Top officials at the EPA find the fracking study optimistic about the future. The nationwide project examined natural gas hydraulic fracturing and potential drinking water impacts. According to the Huffington Post, the study will help scientists and the public identify the key issue to focus on.

Glenn Paulson, the EPA’s science advisor, said that a progress report on the study should be released before the end of the year, and the final report released in 2014. Paulson said the study of fracking and drinking water “is one of the most aggressive public outreach programs in EPA history.”

“I think the drinking water study is going to be useful to local governments, and state governments, too,” Paulson said. He added that “a lot of people have their minds made up” about fracking, even though many aspects of research are still in the early stages.

The EPA says in the project overview that natural gas “plays a key role in our nation’s clean energy future” but that serious concerns have been raised about potential impacts to the environment and human health.

Dan Alfaro, a spokesman for Energy in Depth, believes the EPA study will show that gas drilling and fracking are safe.

“There have been numerous studies and a multitude of research on oil and natural gas extraction methods,” Alfaro said. The EPA study “will confirm once again previous findings that current industry practices used in development are safe, responsible and effective means of extracting and producing our natural energy resources.”

Bernard Goldstein, retired professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health, said that three years ago researcher had very little data. Today, there is an abundance of research. Goldstein even praised Shell Oil Co., for explaining the steps it takes to protect the environment and public health.

“I thought the industry presentation by Shell was superb,” Goldstein said, adding that Paulson, of the EPA, is “the right kind of person” to make sure that health is included in the research being done on gas drilling.

Source:

Recently built power plants fired by natural gas easily meet the new standards of the new greenhouse gas emission rule – The rule to control greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants could go end up closing down the old-fashion coal-burning power generation, according to the New York Times.

Lisa P. Jackson, the Environmental Protection Agency administration, released a draft the new rule. The Rule would limit carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants to 1,000 pounds per megawatt-hour.

Most of the newly build power plants are fired by natural gas, so the rule presents little obstacle for new gas plants. However, that isn’t the case for coal-fired plants. Coal-fired plants face a far deeper challenge to stay afloat, since there is no easily accessible technology that can bring their emissions under the limit. This new rule, does not apply to existing plants.

”This E.P.A. is fully engaging in a war on coal, even though this country will continue to rely on coal as an affordable, stable and abundant energy source for decades to come,” said Senator Joe Manchin III, a West Virginia Democrat and former governor. ”This approach relies totally on cheap natural gas, and we’ve seen that bubble burst before.”

But, the increase production of hydraulic fracturing, the abundant supply of natural gas, plus the declining prices, equals power plants shifting from coal to natural gas organically – The E.P.A. is just following a shift that is already unfolding, while decreasing the amount of greenhouse gases omitted into the air.

Source:

The controversy over fracking and the environment is a leading discussion topic for political candidate.

Obama proposed that the FY 2012 budget allocate $14 million toward fracking research.  The budget will include a dedicated study involving the impact of hydraulic fracturing, including air quality and effects fracking might have on the ecosystem.  The study will work in conjunction with the U.S. Geological Survey and the Department of Energy.

The EPA will face a budget cut of 1.2% or $105 million cut in funding, which will be hard to work with said, EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson.

The EPA’s total research budget is a total of $576 million, which includes $81 million for the agency’s STAR grants, which will sup­port research on frack­ing, poten­tial endocrine dis­rup­tors, and green infra­struc­ture.

The preliminary results of their current study on the impact of fracking to drinking water supplies will be expect at the end of the year and includes areas of Marcellus Shale drilling in Pennsylvania

Jackson said that the budget decrease this year will be difficult,

“This bud­get is focused on ful­fill­ing EPA’s core mis­sion to pro­tect health and the envi­ron­ment for mil­lions of Amer­i­can fam­i­lies,” said Jack­son. It demon­strates fis­cal respon­si­bil­ity, while still sup­port­ing clean air, healthy waters and inno­v­a­tive safe­guards that are essen­tial to an Amer­ica built to last.”

Much concern from the EPA and other environmental activist groups was the efforts to provide the public with a list of available chemicals used in fracking.  An $11 million increase in the budget has been set to provide the public with greater access to toxic chemicals information.  A 5.8% budget increase will also be made in compliance and enforcement.

Source:

Lisa Jackson, EPA administrator reports that fracking can be “ok.” Jackson told energy leaders and environmentalists Wednesday that natural gas fracking can be done without harmful impacts. Jackson, also stated that fracking presents “an historic opportunity” for the energy industry in the United States in terms of energy development and job creation.

“I think that fracking as a technology is perfectly capable of being clean. I do. But it requires people who are doing it and innovators who use the technology to take some time to make sure that it’s done right. And it requires smart regulation, smart rules of the road,” Jackson said.

Controversy over fracking and whether the fracking process has an effect on water quality has been a top topic of conversation.  On going studies are being conducted to test the water quality if it’s related to the fracking process.  Jackson said, that there is no proven cases that fracking is effecting the water quality.

“People are rightfully asking, what is my government doing to ensure that my water, my air, my health are protected? Those are fair questions to ask,” she said.

Jackson was the keynote speaker at the “Energy 40/40″ conference, which took a look back on 40 years of energy history and took a look forward to 40 years of energy growth and changes. Jackson’s speech was a good sign for the fracking industry and the energy industry as a whole.

Source:

The EPA had been reviewing data provided by three sources, Dimock residence, Cabot Oil and Gas, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. After finally completing the review, the EPA decided to deliver temporary drinking water to the four homes where data reviewed by the EPA indicated that resident’s well water contained levels of contaminants and posed a health concern. The cause of the contaminated water in Dimock, Pennsylvania is yet to be determined; although, some believe that hydraulic fracturing caused the contamination, others are unsure including the EPA. The EPA decided to take action and will be conducting extensive tests on the local water supply.

The sampling will begin in a matter of days and will take about three weeks to gather all the samples from the Dimock residence. The EPA expects results in about five weeks after all the samples are taken.

In addition to the EPA testing mentioned earlier, The EPA will develop a new waste-water treatment standard, and will conduct a national study on the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water sources. The EPA is aiming to reduce emission from hydraulic fracturing by 95% by eventually requiring green well completion.

Sources:

The small town of Dimock, Pennsylvania has caused a national debate about the role of the EPA and hydraulic fracturing.   Dimock residences, a community of about 1,368 with one blinking traffic light, are left confused and with questions – Is our water safe and is hydraulic fracking the cause?  At first, the EPA said that the drinking water is safe. Then, the EPA turned around said that water wasn’t safe, finding methane in the ground water and ordering residence not to drink local water. Now, the EPA hasn’t decided whether or not to provide safe drinking water to the Dimock residence. 

 At this point, hydraulic fracturing is not to blame for the methane in the water.  Cabot Oil & Gas Corp, the fracking company located in Dimock, indicates that the water is safe according to on-site data analysis.  Although Cabot doesn’t admit blame for the methane in the water, Cabot decided to provide safe drinking water for Dimock families, installing water filters, and paying each affected family twice the value of their home.  The company put aside $4.1 million to for pay claims made by Dimock residence; 1.9 million claims have been made so far.

The EPA has already started efforts to build tighter regulations which will force disclosure of chemicals used in the fracking process, create regulations for air pollution from drilling, and develop a standard water treatment process.

More about methane migration – It’s difficult to tie a relationship between methane migration and hydraulic fracturing of Marcellus Shall because it’s difficult to determine where the methane originated from.  Methane is located deep underground, but can rise up close to the surface and make its way into groundwater supplies.  In order to prevent methane from rising up, three layers of steel casings are required on Marcellus wells.

Sources: