventional shale gas drilling methods, including hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drilling that can extend 1.5 miles horizontally from the drilling pad, in at least two areas of Virginia (shale deposits, including the Marcellus Shale, in the western part of the state, and the Taylorsville Basin in the Tidewater area). While no permits for unconventional methods have been granted yet in the Tidewater area, and no high-volume fracking has yet occurred in Virginia, more than 80,000 acres in the Tidewater area have been leased with the intent to frack. Virginia needs to be prepared with strong regulations that address the many risks.
Industry points to forms of fracking that have occurred in the southwestern part of the state without publicized environmental harm. These include coal bed methane and lower-volume fracking which reportedly use far less water, fewer chemicals, and produce far less toxic wastewater than high-volume techniques. The forms of fracking now under consideration present a greater threat to our natural resources and health.
Virginia had the least protective gas drilling regulations of all 31 states with actual or potential shale gas production, according to a 2013 survey of shale gas regulations by Resources for the Future. The proposed changes will not adequately improve the regulations.
In order for Virginia in develop more protective gas drilling regulations, I would like to see:
.
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO VIRGINIA’S GAS DRILLING REGULATION
“We should not do any of these techniques here in Virginia until everyone is 100 percent – 100 percent – sure of safety.… Let’s look at all the alternatives. Wind is clean, wind is safe. Solar is clean, solar is safe.” Terry McAuliffe, as candidate for Governor, September 2011
Background
The natural gas industry would like to use unconventional shale gas drilling methods — including hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drilling that can extend 1.5 miles horizontally from the drilling pad -- (“fracking”) in at least two areas of Virginia:shale deposits, including the Marcellus Shale, in the western part of the state, and the Taylorsville Basin in the Tidewater area. While no permits for unconventional methods have been granted yet in the Tidewater area, and no high-volume fracking has yet occurred in Virginia, more than 80,000 acres in the Tidewater area have been leased with the intent to frack. Virginia needs to be prepared with strong regulations that address the many risks.
Industry points to forms of fracking that have occurred in the southwestern part of the state without publicized environmental harm. These include coal bed methane and lower-volume fracking which reportedly use far less water, fewer chemicals, and produce far less toxic wastewater than high-volume techniques. The forms of fracking now under consideration present a greater threat to our natural resources and health.
Virginia had the least protective gas drilling regulations of all 31 states with actual or potential shale gas production, according to a 2013 survey of shale gas regulations by Resources for the Future. The proposed changes will not adequately improve the regulations.
The agency that oversees gas drilling, the Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy (DMME), started a process to revise its regulations in late 2013. The original notice filed by DMME indicated that it would revise gas drilling rules to bring them up to “best industry practice.” However, in conducting the review of its regulations, DMME chose to focus on only a handful of issues including requiring disclosure of fracking fluid ingredients, limited baseline testing of groundwater, some improvements to well integrity, requiring submission of an emergency response plan, and requiring fences around open storage pits. DMME refused to conduct a thorough review of its regulations and did not respond to detailed comments filed by environmental groups.
Interagency study needed in advance of regulation. This proposed regulation fails to consider the most important question: Is it in Virginia’s interest to allow these new forms of unconventional drilling at all? The Governor should order a rigorous interagency study of the health, environmental, economic and other risks and benefits to Virginia, as Governors of Maryland and New York have done. This would meet the Agency’s state goal of bringing Virginia’s Fracking regulations up to “best practice”. Failure to do so ignores multiple, critical facets of the industry that affect the health of Virginia residents, the land we live on, the air we breathe, and the water we drink.
Comprehensive review of drilling regulations is essential. If the interagency study finds that it is possible to safely regulate unconventional shale drilling techniques, a rigorous and comprehensive review of existing drilling regulations will be needed. No permits for unconventional shale gas drilling should be approved until this thorough review has been completed and rules that adequately protect the public have been implemented. These rules must address, at a minimum:
Environmental Issues - Water:
disposal, handling, storage, and treatment of waste water;
mandatory baseline testing of all water within 1.5 miles of every well;
identification of the amount and source of the water used in the process and its impact on residents and the aquifer;
safeguards against water pollution, including surface runoff into streams, rivers, and lakes, and underground aquifers;
conformance with the Chesapeake Bay Act.
Environmental Issues - Land:
Disposal of radioactive slag, including weekly testing and documentation of the amount of radioactivity contained in the debris brought up by the process.
Set-back distances from occupied dwellings, farm buildings, schools, hospitals, environmentally sensitive areas, other locally defined areas, etc., where drilling could impact the health and safety of residents, wildlife, and the environment;
Fencing around well sites;
Restoration of land to its pre-drilling conditions.
Environmental Issues - Air:
methods used to prevent methane escaping into the atmosphere from the wells;
Periodic testing of air quality for chemicals, particulates, and other hazards to health;
Odor control
Local and Interstate Road Impact: Assessing the potential damage to County and City roads from heavy construction traffic and making Counties whole for damage caused to roadways by
Operating Noise Levels: Identification of and levels of operational noise generated by daily operations, 4 times daily, at 6 AM/PM and 12 AM/PM.
Performance Bonds: Bonds must be of sufficient dollar amount to handle most potential environmental disasters, including clean-up of spillage and leaks, road damage, well closure, monitoring of well sites for a period of 10 years after well closure, and restoration of sites to previous conditions.
Local Zoning Permits: All drilling operations must obtain local Zoning Permits prior to beginning any drilling operations, and the pre-drilling site conditions must be documented as part of the Zoning Permit process, including water and aquifer testing, pre-drilling site photos, and any other documentation requested in the local Zoning Permit application.
Health experts must be involved in the regulatory review. Many of the most serious risks of fracking are to human health. It is surprising that no one with public health expertise was appointed to the Regulatory Advisory Panel convened by DMME, and that the Virginia Department of Health (VDH) does not appear to be involved. A more rigorous and thorough review of these regulations should be conducted, and should rely on public health professionals with expertise in the health issues associated with shale gas fracking operations. In addition, a complete health impact assessment (HIA) should be conducted prior to approving new shale drilling methods in Virginia. This is critical to ensuring that the fracking process does not cause health issues that could have been prevented. There have been multiple medical groups that have pointed out the health issues associated with fracking, including:
Public health experts in NY just released the 3rd Edition yesterday of their report linking fracking to health problems. http://concernedhealthny.org
A new study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health has linked hydraulic fracturing to premature births and high-risk pregnancies.
Scientists at the Colorado School of Public Health in January published a peer-reviewed paper in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives finding an increased rate of congenital heart defects in babies born to mothers living near gas wells in Colorado.
The British Medical Journal: 20 high-profile doctors, pharmacists, and public health academics said the “inherently risky” industry should be prohibited in the UK. The letter was prompted by a report from health charity Medact which recommended a UK-wide moratorium be placed on fracking. Scotland has already imposed a ban on the industry pending the results of a public health impact assessment.
A study that showed that Fracking chemicals can alter mouse development. Wastewater from hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, may tote several hormone-disrupting chemicals that can alter the development of mice, researchers report.
Residents of Washington County, Pennsylvania have complained of headaches, nosebleeds and skin rashes, but because there are no comprehensive studies about the health impacts of natural gas drilling, it's hard to link them to the gas wells and other production facilities that have sprung up around them. A group of scientists from Pennsylvania and neighboring states have stepped in to fill this gap by forming a nonprofit, the Southwest Pennsylvania Environmental Health Project (SWPA-EHP), to provide free health consultations to local families near drilling sites, using the best available science to help people deal with their ailments.
The Endocrine Society published a peer-reviewed study that calls for more low-dose testing of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, with huge implications for the debate on natural gas drilling. Their report, titled “Hormones and Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: Low-Dose Effects and Nonmonotonic Dose Responses”, shows that even low doses of some toxins can be harmful, and that finding is relevant to the chemicals used in natural gas drilling and hydraulic fracturing. (http://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/assets/2012-03/Endocrine%20Reviews%20article.pdf)
Dr. David Carpenter, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany-State University of New York was the lead author of a study documenting the fact that oil and gas wells across the country are spewing “dangerous" cancer-causing chemicals into the air. That study that further corroborates reports of health problems around hydraulic fracking sites. “This is a significant public health risk,” says the study, published in the journal Environmental Health.
Residents within a kilometer of a well had up to twice the number of health problems as those living at least 2 kilometers away, according to a study published by researchers from the University of Washington and Yale University Respiratory. This includes skin lesions and respiratory problems.
An NIH study found that residents living within 10 miles of natural gas wells in rural Colorado, had higher incidents of birth defects, because of emissions of potential teratogens by natural gas development.http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1306722/
The Natural Resources Defense Council, in a study titled “Fracking Fumes: Air Pollution from Hydraulic Fracturing Threatens Public Health and Communities” found that emissions from oil-and-gas production pose a significant threat to human health, and immediate steps must be taken to reduce exposure to the toxic pollution problems. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1380788-nrdc-fracking-air-quality.html
The Center for Public Integrity, InsideClimate News, and The Weather Channel, in a 2014 investigative report examined what Texas has done to protect people in the Eagle Ford from the industry's pollutants. That investigation and records obtained from Texas regulatory agencies reveal a system that does more to protect the industry than the public. What's happening in the Eagle Ford is important not only for Texas, but also for Pennsylvania, Colorado, North Dakota, Virginia, and other states where fracking is underway or being considered.
The Clean Water Action/Clean Water Fund and Earthworks published a report documenting their investigation of pits open-air located near McKittrick, in Kern County, CA. They reviewed public documents and collected citizen air quality samples, and found documentation of a plume of wastewater containing heavy metals such as boron, high salinity, and other toxins migrating towards high quality, useable groundwater resources. They also found 24 volatile organic compounds (VOC’s), and methane, as well as Benzene and 2-Hexanone, above the Long Term Effects Screening Levels, in the air samples. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/1362974/ca-oil-and-gas-pit-report.pdf
A Pennsylvania study finds a link between gas drilling and premature births. https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2015/10/09/pennsylvania-study-finds-link-between-gas-drilling-and-premature-births/
A new study determines that fracking chemicals may mess with hormones, and lower sperm counts. http://press.endocrine.org/toc/endo/0/0
Two new studies are adding to the growing body of evidence that exposure to fracking chemicals poses a risk to people’s health. Pregnant women living near fracking operations drilling for gas or oil are more likely to give birth preterm.
According to a report published in the journal Epidemiology, researchers found that 23 of the 24 fracking chemicals they tested disrupt normal hormone functioning. http://press.endocrine.org/doi/10.1210/en.2015-1375
There are many, many so many health issues associated with fracking that any review of regulations without health professional involvement completely negates the findings of the review. How can only one aspect of the review be considered a look at “best practice”?
Open-air waste pits must be prohibited. The proposed regulations would continue to allow the use of open-air pits to store toxic wastewater, a practice that has led to overflows and harm to surrounding land, groundwater and wildlife in other states. The air pollution that escapes into the atmosphere from open pits also can cause disease in people living nearby. Given the dangers, other states such as New York and Pennsylvania now require closed tanks for capturing flowback water from a well. Virginia should adopt this best practice. There are many more examples of health problems residents who live near open-air pits face, and the Regulation review must consider them.
Fracking wastewater must not be disposed of by spreading it on roadways, agricultural and forest land. The proposed regulations would continue to allow the practice of spreading fracking wastewater on roadways, agricultural and forest land as a means of disposal, assuming the fluids do not exceed certain chemical limits. “Best practice” is to prohibit this fundamentally unsafe practice, as other states have done.
Regulations must provide for safe testing, labeling, transportation, storage and disposal of drilling wastewater. Drilling produces large amounts of briny wastewater, usually toxic and sometimes radioactive, that cannot be properly treated in any wastewater treatment plant in Virginia. Testing, labeling, transportation, storage and disposal of such wastewater has presented huge problems in other states and must be addressed in Virginia’s regulations in consultation with the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and VDH. Permits for unconventional shale fracking must not be issued unless these public health and environmental risks have been fully addressed.
Regulations should provide similar protections to all Virginians. The Virginia Gas and Oil Act protects Tidewater Virginia from some of the risks associated with drilling, but these protections are not extended to the rest of the state. For example, drilling companies are required to follow “best practice” by safely disposing of drilling muds and cuttings (toxic drilling waste) in Tidewater, but are allowed to bury the waste on-site in western Virginia, despite the obvious risk that toxics will contaminate groundwater and land. There is no reason for this double-standard. Oil and gas drilling regulations should extend “best practice” protections to all Virginians, not just those in Tidewater.
Protective setbacks are an essential “best practice” missing from the proposed regulation. Given the risks inherent in drilling for oil and natural gas, wells and infrastructure need to be set far back from floodplains, public water supply watersheds, fisheries, schools, hospitals and other sensitive areas. Other states provide protective setback requirements in their regulations. Yet Virginia’s only requirement for wells is that they are a mere 200 feet from an occupied building. Much more protective setbacks are another “best practice” that Virginia should adopt.
Regulations must address serious air pollution caused by drilling operations. Pollution from methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, ozone, and other harmful gasses associated with shale drilling has been a major problem in states that allow shale drilling. Air pollution must be addressed by the regulations, as it is in other states. Moreover, testing for methane must continue for years after closing the well, because this potent greenhouse gas can leak from wells many years after the well is abandoned. EPA’s proposed regulations may provide a floor in this area, but are subject to litigation and other uncertainties. Virginia should provide higher and more certain standards.
State regulations should support local authority. State regulations should ensure that operators respect local land use and zoning ordinances by requiring certification of compliance by the operator. Operators should be required to certify that they are complying with all local, state and federal requirements at regular intervals, not just at the time they apply for a permit. Companies also should be required to report any violations of local, state and federal law to DMME promptly, along with a description of measures that will be taken to correct any errors or omissions. Pre-application meetings publicizing the drilling plans and inviting the public to ask questions should be required for all fracking proposals, not just those in the Tidewater area.
Other issues that could be addressed include:
Weak water testing requirements need to be strengthened. The regulations establish some baseline water testing and monitoring requirements, but only for groundwater, only within a quarter mile of the wellpad and only for a limited number of chemicals. There are no requirements to test surface water. Testing requirements stop 12 months after the well is completed, while other states such as Colorado require testing for five to six years. The regulations should be amended to provide “best practice” protection for Virginia’s groundwater and surface water supplies, including testing for all the chemicals used to frack the wells.
Water supply issues should be addressed. Shale fracking can require large quantities of water, putting local water supplies at risk. Identification of quantities and sources of water and permitting should be required. While some protections are provided for the Tidewater area, similar protections should be extended to western Virginia.
Bond requirements are inadequate. DMME does not require bonds that are sufficient to cover the costs of addressing major spills, blowouts, polluted aquifers, and other risks. DMME has promised to address bond requirements in a separate Guidance Document. This is an important issue to all Virginians concerned with the potential shifting of costs and risks from the drilling industry to state and local jurisdictions and landowners.
Ingredient disclosure should be strengthened. The regulations continue to provide companies with substantial latitude to conceal the identity of harmful ingredients of fracking fluids by claiming that they are proprietary, except under very limited emergency circumstances. Public disclosure of the identities of injected or spilled chemicals should be required.
Disposing of fracking waste in injection wells is strongly linked to earthquake risk and should not be allowed in seismically active regions of Virginia. This is especially true in light of the presence along fault lines in central Virginia of the North Anna Nuclear Generating Station, which suffered damage in Virginia’s 2011 earthquake.
Dear Sir/Madame,
Please accept my comments against fracking and my request that you do everything possible to protect our water supply from it. It scares me that apparently no one, other than the industry, really knows what is in the fracking fluids. It scares me that in those cases where law suits have resulted that "gag" agreements are put in place to keep others from knowing what has happened to their neighbors. I concerns me that our entire way of life in the Taylorsville Basin is surrounded by water related issues....whether you rely on ground water or make your living from the rivers and bay. Please put in place the most restrictive regulations possible. Once the damage is done it will be nearly impossible to fix it! The possible risk to all of us does not justify the possibly financial benefit to the few. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Fracking – the Energy Resource, the Region, and Regulations the 3-R's of Learning and the Taylorsville Basin
– J. Harrison Daniel, PhD, PE October 2015
Introductory Comment: The following is an overall discussion of fracking issues touching on both national and state issues, and the author's belief that fracking in the Coastal Plain Tidewater Region of Virginia should not be undertaken at the present time.
o Taylorsville Basin – the Energy Resource:
The decision to develop our natural resources needs to include evaluations of the need, the estimated recoverable reserves, the lifetime of the operations, effective regulations, enforcement and economics of inspections, and environmental concerns – a monumental task.
One cannot discuss fracking and oil and gas production without including the total energy picture of our country. Domestic production of oil and gas have dramatically increased since 2008 as a result of advanced shale fracking techniques. Along with this increase, our dependency on foreign oil has declined every year since its peak in 2005, and the trend is expected to continue. Further, the United States now leads the world in the production of both oil and gas.
All the energy sources – petroleum liquids, natural gas, coal, the many renewables, and nuclear – are dictated by geology, supply and technology. The resources are found worldwide , and their extraction and supply are products of advancing and new technologies that, over the long-term, become available worldwide. We have learned that the fear of “peak oil,” that is when the demand of an energy source exceeds its supply, is over.
Development of low-capacity, non-replaceable energy reserves is unwise. Assessments of the U.S. Geological Survey in 2011 estimated the total undiscovered gas resources of the Taylorsville Basin at 985 billion-cubic-feet with at least a 50% chance of recovery. (source: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3075/fs2012-3075.pdf )
In comparison, natural gas production in the Marcellus Region exceeded 15 billion-cubic-feet per day through July in 2014, the first time ever. The Region, mostly located in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, is the largest shale basin in the United States accounting for almost 40% of U.S. shale gas production. (source: the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Today in Energy -- August 5, 2014). This places the present estimates of natural gas recovery from the Taylorsville Basin equal to 66 days of the proven production from the Marcellus Basin.
o Virginia and the Tidewater Region:
Virginia is a very marginal player in the production of natural gas in the United States. Its contribution in 2013 was 139,382 million-cubic-feet, representing 0.46% of the U.S. total production of 30,005,254. The majority – 71% – of Virginia's annual production of natural gas, or 99,542 million-cubic-feet, came from coalbed methane gas, CBM, produced mainly from a handful of southwestern coal producing counties.
Natural gas, basically methane, is recovered from coal seams. tight shale deposits, and conventional gas deposits. Due to the different and varying geological formations they each require different extraction and production techniques and economics. Coal seams are much shallower and methane flows easily through the soft porous coal seams than in the dense tight-shale basins. These shale formations require much greater pressures to frack the strata allowing for gas migration. Water supply and quantities and pressures required to frack the dense strata and the additives necessary to keep the the fractures open are different for the coalbed and the shale operations – different mechanisms are involved, i.e., the geophysics, hydrogeology, fluid mechanics, and chemistry that govern the technologies.
Virginia is essentially a non-player in the production of crude oil with its 2014 annual production level of nine thousand barrels. The total U.S. annual crude oil production in 2014 was 3,168,233 thousand barrels. (eia data)
The Coastal Plain Tidewater Region of Virginia is an unique area dependent on two very long-term and sustainable industries – agriculture and seafood. These industries exist only with a guaranteed supply of uncontaminated clean water. Any heavy industrialized operation introduced into the region pose uncertainties to water supply and quality and will not provide economic benefits over the long-term as the energy resources are depleted.
o Regulations – Application, Implementation & Costs:
Laws, rules and regulations are enacted to help ensure the safety and health of both workers and the public, and to guarantee the protection of the environment for clean air, water and soil. They are defined in The Virginia Code – its Titles, Chapters and Sections. Over time and practice they are interpreted and modified to keep pace with advancing technology and social issues.
The formulation and the codification of the rules and regulations governing oil and gas operations are a challenging process as they need to keep pace with the rapidly advancing technology. Also challenging are the complex procedures and actions necessary to not only implement the mandated actions, but also to inspect and ensure compliance. Inspections and enforcement are costly and require trained personnel that posses technical knowledge and understanding of the operations and processes. Compliance with health, safety and environmental regulations demand on-site inspections of site characterization, construction quality control and continuous monitoring of water quality and supply – all specialized fields.
States, such as Pennsylvania, have had a long history of oil and gas production. Oil was first discovered in Oil Creek near Titusville, PA, in 1849, and today the state is a significant producer of natural gas. In 2013, its annual production of natural gas supplied 10.86% (3,259,042 million barrels) of the U.S. total output of 30,005,254 million barrels. 93.5% of Pennsylvania's production was from deep shale formations, which realized large increases starting in 2005. (eia data).
Pennsylvania is still undergoing regulatory reform. In July 2015, the Pennsylvania Department of the Auditor General issued a 146 page performance audit of the Department of Environmental Protection's Office to “[access] its ability to protect water quality in the wake of Pennsylvania’s shale gas boom.” The audit covered a four-year period from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2012. It contains eight findings that detail shortcomings of the regulatory functions and makes 29 recommendations of the findings. Interestingly, the Department of Environmental Protection disagreed with the eight findings, but it agreed with the majority of the recommendations presented to improve the situations, agreeing with 22 of the 29 presented. The document, “A Special Performance Audit – Department of Environmental Protection” is found at: http://www.paauditor.gov/Media/Default/Reports/speDEP072114.pdf .
Such evaluations and the experience and long-term knowledge of the oil and gas producing states show the evolution and requirements necessary to keep abreast of the technology and the effective implementation and economics of regulations and inspections. The audit illustrates the continuing efforts involved in regulating the industry even in states with a history of experience.
Virginia has had a history in the underground mining of coal, as well as in the rock quarrying and sand-and-gravel aggregate industries. The far southwestern coal producing counties have been involved with coalbed methane gas recovery since it's beginnings during the 1960's. However, Virginia does not have such a time-line and experience with the production, rule making, regulations and inspections of deep shale deposits of gas and oil .
Summary:
The past has has shown time and again the importance of science-based policy and sound regulations and enforcement. Their evolution is based on experience, enforcement by qualified professionals, and effective quality control to prevent the “cutting of corners” throughout the entire process of exploration, extraction, storage and transport.
The discussion highlights the following questions and issues:
Is the estimated capacity of the gas reserve large enough to merit development, and what would be its expected lifetime?
With the existing water supply and contamination problems of the Coastal Tidewater Area and its dependence on agriculture and seafood, is developing a “short-term” industry that requires significant water use and community and logistic changes a wise choice?
What are the costs, up-front and continuing, required of the local region, as well as the state, in assuring, with a high degree of confidence, that water supplies and quality and communities are not adversely affected? Sound regulations, professional inspections and enforcement and possible remediation are $$$.
Issues including the new and changing demands on the integrity, quality control and inspections of the much greater depths and lengths of well casings are required; the disclosure of all chemicals and compounds used in the fracking process have to be made available in order to asses health, safety and environmental issues; and the age-old problem of even if it can be done properly, will it be done properly? – regulations / inspections / remediation.
About the Author: J. Harrison Daniel holds a B.S. in mechanical engineering from Duke University, and a Ph.D. in mining engineering from the University of Idaho. A registered professional engineer, he has spent his career developing energy concepts, conducting research, and managing mining and minerals programs As a project engineer with the Department of Defense, he investigated advanced electric-power concepts, and with the U.S. Bureau of mines, he was a researcher and program manager.
I am in favor of greater transparency and the full disclosure of the ingredients used in hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking. Fracking has the potential to affect the quality of our water supply and the health of our residents. Horizontal hydro fracturing is a fairly new method and it has the potential to negatively impact an exponentially greater area. As such, greater precautions and oversight is required.
Years ago, I was looking into stocks and invents, I came across some articles about abstracting oil from the bedrocks in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming and other states that had this basin of oil rock. Back in the 1940s, stock was sold for this basin, only fools bought this stock, and at time there was no means of abstracting the oil from the rock. This became as known as oil sheal.
I remember this on article, that stated that, when a method is developed to abstract the oil from the rock basin it would be an enviromental disastered. Then came Dutch Oil Shell Corporation that devised a way to abstract the oil sheal. The process takes 55 million gallons of water to drill one well, while injecting these hazardous chemicals, to create a gas field. Then the water is pumped into a return well, Our Drinking Water.
The State of New York Ban Fracking, why not Virginia ? Last year King George County issued some permits for the fracking process and the well water was unfit to drink. I had my water tested and the Ph alone was high as 8.6. The ph in April 2014 was a perfect 7.0, now the water is fit to drink again, maybe the contamination has gone down futher towards the Northen Neck infecting Livestock and other people ?
These Gas fields do not last even 2 years in some cases and fracking also causes earth tremors, known to happen in Pennsylvania and other countries in the world.
I strongly urged The State of Virginia to bad this process within the State.
The Coastal Plain area in the State of Virginia, inclusive of King George County, comprises as area that has a one of kind natural environment consisting of that very fragile balance only nature can build. Because of this fragile balance, without stringent guidelines and powerful legislation, allowing the introduction of any manner of underground exploration for gas/oil, drilling, stimulating or fracking or other related processes almost certainly guarantees some measurable negative impact on the environment, the water quality, both coastal waters and the ground water depended upon by citizens for drinking water. Residents of King George (and other counties as well) depend on ONE SOURCE for our drinking water. It remains beyond the comprehension of many how any well informed person could possibly be in favor of allowing any action which could negatively impact our drinking water. Forget the monetary profits (SOME CANNOT), the impacts to infrastructure, the noise and other pollution, forget the reclamation costs, so of which may (and in fact WILL) be passed back to the taxpayer eventually on some level and examine the FACT that these proposed processes, if allowed, could horribly impact/contaminate/destroy our one and only water supply. And what shall we do when we cannot drink the water?
The modes of exploration, stimulation and extraction of gases and oils are not without harm. The chemicals used in the processes are often not identified, citing "proprietary formulas". Examine the human error component which further increases the probability of accidents in whatever form also must be considered. Along with many residents of King George County, I believe at this time no exploration, drilling, stimulation or fracking should be allowed. We do not know the impacts to our fragile, unique environment. We cannot be guaranteed our drinking water will be safe. The gas and oil companies can not and will not give citizens the guarantees. So the actions must be banned for now.
I am writing to express my concerns about the new proposed changes to Virginia's oil and gas regulations. I live in the region and work in Virginia's natural gas industry in Southwest Virginia. Burdensome regulations that do little, if anything, to improve safety, will hurt Virginia’s industry. I would like to remind you that these proposed regulations, some of which our industry has been supportive of, do have real consequences on our companies, jobs and families.
While I can support some of these regulations, I would like to point out that several of these proposed regulations do nothing more than solve hypothetical problems and add unnecessary costs to an industry operating with a proven safety and environmental record for decades.
Special interest groups whose sole purpose is to oppose fossil fuesl use are encouraging their members to write letters with views opposing mine and encouraging them to cite studies that have no credibility and that have been debunked as information and funding linking the authors to anti-fossil fuel groups has come out, forcing the study authors to acknowledge they cannot credibly link oil and gas activity to the concerns they cite in their studies.
I ask that you look at the actual proven FACTS as you move forward in this process. Look at the FACT that Virginia's natural gas industry has operated safely for more than 80 years. Please consider the FACT that the EPA, USGS, Yale, Harvard, Colorado State University, Syracuse, Stanford, and the California Council on Science & Technology have all confirmed the safety of hydraulic fracturing. Please consider the FACT that Virginia currently has strong regulations regarding casing and cementing requirements. Please consider the FACT that Virginia's natural gas and oil industry contributes approximately $12 billion and thousands of jobs to Virginia's economy. Please consider the FACT that in 2014 alone, Virginia’s natural gas industry produced enough fuel to power approximately 1.2 million households.
FACTS not HYPOTHETICALS need to govern this process. Regulations which do nothing more than solve hypothetical problems and add unnecessary costs to an industry operating with a proven safety and environmental record for decades can have an impact on thousands of very real Virginia jobs, and the very real families they support.
Please do whatever you can to stop the ACP from being build through the karst terrain of Augusta and Highland Counties. I know the DMME knows better. I cannot understant how this route proposal was allowed to get as far as it has. The breakthrough technology of today is solar and wind. Horizontal Fracturing is a destructive, gluttonous process and should not be pursued.
Disclosure of toxic chemicals used in fracking is simply not enough. The companies who want to frack in the Taylorsville Basin and anywhere else in Virginia are asking our citizens and communities to be a sacrifice zone for the benefit of shareholders. All fossil fuel must stay in the ground if we are going to avoid catastrophic climate change. Fracking was conceived and born in the dark back rooms of Halliburton's Dick Cheney. The damage done by Fracking across our country is really unfathomable, but let me name a few consequences. Contaminated ground water, earthquakes, methane release in the atmosphere, increased incidence of cancer and birth defects, increased accidents on rural roads, devastated rural landscapes marred by industrialization. You should be drafting regulations to ban Fracking. That is the only moral option.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Michael Skiffington
Regulatory Coordinator
FROM: Eric A. Gregory
County Attorney
DATE: December 2, 2015
RE: King George County Board of Supervisors’ Public comments concerning DMME’s Proposed Gas and Oil Regulation
Please accept the following comments submitted on behalf of the King George County Board of Supervisors:
Comment concerning DMME Proposed Gas and Oil Regulation
The King George County Board of Supervisors supports DMME's Proposed Virginia Gas and Oil Regulation (4 VAC 25-150) published on September 23, 2015, as an improvement upon the present regulation; however, the regulation must recognize and incorporate further amendments as submitted herein to better address public safety and environmental concerns. The King George County Board of Supervisors reiterates and affirms its comments submitted in response to DMME’s Notice of Intended Regulatory Action and notes that the regulation does not satisfactorily incorporate or address those comments. To that extent, the DMME should revisit those comments and take appropriate action to further amend the regulation in accordance therewith.
The Proposed Regulation seeks to ensure gas and oil regulation reflects current industry best practices; to expand disclosure of ingredients used in gas and oil well stimulation and completion on permitted and future gas and oil operations in the Commonwealth; and, to determine if current regulatory requirements are sufficient to properly regulate drilling in different geographical areas of the Commonwealth. In its analysis of the proposed Gas and Oil Regulation, the Virginia Department of Planning and Budget recognized that the benefits of the proposed changes likely exceed the costs.
Although the Proposed Regulation improves upon the presently applicable regulation in these important areas, the proposed regulation (1) fails to address or provide for potential impacts upon water quality and quantity concerns in the Eastern Virginia Groundwater Management Area; (2) fails to appropriately recognize the authority and role of local governments in exercising land use and zoning authority; (3) fails to recognize and properly memorialize the authority of the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality in the regulation and oversight of state waters, tributaries, and groundwater; and, (4) fails to provide for adequate financial assurance to provide for compliance with The Virginia Gas and Oil Act, specifically §§ 45.1-361.31 and 45.1-361.32 of the Code of Virginia.
The King George County Board of Supervisors submits these comments for the following reasons and may supplement these comments in the future:
In 2015, the General Assembly passed legislation (see Chapter 613 of the Virginia Acts of Assembly) establishing the Eastern Virginia Groundwater Management Advisory Committee to examine concerns associated with the present and long term sustainability of the EVGMA. Specifically the Advisory Committee will examine (i) options for developing long-term alternative water sources, (ii) issues concerning water demand, (iii) sustainable ground water management, (iv) future groundwater permitting criteria, and other policies and procedures to enhance the effectiveness of ground water management in the EVGMA.
Given the issues driving the formation of the Advisory Committee, the challenges associated with present and long-term management of, and the sensitivity of ground water resources within the EVGMA, and recognizing the large amounts of water necessary to conduct gas and oil drilling activities, particularly those associated with hydraulic fracturing, the Gas and Oil Regulation should be amended to address and mitigate impacts upon ground water resources within the EVGMA. Further study is necessary to better understand the Potomac Aquifer and its hydrology before informed decisions can be made concerning its management, particularly with regard to potentially significant withdrawals and other impacts from industrial oil and gas mining and hydraulic fracturing activities.
At minimum, the regulation should require the disclosure of water sources utilized for drilling and hydraulic fracturing activities and the proper treatment and disposition of waste or produced water from those activities so that waste or produced water does not impact the already fragile EVGMA. Such disclosures should include an analysis of impacts upon ground water, the Potomac Aquifer, and other affected users.
The Gas and Oil Regulation should explicitly recognize and respect local government authority and more appropriately involve local governments in the permitting and regulatory enforcement process. For instance, instead of merely notifying the local government of an application for a permit to conduct gas and oil drilling activities in the jurisdiction, the local government should be invited to actively participate in the permit application and review process. If a permit is issued, there should be a mechanism by which local governments may notify DMME of a permittee’s violation of a local ordinance or a provision of the Gas and Oil Act or Regulation. This mechanism must hold permittees accountable for compliance with local ordinances.
Recognizing that the Memorandum of Agreement sets forth a positive framework for inter-agency cooperation in the regulation of gas and oil drilling in Tidewater Virginia, but that the Agreement is subject to alteration, amendment, or rescission at any time, it is imperative that its provisions be made more resilient and therefore, the Gas and Oil Regulation should be amended to incorporate the provisions of the Agreement.
Given the real and potential impact of abandoned gas or oil wells, the potential negligence associated therewith, and the costs associated with mitigation of environmental impacts, bonding and financial securing requirements should be increased, with particular regard to those required for gas or oil wells permitted in Tidewater Virginia to address potential costly ground and surface water impacts. Present bonding requirements are inadequate and should be expanded to address and provide for potential costs incurred by local governments in dealing with abandoned wells.
This proposal is reasonable and well justified, particularly when considering the Virginia Department of Planning and Budget’s Economic Impact Analysis and its conclusion that the benefits of DMME’s proposed regulation likely exceed the costs and that additional reporting costs on regulated operators are expected to be small. Given the minimal impacts of expanding the Gas and Oil Regulation, increasing bonding and financial security provisions should not have a negative impact upon the industry.
[1] Sediment Distribution and Hydrologic Conditions of the Potomac Aquifer in Virginia and Parts of Maryland and North Carolina, Scientific Investigations Report 2013-5116, U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, prepared in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, E. Randy McFarland (2013).
Dear Sirs/Madams,
Please take the following comments into consideration for regulating the oil industry and the business of hydraulic fracturing in the Taylorsville Basin (especially in the Northern Neck of Virginia).
First, the Northern Neck is an inappropriate location because of the proximity to the Rappahannock and Potomac Rivers that flow into the United States' largest estuary - the Chesapeake Bay. Because of this unique geography, it is imperative that the oil industry disclose the ingredients/chemicals which the industry pumps into the ground and manage above the ground in "holding ponds/pits". Please draft the most stringent regulations so that the general public has the right to have knowledge of those chemicals that are hazardous to their health and to other living things and ecosystems. Because I have grave concerns that "fracking" will inevitably have an adverse impact on sustainable water supplies, I am against permitting hydraulic fracturing.
Lastly, I do not believe that it is possible to adequately monitor hydraulic fracturing to prevent accidents. To permit "fracking" in order for so few to acquire financial gain would be impudent and reckless.
Thank you for your time and consideration on this most important matter.
A signed paper copy of the CONSOL Energy Inc. comment letter was sent via mail on December 4, 2015. The signed copy is our official submittal. The electronic submittal was not possible due to the limit on characters.
Regards,
Steven A. Buffone, QEP
Regulatory Affairs Supervisor
CONSOL Energy Inc.
1000 CONSOL Energy Drive
Canonsburg, Pa. 15317
Office Phone: 724-485-3037
Cell Phone: 330-717-4061
King George County Joshua Colwell, Chairman
Planning Commission Karla Frank, Vice Chairman
10459 Courthouse Drive, Suite 104
King George, VA 22485
540-775-7111 (Office)
Memorandum
TO: Michael A. Skiffington, Policy and Planning Manager, Dept. of Mines, Minerals and Energy
FROM: Josh Colwell, King George County, Virginia Planning Commission Chairman
DATE: December 4, 2015
SUBJECT: Comments on DMME Draft Regulations on Oil and Gas Drilling
Dear Mr. Skiffington,
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this issue which is of great importance to the Citizens of King George County, Virginia. At the November 2, 2015 Public Hearing hosted by the UMW Dahlgren campus, King George County Planning Commission Chairman Josh Colwell spoke on behalf of the Planning Commission and provided comments for the record.
The King George County, Virginia Planning Commission would like to reiterate those comments and provide them in writing to the DMME.
In 2014, the King George County Board of Supervisors requested the Planning Commission to review the existing County Ordinances and provide a report with recommendations on strengthening the Ordinances regarding oil and gas drilling. The Planning Commission reviewed the County ordinances related to oil and gas drilling under its authority to regulate local land use pursuant to Va. Code § 15.2-2280. The Planning Commission completed the review and provided its primary recommendation with 2 additional options to the Board of Supervisors. Those recommendations have been incorporated into proposed Ordinance Amendments which are in a draft state pending further review and action by the Board of Supervisors.
During the Ordinance review, the Planning Commission discussed concerns with several additional issues related to oil and gas drilling which are clearly outside its authority but are within the jurisdiction of DMME. Those issues along with the concerns raised by the Planning Commission are as follows;
1. Disclosure of Chemicals used in Oil and Gas Drilling
The Planning Commission discussed this issue at length and felt that there must be full disclosure of all chemicals used during all phases of oil and gas drilling and production. This is especially important in the Tidewater region where there will be drilling in close proximity to, or through the aquifer. In the event that there is contamination to the aquifer, there must be full knowledge of all chemical used. Additionally, in the event of chemical spills or industrial accidents, victims and first responders must have full knowledge of all chemicals used. Disclosure of all chemicals can be accomplished by any means including the use of NDA’s or PIA’s.
2. Open Pits
The Planning Commission discussed this issue at length and felt that open pits should not be permitted in the Tidewater region and that only closed storage should be allowed. The main reasons are the risks of contamination from overflow and/or breaching of the pit resulting in exposure to chemicals. Additionally, it was felt that open pits should not be permitted because the typical reclamation methods used (on open pits) are not desirable in the Tidewater region due the proximity to the Bay, its rivers, tributaries, streams, and extensive marsh and wetland habitats.
3. Different regulations in different parts of the state
The Planning Commission felt that the Tidewater region is different than other parts of the state and that different regulations should apply. The Tidewater region is part of the coastal plain and is criss-crossed by bay’s, rivers, tributaries, and extensive wetland networks, and is very different geology than Western Virginia. For these reasons, the Tidewater region should have unique regulations.
4. Bond Requirements for oil and gas drilling
The Planning Commission discussed this issue at length and felt that felt that the existing minimum Bond value of $25,000 is wholly inadequate given the unique nature of the Tidewater region and the underlying aquifer. Since the aquifer is such a vital resource, its contamination by oil and gas drilling would have devastating and dire consequences which would be irreversible. Since the value of the aquifer is “priceless”, bond requirements should at a minimum be in the Millions (10’s-100’s of millions?) or Billions.
5. Baseline Water Testing
The Planning Commission discussed this issue and felt that felt that there should be more rigorous baseline water testing and monitoring. Testing should be performed by certified testers which are independent from the Oil and Gas companies.
6. Wastewater Disposal
The Planning Commission discussed this issue and felt that there should be tightened regulations governing the disposal of oil and gas drilling wastewater, or any liquid waste. The disposal of liquid wastes from oil and gas drilling should be further regulated and the spreading of these materials on roadways, forests, and agricultural land should not be permitted.
7. Compressor Stations, Processing Facilities, Scrubbers
The Planning Commission discussed this issue and felt that there should be tightened regulations governing the siting, hours of operation, noise limits, and lighting of Compressor Stations, Processing Facilities, and Scrubbers used in the exploration and production of oil and gas in the Tidewater region.
The King George County Planning Commission would like to thank the DMME for the opportunity to provide comments on this issue which is of great importance to the Citizens of King George County, Virginia. Please contact us if there are questions or if anything additional is required.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua L. Colwell
Planning Commission Chairman
King George County, Virginia
Fracking has been proven to be a safe procedure and is responsible for our gasoline prices for being so low.
as well a boost to employment and should be supported at every opportunity.
.
Of the many concerns with the possible hydraulic fracturing in the Taylorsville Basin, a major one is the protection of the freshwater aquifers that supply the residents, farmers and businesses of the tidewater region. In the paper, Hydraulic Fracture-Height Growth: Real Data, the authors suggest a safe separation distance of 600 meters between an aquifer and fracked wellbore. But these authors and others also recognize this “safe” distance can change depending on the unique properties of different geologic settings. I suggest that DMME require that in any hydraulic fracture operation, the location of the leading edge of the fractures be monitored in real time. And if the fracture is observed to be getting close to the aquifers, then the hydraulic fracture operation be stopped to protect the freshwater aquifers from any potential contamination.
1. http://www.academia.edu/6688184/SPE_145949_Hydraulic_Fracture-Height_Growth_Real_Data, Kevin Fisher and Norm Warpinski
Michael Skiffington
Regulatory Coordinator
Department of Mines, Minerals and Energy
1100 Bank Street, 8th Floor
Richmond, VA 23219-3402
Dear Mr. Skiffington:
On behalf of the members and directors of the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League (“BREDL”), I offer the following comments on the proposed changes to 4-VAC-25-150. A full version of our comments has been submitted to your email at 11:29 p.m. on Dec 4, 2015.
It is our understanding that the purpose of this regulatory action is to ensure the gas and oil regulation reflects current industry best practices and to expand disclosure of ingredients used in gas and oil well stimulation and completion on permitted gas and oil operations in the Commonwealth. It is also stated that the existing regulation will be reviewed to determine if current requirements are sufficient to properly regulate drilling in different geographical areas of the Commonwealth.
BREDL asserts that the current proposed regulations and amendments are pitifully inadequate to protect against the myriad of well-documented harmful effects occurring in other parts of the country due to hydraulic fracturing. Given the track record of the drilling industry at large (which must be taken into consideration given its expanse and influence on current practices), the continuation and expansion of fracking in the Commonwealth of Virginia would result in the degradation of human health, community, and environment. In particular, the unique geological characteristics of the Taylorsville Basin region under consideration for new gas exploration combined with the increasing risk of flooding, sea level rise, and other interweaving factors stemming from the continued greenhouse gas emissions, presents a unique threat and dangers to those living in the Virginia Coastal Plains. We resolve that this threat must be addressed comprehensively and that it cannot be adequately mitigated through the existing draft regulations.
Objections to the Fracking Process Overall
The most immediate issues that make fracking such a dangerous endeavor to communities are 1) the large volume of fresh water that is wasted in the fracking process, 2) the list of chemicals still unknown to the public that is mixed with fresh water to produce fracking fluid, and 3) the poor industry standards of practice which result in spillage, leaks, and outright dumping of chemically-laced toxic wastewater onto the immediate environment. The amendments to the regulations attempt to address the issue of chemical disclosure but do not explicitly provide for full disclosure of chemicals, solvents, nor their exact quantities for mixture at each wellhead. This information is imperative to knowing what is contaminating a community’s rivers, streams, wells, and groundwater in the common event of spills and leaks into the environment. Furthermore, the suggestion by industry representatives to use the Fracfocus website for public disclosure is akin to self-regulation, and without being subject to federal and state public information law and providing full disclosure of ingredients and site-specific quantities, this attempt at regulation has no teeth.
The Potomac Aquifer and Land Subsidence
The issue of land subsidence due to water withdrawal from underground aquifers is of particular significance to the Tidewater region, including the lands under consideration for new fracking in the Taylorsville Basin. Land subsidence consists of an ongoing settling or abrupt dropping of the Earth's surface due to underground movement of earth materials. According to the U.S. Geological Survey: “More than 80 percent of the identified subsidence in the Nation is a consequence of our exploitation of underground water, and the increasing development of land and water resources threatens to exacerbate existing land-subsidence problems and initiate new ones. “[1]
The fracking process, as explained above, uses a tremendous amount of water which is then rendered unfit for other utilization. Considering the amount of water that fracking requires, and the fact that this water would most likely be pumped from the Potomac Aquifer underneath which the Taylorsville Basin lies, would mean increased risk for an area already prone to land subsidence. The Tidewater area is under significant threat of increased sea level rise due to melting glaciers and previous land subsidence from groundwater withdrawal. A 2013 report by the US Geological Survey states that “When groundwater is pumped from an aquifer system, pressure decreases. The pressure change is reflected by water levels in wells, with water levels decreasing as aquifer-system pressure decreases. This is happening over most of the southern Chesapeake Bay region, with the greatest water-level decreases seen near the pumping centers of Franklin and West Point, Virginia. As water levels decrease, the aquifer system compacts, causing the land surface above to subside. Water levels have decreased over the entire Virginia Coastal Plain in the Potomac aquifer, which is the deepest and thickest aquifer in the southern Chesapeake Bay region and supplies about 75 percent of groundwater withdrawn from the Virginia Coastal Plain aquifer system.”[2]
BREDL shares the concerns that have been expressed by residents of the Middle Peninsula and Northern Neck regarding excessive water level decline in aquifers. But the concerns do not end with land subsidence. When Mathews County passed a resolution in March of 2015 asking that the state restrict fracking operations from taking place in and near critical aquifers, many residents and local government officials expressed concern that accelerated pumping of underground aquifers could result in decreased water pressure and an increased flow of salt water from the Chesapeake Bay impact crater into fresh water aquifers. There is great concern that there will come a time in the near future when no more additional ground withdrawals can be permitted. The Service Authority, which has jurisdiction over the water/sewer system, the landfill regulators and the stormwater management plans have all demonstrated an effort to be good stewards with regards to the Chesapeake Bay Watershed. They are concerned that DMME is not displaying the same regard for their only source of drinking water. BREDL shares their concerns and insists that communities who stand to be impacted by the harmful effects of fracking be allowed to prohibit it in their communities if they deem necessary.
Though identifying, publicizing and addressing the myriad of health concerns regarding chemicals used in fracking is of critical importance, it cannot and will not address the exponential damage that would be done by furthering the problem of land subsidence by withdrawing vast amounts of water to use for fracking.
Flooding/Sea Level Rise Considerations
Because the areas currently under consideration for fracking are also areas prone to flooding, there are special considerations for the potential damage that fracking would cause in the coastal region of Virginia.
Flooding in areas where fracking is taking place could be devastating to the groundwater in the surrounding area and consequently the Chesapeake Bay. According to the Center for Coastal Resources Management: “Effectively managing flooding requires that flood risk be a consideration at all levels of planning. The challenge for appropriate flood management planning is to reduce risks to people, property and ecosystems associated with existing development while managing or preventing new development in high risk areas.”
The risk of flooding is of even greater concern due to the prevalence of extreme weather and the likelihood that flooding risks will increase exponentially due to the effects of climate change. Recently it was noted that: “Hampton Roads is considered a hot spot for sea level rise, and the second most-vulnerable region in the country to rising seas, behind New Orleans. The rate of rise here is more severe in part because of land subsidence caused by glacial rebound and the loss of groundwater.”[3]
“Every year, weather-related disasters injure or kill hundreds of Americans and cause billions of dollars in damage. Many of the risks posed by extreme weather will likely increase in a warming world. Scientists have already noted increases in extreme precipitation and heat waves as global warming raises temperatures and exacerbates weather extremes.”[4]
BREDL asserts that the wise management of our water resources should be of utmost consideration. The cascading and interweaving effects of increased groundwater pumping leading to increased land subsidence, increased greenhouse gas emissions leading to increased sea level rise, and the compounding dangers that increased flooding and erosion would have on the very drilling operations in question in this region of the Commonwealth, make the question of fracking in Virginia’s Coastal Plain a scenario fraught with risk.
Existing Fracking in Virginia
While the above issues deal most directly with the unique geological conditions of the Taylorsville Basin and Virginia Coastal Plains, the broader pervasive issues of water contamination from unknown chemicals and poor industry management and regulation hold true for any region under threat from fracking. Recent reports from citizens in far Southwest Virginia, where fracking is already happening, call into question the adequacy and efficacy of current drilling regulations.
Some of these reports from residents of Buchanan and Dickenson Counties already include incidents of contaminated drinking water. Citizens reported that “Water was
murky and had oily films, black sediments, methane, and diesel odors. Individuals experienced rashes from showering. The Buchanan Citizens Action Group reported over 100 documented complaints of adverse effects of hydraulic fracturing and the Dickenson County Citizens Committee reported ground water quality deteriorated throughout the county as a result of the large number of hydraulic fracturing events.”[5]
It is of great concern that not all of the negative effects from fracking activity have been accurately documented. Sheila McClanahan from the Buchanan Citizens Action Group says that though citizens have reported more than 100 documented complaints to the state, many have “allegedly been intentionally misclassified and filed as impacts of long-wall coal mining.” Additional reports from Dickenson County Citizens Committee claim that “ground water quality has deteriorated throughout the county as a result of the large number of coalbed methane well hydraulic fracturing events. Only 40% of the county is served by public water.”[6]
Protecting the Health and Safety of our Children
We must, above all else, protect the health and well-being of our children. The EPA has established guidelines in its Final Rule regarding Executive Order 13045: “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” concluding that: “The agency has evaluated the environmental health and welfare effects of climate change on children. CO2 is a potent GHG that contributes to climate change and is emitted in significant quantities by fossil fuel-fired power plants. The EPA believes that the CO2 emission reductions resulting from implementation of these final guidelines, as well as substantial ozone and PM2.5 emission reductions as a cobenefit, will further improve children’s health.”[7]
President Clinton issued Executive Order 13045 in April 1997, establishing the President’s Task Force on Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks to Children.[8] In 2010, the Obama Administration charged the Task Force with:
The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency co-chair the Task Force. A senior staff steering committee coordinates interagency cooperation on Task Force priority areas. To date, these include:
The Task Force is comprised of representatives of 17 federal departments and White House offices. Each representative from this task force must be consulted and those consultations must include recommendations that must be considered before any decision is made regarding these regulations in order to accurately identify and address potential harm to children.
For example, developmental issues often occur when children or embryos are exposed to toxic industrial chemicals. According to a recent study:
“Because of the extraordinary complexity of human brain development, windows of unique susceptibility to toxic interference arise that have no counterpart in the mature brain, or in any other organ. If a developmental process in the brain is halted or inhibited, there is little potential for later repair, and the consequences can therefore be permanent.”[9]
The most heartbreaking part of this study is that it found that, according to one of the authors of the study: “The brains of our children are our most precious economic resource, and we haven’t recognized how vulnerable they are,” says Grandjean. “We must make protection of the young brain a paramount goal of public health protection. You have only one chance to develop a brain.”[10]
In order to take into account all of the substantial risks to the health and safety of our children, we must include the evidence that natural gas and the risks associated with the fracking of natural gas have a significantly harmful affect on health and well-being and construct our plan for the future of energy production accordingly. The fracking process includes a multitude of aspects that would be harmful to our children, born and unborn, and each of those aspects must be explicitly explored, addressed and mitigated in order for any such project to proceed with integrity.
Water Contamination
There are several mechanisms by which fracking can contaminate drinking water resources.[11] Among them are overland flow to nearby surface water, soil contamination and eventual transport to surface water, and infiltration and contamination of underlying ground water. In a recent study, the EPA examined 151 spills from fracking operations. Of the spills characterized in its study, fluids reached surface water in 9 percent of cases and soil in 64 percent of cases.[12] If a spill does occur, there is a 64% chance that the fluid—laced with additives that have unknown environmental impacts—will contaminate the surrounding soil.
Once a spill has occurred, the contaminants may percolate through the soil and could, ultimately, reach ground water. It may take several years, however, for spilled fluids to infiltrate soil and leach into groundwater. Therefore, it may not be immediately apparent whether a spill has reached the ground water or not. It is imperative that we continue to view groundwater contamination as a serious risk associated with hydraulic fracking.
The vast majority of incidents of water contamination are due to the inadequate cement casing of fracked wells (also called wellbores). This allows natural gas and fracking fluid to migrate into groundwater zones. In fact, a 2014 study in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, done by Duke and several other universities, found that faulty well integrity—namely, poor casing and cementing—is the primary cause of drinking water contamination from shale gas extraction.
Most wells used in hydraulic fracturing operations have casings and a layer of cement to protect drinking water, however, there is an alarmingly large number of exceptions. A survey conducted by the EPA estimated that at least 3 percent of wells fractured by nine oil and gas service companies in 2009 and 2010 did not have cement casings.[13] This means that escaped fluids have fewer barriers to travel through to reach ground water resources. And while 3 percent may seem like a small fraction of wells, when the sample in question contains upwards of 20,000 wells, 3 percent amounts to 600 wells and over 600 communities at risk.
It is BREDL’s assertion that all water must be protected. It is inconceivable that fracking could proceed in the Commonwealth of Virginia without causing serious harm to our precious and irreplaceable water resources.
Summary
Natural gas carries with it an array of negative environmental, economic, health, and legal ramifications. Tenuous federal standards and surveillance make this billion-dollar industry exceedingly dangerous and detrimental to United States citizens. Every stage in the natural gas extraction process exposes the surrounding air and groundwater to dozens of deleterious pollutants. What is more, the transportation of natural gas via interstate pipelines not only causes further noise and chemical pollution, but so too does it infringe on the property rights of United States citizens. Natural gas threatens the wellbeing of the economy, the environment, and all of its inhabitants.
Countless landowners have been harmed by fracking. In addition to encroaching on property rights, gas development sites are increasingly popping up in public forestlands, once again demonstrating the corruption of power that private corporations exert over not only vulnerable communities and landowners, but also our shared commons.
The currently proposed regulations for oil and gas drilling in Virginia would not protect citizens from even the most minor effects of this hazardous practice. They would instead allow a cascading series of harmful practices to compound already existing realities of climate change, sea level rise, land subsidence, and green house gas emissions that would have game-changing effects on the state of Virginia as a whole.
BREDL acts in the public interest
The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League was founded in 1984 as a non-profit, independent non-governmental organization. The League is a 501(c)(3) corporation with members, chapters and projects in seven states: Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi. The organization’s mission is the protection of the natural environment and public health.
Respectfully,
Whitney Whiting
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
www.BREDL.org PO Box 88 Glendale Springs, North Carolina 28629 BREDL@skybest.com (336) 982-2691
[1] http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/subsidence.html
[2] Eggleston, Jack, and Pope, Jason, 2013, Land subsidence and relative sea-level rise in the southern Chesapeake Bay region: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1392, 30 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/cir1392
[3] http://www.dailypress.com/news/science/dp-nws-evg-extreme-weather-map-20151128-story.html
[4] http://environmentamerica.org/page/ame/hitting-close-home-global-warming-fueling-extreme-weather-across-us
[5] http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/incidents_where_hydraulic_frac.html
[6] http://artvoice.com/issues/v9n25/fracking
[7] Pg. 1435: http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/cpp-final-rule.pdf
[8] http://www2.epa.gov/children/presidents-task-force-environmental-health-and-safety-risks-children#taskforcemembers
[9] “Developmental neurotoxicity of industrial chemicals,” by Prof P Grandjean MD and Prof PJ Landrigan MD. The Lancet, November 8, 2006- Vol. 368
[10] http://archive.sph.harvard.edu/press-releases/2006-releases/press11072006.html
[11] EPA. "Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources." June 1, 2015.
[12] Ibid.
[13] EPA. "Assessment of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas on Drinking Water Resources." June 1, 2015. Accessed July 14, 2015.
