Regulation of fracking

Last updated

Countries using or considering to use fracking have implemented different regulations, including developing federal and regional legislation, and local zoning limitations. [1] [2] In 2011, after public pressure France became the first nation to ban hydraulic fracturing, based on the precautionary principle as well as the principal of preventive and corrective action of environmental hazards. [3] [4] [5] [6] The ban was upheld by an October 2013 ruling of the Constitutional Council. [7] Some other countries have placed a temporary moratorium on the practice. [8] Countries like the United Kingdom and South Africa, have lifted their bans, choosing to focus on regulation instead of outright prohibition. [9] [10] Germany has announced draft regulations that would allow using hydraulic fracturing for the exploitation of shale gas deposits with the exception of wetland areas. [11]

Contents

The European Union has adopted a recommendation for minimum principles for using high-volume hydraulic fracturing. [12] Its regulatory regime requires full disclosure of all additives. [13] In the United States, the Ground Water Protection Council launched FracFocus.org, an online voluntary disclosure database for hydraulic fracturing fluids funded by oil and gas trade groups and the U.S. Department of Energy. [14] [15] Hydraulic fracturing is excluded from the Safe Drinking Water Act's underground injection control's regulation, except when diesel fuel is used. The EPA assures surveillance of the issuance of drilling permits when diesel fuel is employed. [16]

On 17 December 2014, New York state issued a statewide ban on hydraulic fracturing, becoming the second state in the United States to issue such a ban after Vermont. [17]

Approaches

Risk-based approach

The main tool used by this approach is risk assessment. A risk assessment method, based on experimenting and assessing risk ex-post, once the technology is in place. In the context of hydraulic fracturing, it means that drilling permits are issued and exploitation conducted before the potential risks on the environment and human health are known. The risk-based approach mainly relies on a discourse that sacralizes technological innovations as an intrinsic good, and the analysis of such innovations, such as hydraulic fracturing, is made on a sole cost-benefit framework, which does not allow prevention or ex-ante debates on the use of the technology. [18] This is also referred to as "learning-by-doing". [19] A risk assessment method has for instance led to regulations that exist in the hydraulic fracturing in the United States (EPA will release its study on the effect of hydraulic fracturing on groundwater in 2014, though hydraulic fracturing has been used for more than 60 years. Commissions that have been implemented in the US to regulate the use of hydraulic fracturing have been created after hydraulic fracturing had started in their area of regulation. This is for instance the case in the Marcellus shale area where three regulatory committees were implemented ex-post. [20]

Academic scholars who have studied the perception of hydraulic fracturing in the North of England have raised two main critiques of this approach. Firstly, it takes scientific issues out of the public debate since there is no debate on the use of a technology but on its effects. Secondly, it does not prevent environmental harm from happening since risks are taken then assessed instead of evaluated then taken as it would be the case with a precautionary approach to scientific debates. The relevance and reliability of risk assessments in hydraulic fracturing communities has also been debated amongst environmental groups, health scientists, and industry leaders. A study has epitomized this point: the participants to regulatory committees of the Marcellus shale have, for a majority, raised concerns about public health although nobody in these regulatory committees had expertise in public health. That highlights a possible underestimation of public health risks due to hydraulic fracturing. Moreover, more than a quarter of the participants raised concerns about the neutrality of the regulatory committees given the important weigh of the hydraulic fracturing industry. [20] The risks, to some like the participants of the Marcellus Shale regulatory committees, are overplayed and the current research is insufficient in showing the link between hydraulic fracturing and adverse health effects, while to others like local environmental groups the risks are obvious and risk assessment is underfunded. [19]

Precaution-based approach

The second approach relies on the precautionary principle and the principal of preventive and corrective action of environmental hazards, using the best available techniques with an acceptable economic cost to insure the protection, the valuation, the restoration, management of spaces, resources and natural environments, of animal and vegetal species, of ecological diversity and equilibriums. [6] The precautionary approach has led to regulations as implemented in France and in Vermont, banning hydraulic fracturing. [5] [21]

Such an approach is called upon by social sciences and the public as studies have shown in the North of England and Australia. [18] [19] Indeed, in Australia, the anthropologist who studied the use of hydraulic fracturing concluded that the risk-based approach was closing down the debate on the ethics of such a practice, therefore avoiding questions on broader concerns that merely the risks implied by hydraulic fracturing. In the North of England, levels of concerns registered in the deliberative focus groups studied were higher regarding the framing of the debate, meaning the fact that people did not have a voice in the energetic choices that were made, including the use of hydraulic fracturing. Concerns relative to risks of seismicity and health issues were also important to the public, but less than this. A reason for that is that being withdrawn the right to participate in the decision-making triggered opposition of both supporters and opponents of hydraulic fracturing.

The points made to defend such an approach often relate to climate change and the impact on the direct environment; related to public concerns on the rural landscape for instance in the UK. [19] Energetic choices indeed affect climate change since greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels extraction such as shale gas and oil contribute to climate change. Therefore, people have in the UK raised concerns about the exploitation of these resources, not just hydraulic fracturing as a method. They would hence prefer a precaution-based approach to decide whether or not, regarding the issue of climate change, they want to exploit shale gas and oil.

Framing of the debate

There are two main areas of interest regarding how debates on hydraulic fracturing for the exploitation of unconventional oil and gas have been conducted.

"Learning-by-doing" and the displacement of ethics

A risk-based approach is often referred to as "learning-by-doing" by social sciences. Social sciences have raised two main critiques of this approach. Firstly, it takes scientific issues out of the public debate since there is no debate on the use of a technology but on its impacts. Secondly, it does not prevent environmental harm from happening since risks are taken then assessed instead of evaluated then taken. Public concerns are shown to be really linked to these issues of scientific approach. Indeed, the public in the North of England for instance fears "the denial of the deliberation of the values embedded in the development and application of that technology, as well as the future it is working towards" more than risks themselves. The legitimacy of the method is only questioned after its implementation, not before. This vision separates risks and effects from the values entitled by a technology. For instance, hydraulic fracturing entitles a transitional fuel for its supporters whereas for its opponents it represents a fossil fuel exacerbating the greenhouse effect and global warming. Not asking these questions leads to seeing only the mere economic cost-benefit analysis. [19]

This is linked to a pattern of preventing non-experts from taking part in scientific-technological debates, including their ethical issues. An answer to that problem is seen to be increased public participation so as to have the public deciding which issues to address and what political and ethical norms to adopt as a society. Another public concern with the "learning-by-doing" approach is that the speed of innovation may exceed the speed of regulation and since innovation is seen as serving private interests, potentially at the expense of social good, it is a matter of public concern. Science and Technology Studies have theorized "slowing-down" and the precautionary principle as answers. The claim is that the possibility of an issue is legitimate and should be taken into account before any action is taken. [19]

Variations in risk-assessment of environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing

Issues also exist regarding the way risk assessment is conducted and whether it reflects some interests more than others. Firstly, an issue exists about whether risk assessment authorities are able to judge the impact of hydraulic fracturing in public health. A study conducted on the advisory committees of the Marcellus Shale gas area [20] has shown that not a single member of these committees had public health expertise and that some concern existed about whether the commissions were not biased in their composition. Indeed, among 51 members of the committees, there is no evidence that a single one has any expertise in environmental public health, even after enlarging the category of experts to "include medical and health professionals who could be presumed to have some health background related to environmental health, however minimal". This cannot be explained by the purpose of the committee since all three executive orders of the different committees mentioned environmental public health related issues. Another finding of the authors is that a quarter of the opposed comments mentioned the possibility of bias in favor of gas industries in the composition of committees. The authors conclude saying that political leaders may not want to raise public health concerns not to handicap further economic development due to hydraulic fracturing.

Secondly, the conditions to allow hydraulic fracturing are being increasingly strengthened due to the move from governmental agencies' authority over the issue to elected officials' authority over it. The Shale Gas Drilling Safety Review Act of 2014 issued in Maryland [22] forbids the issuance of drilling permits until a high standard "risk assessment of public health and environmental hazards relating to hydraulic fracturing activities" is conducted for at least 18 months based on the Governor's executive order.

Institutional discourse and the public

A qualitative study using deliberative focus groups has been conducted in the North of England, [19] where the Bowland-Hodder shale, a big shale gas reservoir, is exploited by hydraulic fracturing. These group discussions reflect many concerns on the issue of the use of unconventional oil and unconventional gas. There is a concern about trust linked with a doubt on the ability or will of public authorities to work for the greater social good since private interests and profits of industrial companies are seen as corruptive powers. Alienation is also a concern since the feeling of a game rigged against the public rises due to "decision making being made on your behalf without being given the possibility to voice an opinion". Exploitation also arises since economic rationality that is seen as favoring short-termism is accused of seducing policy-makers and industry. Risk is accentuated by what is hydraulic fracturing as well as what is at stake, and "blind spots" of current knowledge as well as risk assessment analysis are accused of increasing the potentiality of negative outcomes. Uncertainty and ignorance are seen as too important in the issue of hydraulic fracturing and decisions are therefore perceived as rushed, which is why participants favored some form of precautionary approach. There is a major fear on the possible disconnection between the public's and the authorities' visions of what is a good choice for the good reasons.

It also appears that media coverage and institutional responses are widely inaccurate to answer public concerns. Indeed, institutional responses to public concerns are mostly inadequate since they focus on risk assessment and giving information to the public that is considered anxious because ignorant. But public concerns are much wider and it appears that public knowledge on hydraulic fracturing is rather good. [19]

The hydraulic fracturing industry has lobbied for permissive regulation in Europe, [23] the US federal government, and US states. [24] On 20 March 2015 the rules for disclosing the chemicals used were tightened by the Obama administration. [25] The new rules give companies involved 30 days from the beginning of an operation on federal land to disclose those chemicals. [25]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fracking in the United States</span>

Fracking in the United States began in 1949. According to the Department of Energy (DOE), by 2013 at least two million oil and gas wells in the US had been hydraulically fractured, and that of new wells being drilled, up to 95% are hydraulically fractured. The output from these wells makes up 43% of the oil production and 67% of the natural gas production in the United States. Environmental safety and health concerns about hydraulic fracturing emerged in the 1980s, and are still being debated at the state and federal levels.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shale gas</span> Natural gas trapped in shale formations

Shale gas is an unconventional natural gas that is found trapped within shale formations. Since the 1990s a combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing has made large volumes of shale gas more economical to produce, and some analysts expect that shale gas will greatly expand worldwide energy supply.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Well stimulation</span>

Well stimulation is a well intervention performed on an oil or gas well to increase production by improving the flow of hydrocarbons from the reservoir into the well bore. It may be done using a well stimulator structure or using off shore ships / drilling vessels, also known as "Well stimulation vessels".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Shale gas in the United States</span>

Shale gas in the United States is an available source of unconventional natural gas. Led by new applications of hydraulic fracturing technology and horizontal drilling, development of new sources of shale gas has offset declines in production from conventional gas reservoirs, and has led to major increases in reserves of U.S. natural gas. Largely due to shale gas discoveries, estimated reserves of natural gas in the United States in 2008 were 35% higher than in 2006.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fracking</span> Fracturing bedrock by pressurized liquid

Fracking is a well stimulation technique involving the fracturing of formations in bedrock by a pressurized liquid. The process involves the high-pressure injection of "fracking fluid" into a wellbore to create cracks in the deep-rock formations through which natural gas, petroleum, and brine will flow more freely. When the hydraulic pressure is removed from the well, small grains of hydraulic fracturing proppants hold the fractures open.

Shale gas is an unconventional natural gas produced from shale, a type of sedimentary rock. Shale gas has become an increasingly important source of natural gas in the United States over the past decade, and interest has spread to potential gas shales in Canada, Europe, Asia, and Australia. One analyst expects shale gas to supply as much as half the natural gas production in North America by 2020.

Frack Off is a grassroots direct action campaign aimed at stopping the extraction of unconventional resources in the UK, specifically concentrating on unconventional gas extraction.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fracking in the United Kingdom</span>

Fracking in the United Kingdom started in the late 1970s with fracturing of the conventional oil and gas fields near the North Sea. It was used in about 200 British onshore oil and gas wells from the early 1980s. The technique attracted attention after licences use were awarded for onshore shale gas exploration in 2008. The topic received considerable public debate on environmental grounds, with a 2019 high court ruling ultimately banning the process. The two remaining high-volume fracturing wells were supposed to be plugged and decommissioned in 2022.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fracking in New Zealand</span>

Fracking has been carried out in New Zealand for over 27 years, mostly in Taranaki and also in coal seams in Waikato and Southland. Concerns have been raised about its negative effects and some local government jurisdictions have called for a moratorium on fracking but this has been rejected by the government. The environmental effects of fracking are regulated by the Resource Management Act (RMA) through the requirement for resource consents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fracking by country</span> Hydraulic fracturing by country

Fracking has become a contentious environmental and health issue with Tunisia and France banning the practice and a de facto moratorium in place in Quebec (Canada), and some of the states of the US.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental impact of fracking in the United States</span>

Environmental impact of fracking in the United States has been an issue of public concern, and includes the contamination of ground and surface water, methane emissions, air pollution, migration of gases and fracking chemicals and radionuclides to the surface, the potential mishandling of solid waste, drill cuttings, increased seismicity and associated effects on human and ecosystem health. Research has determined that human health is affected. A number of instances with groundwater contamination have been documented due to well casing failures and illegal disposal practices, including confirmation of chemical, physical, and psychosocial hazards such as pregnancy and birth outcomes, migraine headaches, chronic rhinosinusitis, severe fatigue, asthma exacerbations, and psychological stress. While opponents of water safety regulation claim fracking has never caused any drinking water contamination, adherence to regulation and safety procedures is required to avoid further negative impacts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Environmental impact of fracking</span>

The environmental impact of fracking is related to land use and water consumption, air emissions, including methane emissions, brine and fracturing fluid leakage, water contamination, noise pollution, and health. Water and air pollution are the biggest risks to human health from fracking. Research has determined that fracking negatively affects human health and drives climate change.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Exemptions for fracking under United States federal law</span>

There are many exemptions for fracking under United States federal law: the oil and gas industries are exempt or excluded from certain sections of a number of the major federal environmental laws. These laws range from protecting clean water and air, to preventing the release of toxic substances and chemicals into the environment: the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, National Environmental Policy Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, commonly known as Superfund.

Shale gas in the United Kingdom has attracted increasing attention since 2007, when unconventional onshore shale gas production was proposed. The first shale gas well in England was drilled in 1875. As of 2013 a number of wells had been drilled, and favourable tax treatment had been offered to shale gas producers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Marcellus natural gas trend</span> Natural gas extraction area in the United States

The Marcellus natural gas trend is a large geographic area of prolific shale gas extraction from the Marcellus Shale or Marcellus Formation, of Devonian age, in the eastern United States. The shale play encompasses 104,000 square miles and stretches across Pennsylvania and West Virginia, and into eastern Ohio and western New York. In 2012, it was the largest source of natural gas in the United States, and production was still growing rapidly in 2013. The natural gas is trapped in low-permeability shale, and requires the well completion method of hydraulic fracturing to allow the gas to flow to the well bore. The surge in drilling activity in the Marcellus Shale since 2008 has generated both economic benefits and considerable controversy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fracking in South Africa</span>

Fracking in South Africa is an energy production strategy at early stages of development using high-pressure drilling techniques to release natural gas trapped in shale rock. After initially imposing a moratorium on fracking in April 2011, the South African government lifted the moratorium in September 2012 after an initial investigation by an interdepartmental task team. Several energy companies were subsequently granted exploration licenses. Fracking in South Africa is a current topic of debate, with proponents pointing to substantial economic and energy benefits and opponents voicing concerns about potentially adverse environmental impacts.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fracking in Canada</span>

Fracking in Canada was first used in Alberta in 1953 to extract hydrocarbons from the giant Pembina oil field, the biggest conventional oil field in Alberta, which would have produced very little oil without fracturing. Since then, over 170,000 oil and gas wells have been fractured in Western Canada. Fracking is a process that stimulates natural gas or oil in wellbores to flow more easily by subjecting hydrocarbon reservoirs to pressure through the injection of fluids or gas at depth causing the rock to fracture or to widen existing cracks.

Hydraulic fracturing is the propagation of fractures in a rock layer by pressurized fluid. Induced hydraulic fracturing or hydrofracking, commonly known as fracking, is a technique used to release petroleum, natural gas, or other substances for extraction, particularly from unconventional reservoirs. Radionuclides are associated with fracking in two main ways. Injection of man-made radioactive tracers, along with the other substances in hydraulic-fracturing fluid, is often used to determine the injection profile and location of fractures created by fracking. In addition, fracking releases naturally occurring heavy metals and radioactive materials from shale deposits, and these substances return to the surface with flowback, also referred to as wastewater.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fracking in Ukraine</span>

Fracking in Ukraine has been used since the 1950s. The first fracking operation in Ukraine was conducted in 1954 for the underground coal gasification project. There has been a strong revival of interest in the fracking industry in Ukraine. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Ukraine has third-largest shale gas reserves in Europe at 128 trillion cubic feet. As of 2011, approximately 22 domestic and foreign-owned companies have been engaged in fracking in Ukraine.

References

  1. ↑ Nolon, John R.; Polidoro, Victoria (2012). "Hydrofracking: Disturbances Both Geological and Political: Who Decides?" (PDF). The Urban Lawyer. 44 (3): 1–14. Retrieved 21 December 2012.
  2. ↑ Negro, Sorrell E. (February 2012). "Fracking Wars: Federal, State, and Local Conflicts over the Regulation of Natural Gas Activities" (PDF). Zoning and Planning Law Report. 35 (2): 1–14. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
  3. ↑ Patel, Tara (31 March 2011). "The French Public Says No to 'Le Fracking'". Bloomberg Businessweek . Archived from the original on 4 April 2011. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
  4. ↑ Patel, Tara (4 October 2011). "France to Keep Fracking Ban to Protect Environment, Sarkozy Says". Bloomberg Businessweek . Archived from the original on 8 October 2011. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
  5. 1 2 "LOI n° 2011-835 du 13 juillet 2011 visant à interdire l'exploration et l'exploitation des mines d'hydrocarbures liquides ou gazeux par fracturation hydraulique et à abroger les permis exclusifs de recherches comportant des projets ayant recours à cette technique"
  6. 1 2 "Article L 110-1 du Code de l'Environnement"
  7. ↑ "Fracking ban upheld by French court". BBC. 11 October 2013. Retrieved 16 October 2013.
  8. ↑ Moore, Robbie. "Fracking, PR, and the Greening of Gas". The International. Archived from the original on 21 March 2013. Retrieved 16 March 2013.
  9. ↑ Bakewell, Sally (13 December 2012). "U.K. Government Lifts Ban on Shale Gas Fracking". Bloomberg. Retrieved 26 March 2013.
  10. ↑ Hweshe, Francis (17 September 2012). "South Africa: International Groups Rally Against Fracking, TKAG Claims". West Cape News. Retrieved 11 February 2014.
  11. ↑ Nicola, Stefan; Andersen, Tino (26 February 2013). "Germany agrees on regulations to allow fracking for shale gas". Bloomberg. Retrieved 1 May 2014.
  12. ↑ "Commission recommendation on minimum principles for the exploration and production of hydrocarbons (such as shale gas) using high-volume hydraulic fracturing (2014/70/EU)". Official Journal of the European Union . 22 January 2014. Retrieved 13 March 2014.
  13. ↑ Healy, Dave (July 2012). Hydraulic Fracturing or 'Fracking': A Short Summary of Current Knowledge and Potential Environmental Impacts (PDF) (Report). Environmental Protection Agency . Retrieved 28 July 2013.
  14. ↑ Hass, Benjamin (14 August 2012). "Fracking Hazards Obscured in Failure to Disclose Wells". Bloomberg. Retrieved 27 March 2013.
  15. ↑ Soraghan, Mike (13 December 2013). "White House official backs FracFocus as preferred disclosure method". E&E News. Retrieved 27 March 2013.
  16. ↑ , Environmental Protection Agency
  17. ↑ Editorial Board (17 December 2014). "Gov. Cuomo Makes Sense on Fracking". New York Times . Retrieved 18 December 2014.
  18. 1 2 de Rijke "Hydraulically fractured: unconventional gas and anthropology", Anthropology today, Volume 29, Number 2, April 2013
  19. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Williams, Laurence, John "Framing fracking: public responses to potential unconventional fossil fuel exploitation in the North of England", Durham thesis, Durham University, 2014
  20. 1 2 3 Goldstein, Kriesky, Pavliakova "Missing from the table: role of the environmental public health community in governmental advisory commission related to the Marcellus Shale Drilling", University of Pittsburgh, in Environmental Health Perspectives, Volume 120, Number 4, April 2012
  21. ↑ "Vermont Act 152"
  22. ↑ "Shale Gas Drilling Safety Review Act of 2014"
  23. ↑ Lipton, Eric; Hakim, Danny (18 October 2013). "Lobbying Bonanza as Firms Try to Influence European Union". The New York Times.
  24. ↑ Kaplan, Thomas (25 November 2011). "Millions Spent in Albany Fight to Drill for Gas". The New York Times.
  25. 1 2 MATTHEW DALY; JOSH LEDERMAN (20 March 2015). "Politics Fracking: US Tightens Rules for Chemical Disclosure". ABC News Internet Ventures. Associated Press. Retrieved 20 March 2015.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.