|
Commission continues fracking regs work AOGCC takes more testimony on revised fracking regulations; industry says too much, cites security issues; critics say too little Kristen Nelson Petroleum News
Too far and not far enough is what the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission heard at a Sept. 23 hearing in Anchorage on the agency’s revision of its proposed regulations for hydraulic fracturing.
The commission proposed changes and took public comment in April; it published a revision of the proposal in early August and was taking public comments on the revised proposal.
Industry — represented by the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, Hilcorp and an attorney for Halliburton — detailed problems it would have in complying with the proposed regulations, while an attorney for the Wilderness Society, speaking for a group of environmental organizations, praised the commission for changes which stiffen the regulations compared to the original proposal, but said the commission’s revised proposal did not go far enough.
AOGA recommends exemption Kara Moriarty, executive director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, told commissioners that while AOGA’s 15 members are supportive of chemical disclosure, the proposed regulations attempt to address misconceptions rather than issues. She said additional costs resulting from the regulations could frustrate development of some wells and characterized public concern about groundwater contamination from fracking as not supported by evidence.
The proposed regulations provide no trade secret protection, Moriarty said, and are some of the most stringent of any state. Referring to water well sampling required in the proposal, she said AOGA recommends an exemption for wells, such as those on the North Slope, which are far from freshwater aquifers.
Concern for Cook Inlet Keith Elliott, south Kenai asset team leader for Hilcorp, which operates in Cook Inlet, said the regulations had the potential to impact cost — as well as the pace — of natural gas development in Southcentral Alaska. He said Hilcorp hasn’t yet fracked, but expects fracking to be a cornerstone of future operations, and said it should have no potential to do damage because of the commission’s strict well construction requirements and the depth, 6,000 to 8,000 feet. The fractures would not extend to groundwater aquifers, he said.
Water sampling required in the proposed regulations would have a significant cost, he said, citing the one-half mile radius specified in the revised regulations (the original called for one-quarter mile), the number of water wells and issues with identifying them. In an area Hilcorp looked at, he said, there were 37 wells, although Department of Natural Resources records showed only 12.
Trade secret concern Louann Cutler, an attorney with K&L Gates representing Halliburton, cited lack of trade secret protection. Without explicit trade secret protection, she said, the regulations would likely impact what products Halliburton offered in the state. It’s an incredibly competitive business, she said, with lots of time and money spent developing additives used in fracturing.
Without explicit trade secret protection, she said, the risk was that competitors could reverse engineer additives.
It’s not that Halliburton is refusing to play ball, she said, just that it would have difficulty providing its “crown jewels,” the newest and most environmentally friendly products, in Alaska without trade secret protection.
FracFocus There is an online database of hydraulic fracturing additives, FracFocus, but attorney E. Barrett Ristroph, speaking on behalf of the Wilderness Society and other environmental organizations, said they didn’t want to see exclusive reliance on FracFocus because that website isn’t set up so that records can be merged by public users; she also cited mistakes on the website.
Ristroph said the Wilderness Society wanted to see full disclosure of fracturing chemicals and concentrations.
She said they were concerned by the broad scope of variance and waiver provided in the proposed regulations and said revisions in the proposed regulations didn’t address all the concerns they expressed in previous comments.
Commission Chair Cathy Foerster said the record would be left open for three weeks for additional information. She said that if the commission makes substantial changes in the proposed regulations it will issue a public notice and provide another chance to comment.
|
