Centennial Institute
POLICY BRIEF
The Hydraulic Fracturing Primer
Base Energy Regulation on Facts, not Fear
Centennial Institute Policy Brief No. 2014-1
OVERVIEW: FRACKING CONCERNS ARE MISPLACED
Americans have been bombarded with unfavorable media speculation and advocacy
messages about the process of extracting oil and gas from the ground through a
method known as hydraulic fracturing or “fracking.”
Waves of propaganda, including the documentary film Gasland and the Matt
Damon feature film Promised Land, have contributed to a broad negative perception
of fracking.
This has stirred episodes of intense public opposition and fears verging on hysteria.
Several Colorado cities have banned fracking as a result, and a statewide ban may
be attempted in 2014.
But there has been a dearth of factual information reaching the public as to the
extraction process itself and the science and engineering behind it. This policy brief
explains in detail the history, methods, and chemistry involved in fracking.
We give information about the drilling, amounts and composition of water used, the
depths of wells away from water tables, and the safeguards in place.
We provide evidence to help allay Americans’ widespread but utterly misplaced
concerns about water and air pollution risks associated with hydraulic fracturing.
Published as a public service by the Centennial Institute at Colorado Christian University
www.Centennialccu.org n 8787 W. Alameda Avenue, Lakewood CO 80226 n 303.963.3425
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction: Sixty Years’ Experience …………………………………………….…. 1
What is Hydraulic Fracturing? ………………………………………………………. 2
What’s in the Fracking Fluid? ………………………………………………………… 5
Why is Fracking Used? ………………………………………………………………... 7
How is Fracking Done? ……………………..…………………………………………. 9
Where Do the Fractures Go, and How Far?
Summing Up: Substance over Speculation
………………….…………………….. 10
………………………….………………. 13
Appendix: Timeline of Production and Policy
……………………….……………… 14
INTRODUCTION: SIXTY YEARS’ EXPERIENCE
Hydraulic fracturing has had an enormous positive impact on America’s energy supply in recent
years. The ability to develop new production once thought impossible, and to produce more oil
and natural gas from older wells, has ushered in a new era of abundance for U.S. domestic
energy production. Without hydraulic fracturing, as much as 80 percent of unconventional
production from such formations as gas shales would be, on a practical basis, impossible.1
Yet hydraulic fracturing is hardly new or unfamiliar. The first commercial application of
hydraulic fracturing as a well treatment technology designed to stimulate the production of oil or
gas likely occurred in either the Hugoton field of Kansas in 1947 or near Duncan, Oklahoma, in
1949.
In the ensuing 60-plus years, the use of hydraulic fracturing has developed into a routine
technology that is frequently used in the completion of oil and natural gas wells, particularly
those involved in what’s called “unconventional resources”, such as production from so-called
“tight shale” reservoirs.
The process has been used on over 1 million producing wells. As the technology continues to
develop and improve, operators now fracture as many as 35,000 wells of all types (vertical and
horizontal, oil and natural gas) each year.
1
FracFocus, Hydraulic Fracturing, How It Works: A Historical Perspective, Copyright GWPC & IOGCC, 2012 The Hydraulic Fracturing Primer * Centennial Institute Policy Brief No. 2014-1
2 WHAT IS HYDRAULIC FRACTURING?
Contrary to many media reports, hydraulic fracturing is not a “drilling process.” Hydraulic
fracturing is used after the drilled hole is completed.
Put simply, hydraulic fracturing is the use of fluid and material (sand or ceramic proppant) to
create or restore small fractures in a formation in order to stimulate production from new and
existing oil and gas wells.
This creates paths to the wellbore that increase the rate at which fluids can be produced from the
reservoir formations, in some cases by many hundreds of percent.
The process includes steps to protect drinking water supplies. To ensure that neither the fluid that
will eventually be pumped through the well, nor the oil or gas that will
Steel casings
eventually be collected, enters the water supply, steel surface and
protect groundwater
intermediate casings are inserted into the well to depths of between
1,000 and 4,000 feet.
The space between these casing “strings” and the drilled hole (wellbore), called the annulus, is
filled with cement.
Once the cement has set, then the drilling continues from the bottom of the surface or
intermediate cemented steel casing to the next depth.
This process is repeated, using smaller steel casing each time, until the oil and gas-bearing
reservoir is reached (generally 6,000 to 10,000 ft). 2
A more detailed look at casing and its role in groundwater protection is given in Figure 1, below.
Numbers on the left indicate the depth, in feet, below the surface.
Note the typical large separation between the acquifer and the production zone (exact distance of
separation varies by field and well).
With these and other precautions taken, high volumes of fracturing fluids are pumped deep into
the well at pressures sufficient to create or restore the small fractures in the reservoir rock needed
to make production possible.
2
FracFocus, Hydraulic Fracturing, The Process, Copyright GWPC & IOGCC, 2012 The Hydraulic Fracturing Primer * Centennial Institute Policy Brief No. 2014-1
3 Figure 1- Casing and Cement Design for Hydraulic Fracturing3
3
ALL Consulting, Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer, Exhibit 30, Casing Zones and Cement Programs, April 2009 The Hydraulic Fracturing Primer * Centennial Institute Policy Brief No. 2014-1
4 Usable Groundwater Aquifers
Private Well: <500 Feet deep
Muni Well: <1000 Ft deep
Surface Casing
Additional steel
casing & cement
to protect
groundwater
Protective
Steel Casing
Shale Fractures
Approx. distance
from surface: 7500 feet
Figure 2-Simulated Cross-section of a Hydraulic Fracturing Well Site4
4
American Exploration and Petroleum Council, The Real Facts About Fracture Stimulation: The Technology Behind America’s New Natural Gas Supplies, 2/10/2010 The Hydraulic Fracturing Primer * Centennial Institute Policy Brief No. 2014-1
5 WHAT'S IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FLUID?
Water and sand make up 98 to 99.5 percent of the fluid used in hydraulic fracturing. In addition,
chemical additives are used. The exact formulation varies depending on the well, but many of the
chemicals can be found in various concentrations at the local hardware store as Figure 4
demonstrates. 5
Additives commonly used in the fracturing solution include:
• A dilute acid solution, as described in the first stage, used during the initial fracturing
sequence. This cleans out cement and debris around the perforations to facilitate the subsequent
slickwater solutions employed in fracturing the formation.
• A biocide or disinfectant, used to prevent the growth of bacteria in the well that may interfere
with the production operations. (Note: Bacteria rarely affects the fracking operation itself, but
biocides do prevent bacteria growth within the deep rock itself after the fracking is over.)
Biocides typically consist of bromine-based solutions or glutaraldehyde.
• A scale inhibitor, such as ethylene glycol, used to control the precipitation of certain carbonate
and sulfate minerals (much like the scale on the edge of a bathroom faucet spout).
• Iron control/stabilizing agents such as citric acid or acetic acid, used to inhibit precipitation of
iron compounds by keeping them in a soluble form.
• Friction-reducing agents, also described above, such as polyacrylamide-based compounds,
used to reduce tubular friction and subsequently reduce the pressure needed to pump fluid into
the wellbore: The additives may reduce tubular friction by 50 to 60%. These friction-reducing
compounds represent the “slickwater” component of the fracking solution.
• Corrosion inhibitors, such as N,n-dimethyl formamide, and oxygen scavengers, such as
ammonium bisulfite, are used to prevent degradation of the steel well casing.
• Gelling agents, such as guar gum (a common ingredient in ice cream and salad dressings),
may be used in small amounts to thicken the water-based solution to help transport the proppant
material.
• A cross-linking agent will occasionally be used to enhance the characteristics and ability of the
gelling agent to transport the proppant material. These compounds may contain boric acid or
ethylene glycol. When cross-linking additives are added, a breaker solution is commonly added
later in the fracking stage to cause the enhanced gelling agent to break down into a simpler fluid
so it can be readily removed from the wellbore without
Fracking fluid is nearly
carrying back the sand/ proppant material.
all water and sand.
5
Energy In Depth, Typical Solutions Used in Hydraulic Fracturing, 2009. The Hydraulic Fracturing Primer * Centennial Institute Policy Brief No. 2014-1
6 The Hydraulic Fracturing Primer * Centennial Institute Policy Brief No. 2014-1
7 Figure 4 - Oil and gas takes up less than 1% of all water usage, and fracking less than that
WHY IS HYDRAULIC FRACTURING USED?
Experts believe well over 90 percent of new wells drilled in the United States in the next ten
years, will require hydraulic fracturing to remain commercial.
Fracturing allows for increased production in older oil and natural gas fields.
It also allows for the recovery of oil and natural gas from formations that geologists once
believed were impossible to produce, such as tight shale formations in the areas shown on the
map below.
Hydraulic fracturing is also used to extend the life of older wells in mature oil and gas fields.
The Hydraulic Fracturing Primer * Centennial Institute Policy Brief No. 2014-1
8 Figure 5 - Current Shale Gas Fields in the U.S.
The Hydraulic Fracturing Primer * Centennial Institute Policy Brief No. 2014-1
9 Figure 6- Typical Hydraulic Fracturing Site6
HOW IS HYDRAULIC FRACTURING DONE?
The placement of hydraulic fracturing treatments underground is sequenced to meet the
particular needs of the formation. The sequence noted below from a Marcellus Shale in
Pennsylvania is just one example. Each oil and gas zone is different and requires a hydraulic
fracturing design tailored to the particular conditions of the formation.
Therefore, while the process remains essentially the same, the sequence may change depending
upon unique local conditions. It is important to note that not all of the additives are used in every
hydraulically fractured well; the exact “blend” and proportions of additives will vary based on
the site-specific depth, thickness and other characteristics of the target formation.
1. Acid stage, consisting of generally one - five thousand gallons of water mixed with a dilute
acid such as hydrochloric or muriatic acid: This serves to clear cement debris in the wellbore
and provide an open conduit for other fracking fluids by dissolving carbonate minerals and
opening fractures near the wellbore.
2. Pad stage, consisting of approximately tens of thousands of gallons of slickwater without
proppant material: The slickwater pad stage fills the wellbore with the slickwater solution
(described below), opens the formation and helps to facilitate the flow and placement of
proppant material.
6
Source: Chesapeake Energy Corporation, 2008 The Hydraulic Fracturing Primer * Centennial Institute Policy Brief No. 2014-1
10 3. Prop sequence stage, which may consist of several sub stages of water combined with
proppant material (consisting of a fine mesh sand or ceramic material, intended to keep open,
or “prop” the fractures created and/or enlarged during the fracturing operation after the
pressure is reduced): This stage may collectively use several hundred thousand gallons of
water. Proppant material may vary from a finer particle size to a coarser particle size
throughout this sequence.
4. Flushing stage, consisting of a volume of fresh water sufficient to flush the excess proppant
from the wellbore, along with frack fluids that contain the dilute chemicals.
5. Capture stage, consisting of capturing the waste water, from the wells, into tanker trucks, to be
transported to a recycling facility or a state-sanctioned disposal well, preventing the possible
contamination of surface water and air pollution.
WHERE DO THE FRACTURES GO, AND HOW FAR?
Certain predictable characteristics or physical properties regarding the path of least resistance
have been recognized since hydraulic fracturing was first conducted in oilfields in the
1940s. These properties are discussed below:
Fracture orientation
Hydraulic fractures are formed in the direction perpendicular to the least principal stress.
Horizontal fractures can occur at depths less than approximately 2000 ft. because the Earth’s
overburden at these depths provides the least principal stress. If pressure is applied to the center
of a formation under these relatively shallow conditions, the fracture is most likely to occur in
the horizontal plane. In general, therefore, these fractures are parallel to the bedding plane of the
formation and have the shape of a pancake.
As depth increases below approximately 2000 ft., overburden stress increases by approximately
1 psi/ft., making the overburden stress the dominant stress. This means the horizontal confining
stress is now the least principal stress. Since hydraulically induced fractures are formed in the
direction perpendicular to the least stress, the resulting fracture at
Deeper fractures tend
depths greater than approximately 2000 ft., generally will be
to go vertically.
oriented in the vertical direction.
Fracture length/ height
The extent that a created fracture will propagate is controlled by the upper confining zone or
formation, and the volume, rate, and pressure of the fluid that is pumped. The confining zone
will limit the vertical growth of a fracture because it either possesses sufficient strength or
elasticity to contain the pressure of the injected fluids and the volume of fluid that has been
pumped.
The Hydraulic Fracturing Primer * Centennial Institute Policy Brief No. 2014-1
11 This is important because the greater the distance between the fractured formation and the
underground sources of drinking water (USDW), the more likely it will be that multiple
formations possessing the qualities necessary to confine the fracture will occur.
However, while it should be noted that the length of a fracture can also be influenced by natural
fractures or faults as shown in a study that included micro seismic analysis of fracture jobs
conducted on three wells in Texas, natural attenuation of the fracture will occur over relatively
short distances due to the limited volume of fluid being pumped and dispersion of the pumping
pressure regardless of intersecting migratory pathways. This length is often in dozens or
hundreds of feet rather than thousands.
The concerns around groundwater contamination raised by various critics are primarily centered
on one fundamental question: Are the created fractures contained within the target formation so
that they do not contact USDW?
In response to that key concern, we present here one of the first evaluations of actual field data
based on direct measurements acquired while fracture mapping more than 15,000 frack jobs
during the past decade.
Extensive mapping of hydraulic fracture geometry has been performed in unconventional North
American shale reservoirs since 2001. The micro-seismic and tilt meter technologies used to
monitor the treatments are well established, and are also widely used for non-oilfield applications
such as earthquake monitoring, volcano monitoring, civil engineering applications, carbon
capture and waste disposal.
Figures 7 and 8 are plots of data collected on thousands of hydraulic fracturing treatments in the
Barnett Shale in the Fort Worth Basin in Texas and in the Marcellus Shale in the Appalachian
Basin.
The Hydraulic Fracturing Primer * Centennial Institute Policy Brief No. 2014-1
12 Figure 7 - Barnett Shale
More fracks have been mapped in the Barnett than any other reservoir. The graph illustrates the
fracture top and bottom for all mapped treatments performed in the Barnett since 2001. The
depths are in true vertical depth. Perforation depths are illustrated by the red-colored band for
each stage, with the mapped fracture tops and bottoms illustrated by colored curves
corresponding to the counties where they took place.
The deepest water wells in each of the counties where Barnett Shale fracs have been mapped,
according to United States Geological Survey, are illustrated by the (dark blue shaded bars at the
top of figure above). As can be seen, the largest directly measured upward growth of all of these
mapped fractures still places the fracture tops several thousands of feet below the deepest known
aquifer level in each county.
The Hydraulic Fracturing Primer * Centennial Institute Policy Brief No. 2014-1
13 Figure 8 - Marcellus Shale
The Marcellus data show a similarly large distance between the top of the tallest frack and the
location of the deepest drinking water aquifers as reported in USGS data (dark blue shaded bars
at the top of figure above).
Because it is a newer play with fewer mapped frack stages
at this point and encompasses several states, the data set is
not as comprehensive as that from the Barnett. However,
it is no less compelling in providing evidence of a very
good physical separation between hydraulic fracture tops
and water aquifers.
Even the largest upward
fractures ended thousands
of feet below groundwater.
Almost 400 separate frack stages are shown, color-coded by state. As can be seen, the fractures
do grow upward quite a bit taller than in the Barnett, but the shallowest fracture tops are still
±4,500 feet, almost one mile below the surface and thousands of feet below the aquifers in those
counties.
The Hydraulic Fracturing Primer * Centennial Institute Policy Brief No. 2014-1
14 The results from our extensive fracture mapping database show that hydraulic fractures are better
confined vertically (and are also longer and narrower) than conventional wisdom or models
predict.
Notice that in areas with the largest measured vertical fracture growth,
such as the Marcellus, the tops of the hydraulic fractures are still
thousands of feet below the deepest aquifers suitable for drinking water.
The data from these two shale reservoirs clearly show the huge distances separating the fracs
from the nearest aquifers at their closest points of approach, conclusively demonstrating that
hydraulic fractures are not growing into groundwater supplies, and therefore, cannot contaminate
them.”7
SUMMING UP: SUBSTANCE OVER SPECULATION
In this policy brief we have reviewed the decades of research and technology that encompass the
process of hydraulic fracturing as practiced so beneficially in America today.
This process has led to the high level of expertise, environmental responsibility, and safety that is
now industry state-of-the-art in the extraction of our natural resources.
It is fair to conclude conclude that the continued research and development of these processes, in
cooperation with regulatory agencies and in better dialogue with an often misinformed public,
has great positive potential to bring our nation’s appetite for abundant, affordable, clean, and
secure energy back to home shores.
We urge individual citizens to be aware of their responsibilities and do their homework when
evaluating the claims about fracking from interest groups, news media, and mass entertainment.
Only by sorting out substance from speculation can Americans reach sound conclusions on
environmental protection and energy policy.
7
Kevin Fisher of Pinnacle, a Halliburton Company for the July 2010 edition of the American Oil and Gas Reporter The Hydraulic Fracturing Primer * Centennial Institute Policy Brief No. 2014-1
15 APPENDIX: HYDRAULIC FRACTURING HISTORICAL TIMELINE
Milestones in Production and Policy across Seven Decades
1940s: First well receives hydraulic fracturing treatment to stimulate natural gas development
(Grant County KS, 1947, or Duncan OK, 1949).
1949: First hydraulic fracturing treatment performed in Colorado.
1950s: Hydraulic fracturing is used for the first time in Canada (Cardium oil field in central
Alberta).
November 1974: Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is signed into law. Establishes new
standards and regulations to protect underground sources of drinking water (USDW). Despite
having been utilized commercially for a quarter century, hydraulic fracturing was never
considered for regulation under SDWA.
June 1986: SDWA is amended to regulate more than 100 specific contaminants. Hydraulic
fracturing, now commercially utilized for nearly four decades, is never considered for regulation.
1980s/early 1990s: George Mitchell successfully combines horizontal drilling with hydraulic
fracturing to “crack the code” of the Barnett Shale in north Texas.
1994/1995: The Legal Environmental Assistance Foundation (LEAF) petitions the EPA to
withdraw approval of Alabama’s underground injection control (UIC) program, arguing that the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) required that the federal EPA regulate hydraulic fracturing.
Then-EPA Administrator Carol Browner responds with a clear message: “EPA does not regulate
– and does not believe it is legally required to regulate – the hydraulic fracturing of methane gas
production wells under its UIC program [under the
EPA, 1995: “No evidence”
Safe Drinking Water Act].” In that same letter,
of groundwater
Browner says there was “no evidence” of hydraulic
contamination
fracturing contaminating ground water.
August 1996: SDWA is amended once again to emphasize sound science and standards.
Hydraulic fracturing is not considered for regulation.
1997: LEAF appeals EPA’s position (in LEAF v. U.S. EPA) on Alabama’s UIC program, arguing
once again that the Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to regulate hydraulic fracturing of
coal bed methane.
1999: In response to the LEAF assertion, the State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama promulgates
new rules and regulations on hydraulic fracturing, which the EPA approves one year later. LEAF
appeals the Board’s new regulations to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court
ultimately sides with the EPA and the State Oil and Gas Board of Alabama, agreeing that the
state’s regulatory system is an “effective program to prevent endangerment of underground
sources of drinking water.”
The Hydraulic Fracturing Primer * Centennial Institute Policy Brief No. 2014-1
16 2000: EPA initiates its own study of hydraulic fracturing. At less than 0.5 trillion cubic feet (tcf)
of production, natural gas from shale accounts for roughly one percent of America’s total natural
gas production.
August 2002: EPA releases a draft of its study of hydraulic fracturing, which affirms that the
technology does not pose a risk to drinking water.
June 2004: EPA completes its four-year study on hydraulic fracturing (which began under the
previous administration), concluding that the technology poses only a “minimal” threat to water
supplies and that there are “no confirmed cases” linking hydraulic fracturing to drinking water
contamination.
July 2005: The U.S. Congress passes the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (signed in August by the
President), which includes a provision codifying that Congress never intended for hydraulic
fracturing to be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (as also evidenced by decades of
precedence.) Also in 2005, Range Resources drills the first wells in the Marcellus Shale in
Pennsylvania (three of them, in fact).
September 2008: The Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) sends a letter
to Mike W. Markham in Weld County, Colo., after Mr. Markham expressed concern that nearby
natural gas production could have contaminated his drinking water. After extensive sampling and
testing, COGCC finds “no indications of any oil & gas related impacts” to Mr. Markham’s well.
June 2009: U.S. Reps. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Jared Polis (D-Colo.), and Maurice Hinchey
(D-N.Y.) introduce the FRAC Act in Congress, which would rewrite the intent of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (and upend the effective, state-based regulatory regime currently in place) to
put control of hydraulic fracturing squarely in the hands of the U.S. EPA. Senator Bob Casey (DPa.) introduces companion legislation in the Senate.
Interestingly, Colorado’s Governor at the time, Bill
Gov. Ritter to
Ritter (D), accused Rep. DeGette of trying to create
congressional
a “new and potentially intrusive regulatory
Democrats, 1995: Leave
program” with the FRAC Act. Ritter further noted
regulation to states.
that states, including Colorado, have already
“responsibly addressed” hydraulic fracturing. State regulators from across the country,
meanwhile, defend the safety record of hydraulic fracturing.
August 2009: Initial testing of local water supplies in Pavillion, Wyo., by the EPA reveals the
presence of a “tentatively identified compound,” or TIC. Earthworks blasts out a press release
saying EPA has linked hydraulic fracturing to water contamination, even though the EPA made
no conclusion or statement about the origin of the TIC, nor did it make any declaration that
public health was in danger. A staffer with EPA says the possible contamination could be traced
to household items, mentioning cleaning solvents specifically.
February 2010: Steve Heare, director of EPA’s Drinking Water Protection Division, says: “I
have no information that states aren’t doing a good job already” with respect to regulating
hydraulic fracturing.
The Hydraulic Fracturing Primer * Centennial Institute Policy Brief No. 2014-1
17 March 2010: Under direction from Congress, the EPA initiates yet another study of hydraulic
fracturing. The focus of the study is specifically on potential water impacts (despite dozens of
state regulators saying hydraulic fracturing does not contaminate water.)
June 2010: The state of Wyoming approves a rule to require disclosure of the additives used
during hydraulic fracturing. Later that month is the HBO premiere of the film Gasland, which,
among many other things, attempts to rewrite much of the history of hydraulic fracturing. The
film includes footage of one Mike Markham from Weld County, Colo., lighting his tap water on
fire, which the film links to nearby gas drilling, despite the 2008 letter from Colorado regulators
clearly and scientifically denying such a link.
October 2010: The Colorado Oil & Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) releases a
document debunking many of the inaccuracies in Gasland, including notably the “flaming
faucet” scene.
December 2010: Arkansas adopts new rules to require disclosure of additives used during
hydraulic fracturing.
February 2011: Pennsylvania updates its regulations to include disclosure requirements for
hydraulic fracturing fluids.
April 2011: The Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) and the Interstate Oil and Gas
Compact Commission (IOGCC) officially launch FracFocus.org, an online disclosure website for
the additives used during hydraulic fracturing. To date, the industry has uploaded more than
11,000 wells to the searchable database. That same month, the U.S. Energy Information
Administration (EIA) releases a report that finds natural gas from shale accounts for 23 percent
of total natural gas production in the United States, increasing from 0.39 trillion cubic feet (tcf)
in 2000 to 4.87 tcf in 2010. Democrats on the House Energy & Commerce Committee, despite
using “no scientific data” to support their most
frightening conclusions, release a report summarizing
EPA, 2011: No proven
the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids. The
case where fracking
report says nothing about actual water quality, nor does
affected water.
it provide appropriate context relating to concentration
levels.
May 2011: During a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing, EPA
Administrator Lisa Jackson says, “I’m not aware of any proven case where the fracking process
itself has affected water.” Michigan regulators announce new regulations that include, among
others, a provision to require disclosure of the additives used during hydraulic fracturing.
July 2011: The city of Fort Worth, Tex., releases results from a study looking at health impacts
near natural gas exploration and production sites in the Barnett shale. The study “did not reveal
any significant health threats.”
September 2011: Montana begins implementing its new disclosure rules for additives used
during hydraulic fracturing.
The Hydraulic Fracturing Primer * Centennial Institute Policy Brief No. 2014-1
18 October 2011: Louisiana’s rules for hydraulic fracturing fluid disclosure go into effect.
December 2011: EPA issues a draft report on water quality in Pavillion that, despite no
independent scientific review, alleges that hydraulic fracturing was “likely” the cause of water
contamination in the area. Numerous state officials and regulators criticize the report as
inherently flawed. The two main failures of the EPA in this review were: #1 They did not use a
3rd party to review the results; and #2 The two monitor wells were drilled into sedimentary
formations that were already know to contain natural gas. Meanwhile, Colorado implements new
rules requiring disclosure for hydraulic fracturing fluids, and Texas regulators approve their own
disclosure law. Both Colorado and Texas utilize the FracFocus website for implementation of
their laws.
January 2012: In his State of the Union address, President Obama issues strong support for
developing natural gas from shale, noting that his administration will “take every possible action
to safely develop this energy” in order to create “more than 600,000 jobs” by the end of the
decade. “The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are
cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our
economy,” the President added.
February 2012: Two months after releasing its draft report on
Sec. Salazar, 2012:
Pavillion, the EPA backtracks its initial (and inflammatory) claim
that hydraulic fracturing “likely” caused water contamination. At a Fracking is safe.
hearing before the House Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment, EPA Region 8 administrator Jim Martin says: “We make clear that the causal link
[of water contamination] to hydraulic fracturing has not been demonstrated conclusively,”
adding that EPA’s draft report “should not be assumed to apply to fracturing in other geologic
settings.” President Obama, in his FY 2013 budget, requests additional funds for the EPA to
expand its own mandate for its hydraulic fracturing study, a mandate that goes beyond what was
authorized by Congress. Two days later, during a hearing before the House Natural Resources
Committee, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar says of hydraulic fracturing, “From my point of view,
it can be done safely and it has been done safely.”8
April 2012: COGCC rules mandated the disclosure of frac fluid chemicals in Colorado while
preserving the “trade secret” status of the industry’s proprietary chemical blends. This disclosure
of chemicals has been directed to the website Fracfocus.org. This website has an extensive
search utility that assists in finding virtually any well that has been listed in the registry and the
frac fluid chemicals that were used in the process. Even “trade secret” status requires the
revelation of the chemical families used in the fluid blend; there is just less information about the
exact ratio of the components. In addition, health professionals can now apply for access to all
of the chemical formulations including “trade secret” blends if there is a reasonable health risk.
2013: The United States moves beyond Russia and becomes the world leader in natural gas
production. In the same year, the United States produces more oil than it imports for the first
time in two decades.
8
Energy In Depth, You Missed a Spot: A Timeline of Hydraulic Fracturing, Wednesday, February 15th, 2012 The Hydraulic Fracturing Primer * Centennial Institute Policy Brief No. 2014-1
19 November 2013: Three Colorado cities (Boulder, Fort Collins, Lafayette, and Broomfield) voted
to restrict hydraulic fracturing through moratoriums or outright bans.
January 2014: A Colorado ballot issue proposal begins the long road for petitions to qualify for
the November election, under which the state constitution would be amended to let any locality
impose fracking bans like those adopted in 2013.
2014: North Dakota reaches a million barrels of daily production. Sixty-nine percent (69%) of
this oil is transported by rail.
2015: The United States is projected to become the world’s biggest producer of crude oil.
The Hydraulic Fracturing Primer * Centennial Institute Policy Brief No. 2014-1
20 Also Available as Centennial Institute Policy Briefs Medical Direct Pay: How States Can Start Improving Health Care Right Now By Frank Francone You Want Affordable Care? Common Sense from a Practicing Physician By Jill Q. Vecchio, MD Bad Bargain: How Renewable Energy Mandates Pick Your Pocket By Kelly Sloan Weapons of Mass Obstruction: How the Environmental Lobby Stymies Energy Production and Hurts America By Kelly Sloan Much Better Schools on Much Lower Budgets By Barry Poulson No Political Oversight of Private Colleges By Krista Kafer The Policy Brief series is online at Centennialccu.org to read, link, or download.
Or briefs are free by postal mail. Order from [email protected] or 303.963.3425.
The Hydraulic Fracturing Primer:
Base Energy Regulation on Facts, not Fear.
Director of the Institute is John Andrews, public policy
entrepreneur, author and commentator, and former Colorado
Senate President.
Centennial Institute Policy Brief No. 2014-1
Contributors:
This policy brief was developed by Centennial Institute staff
in collaboration with industry expert Dale Larsen and
technical writer Gerry Olow. The editor was John Andrews.
Publisher:
Centennial Institute is Colorado Christian University’s think
tank, established in 2009.
We sponsor research, events, and publications to enhance
public understanding of current issues.
Contact:
8787 W. Alameda Ave.
Lakewood CO 80226
Tel: 303.963.3425
[email protected]
www.Centennialccu.org
Date: March 12, 2014
We do not support or oppose legislation, ballot issues,
candidates, or political parties.
By proclaiming Truth, we aim to foster faith, family, and
freedom, teach citizenship, and renew the spirit of 1776.
20 21