|
AOGCC hears comments on frack regs Oil industry expresses concerns about need, cost and practicality; environmentalists say rules don’t go far enough to address issues Alan Bailey Petroleum News
Having published a third draft of its proposed new regulations governing hydraulic fracturing in Alaska, on Jan. 15 the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, or AOGCC, held a public hearing to listen to public comments on the draft regulations. During the hearing, Kara Moriarty, president and CEO of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, an Alaska oil industry trade association, said that, while the members of her organization support reasonable regulation, the member companies also worry about the potential cost to the industry of implementing the regulations.
“Absent further changes, the proposed regulations will result in substantial costs that could cause some wells, especially in the Cook Inlet, to be adversely affected and thus frustrate the development of overall production in Alaska and production in an area that’s vital to providing necessary natural gas for the residents of Southcentral Alaska,” Moriarty said.
Barrett Ristroph, Arctic program representative for the Wilderness Society, presented comments from a number of environmental organizations and particularly focused on concerns about the need for public information about chemicals in the fluids used for hydraulic fracturing, should these chemicals stray into people’s water supplies.
“We believe that chemical information is really critical to allow health professionals and emergency responders to make the accurate diagnoses that they need to make proper treatment,” Ristroph said.
Not new in Alaska Oil companies have been conducting hydraulic fracturing in wells in Alaska to stimulate oil production from oil fields since the early days of the oil industry in the state. But the recent upsurge in the use of the technique for shale oil and shale gas development in North America has led to a parallel upsurge in concerns about the potential environmental risks associated with the technique. AOGCC rules for assuring safety in hydraulic fracturing operations are embedded in the commission’s current regulations. But, with the future possibility of shale oil development in Alaska, and with several states developing new regulations for shale oil and gas development, AOGCC is developing specific regulations for hydraulic fracturing in Alaska.
And, having now reached the third draft of those regulations, the commission says that it may adopt the regulations, with or without further modification, or that it may decide to take no further action.
The proposed regulations include: notification of landowners, surface owners and operators within one-half mile of wellbore trajectory; pre and post hydraulic fracturing water well water sampling and analysis; disclosure of chemical makeup of hydraulic fracturing fluids; wellbore integrity; containment of hydraulic fracturing fluids; and casing and cementing.
Unsubstantiated concerns In written testimony to AOGCC, the Alaska Oil and Gas Association said that unsubstantiated public concerns were triggering the promulgation of new hydraulic fracturing regulations in a number of states. The association cited several studies conducted by organizations such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Groundwater Protection Agency, researching whether hydraulic fracturing poses any environmental threat.
“To put it quite simply, these studies have found that hydraulic fracturing, particularly as it is implemented in Alaska, does not pose any harm to the environment,” the association wrote.
Moriarty, in her testimony, commented that well water sampling requirements in the proposed regulations are significantly more stringent than in other states and could, without risk, be made less onerous.
“In Alaska fractures are targeted at areas thousands of feet below any freshwater aquifers” and pose no risk to Alaska’s water resources, Moriarty said.
Moriarty also requested that public reporting of hydraulic fracturing information be done through a system called FracFocus that is used in the Lower 48, and not through some dual system developed for Alaska. She also raised some questions over the potential for inconsistencies in some of the water testing results — there are no Alaska facilities capable of doing some of the testing required, she said. In addition, some of the regulations relating to the notification of any environmental contamination require clarification, she said.
Saying that there is a lack of information about the impact of fracking on Alaska rock formations, Bob Shavelson, executive director of Cook Inletkeeper, a Cook Inlet-based conservation organization, argued for more research into the environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing. Shavelson said that people in the area of the Kenai Peninsula where he lives, an area with active gas drilling, worry about the possible contamination of water wells.
Trade secrets Ristroph questioned a provision within the proposed regulations that would allow companies to exempt from public disclosure information that they view as constituting a trade secret. This issue particularly arises in relation to chemicals used in hydraulic fluids — companies may view some of the chemicals that they use as providing a competitive advantage in their fracking operations.
Rebecca Noblin, Alaska director for the Center for Biological Diversity, also picked up on the trade-secrets issue.
“Fracking poses a danger to public health and the environment and if it’s allowed the public must be granted full access to the data so as to prevent or avoid those harms as much as possible,” Noblin said.
Commission Chair Cathy Foerster commented that there are existing state statutes for resolving trade secrets claims.
Saying that there are many issues associated with fracking, including the emission of dangerous air pollutants; water pollution; the consumption of large quantities of water and high rates of natural gas leakage, Noblin told the commissioners that the Center for Biological Diversity favors a complete ban on hydraulic fracturing in Alaska.
“In other words, the practice that’s been going on for 40 years we should now ban?” asked Commissioner John Norman.
“Correct,” Noblin replied. “We’re looking for a ban on the practice of hydraulic fracturing, because of all the dangers associated with it.”
| 