Fracking in Kansas - Part 3

1947 Gas Well Fracturing Operation

For hydraulic fracturing info in Kansas a great source has been put together by the Kansas Geological Survey (KGS) at this location: http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Publications/PIC/pic32.html.

The picture provided is from the linked KGS circular and is the first experimental fracturing job done in 1947 by the Stanolind Oil company.  It was done on a gas well in the Hugoton Gas Field in Grant County, in southwest Kansas.  There is more information on this operation in the link provided.

Technically the KGS material is very good.  They talk about the real need to oversee and regulate the activity very closely, and  mention areas of the US where problems have occurred due to less-than-aggressive state oversight attention.  Pennsylvania is mentioned as a state too lax in return flow oversight, with Colorado, Wyoming and Texas also missing effective oversight in other parts of the production process.  In the end they state:  

"For the most part, Kansas has not encountered the problems some other states have, and no documented cases of ground-water contamination by hydraulic fracturing have been reported in the state." 

The entire circular to me implies that:  1) Kansas oversight is effective;  2) geologically we're different enough that the same activities that have been problems elsewhere are working OK here;  and 3) we can continue on - business as usual. 

Well, I'm not so sure.  I have to believe there is a huge difference in vertical fracturing of old and horizontal fracturing being done today.  We in Kansas don't yet have the well numbers and longer-term experience in the horizontal fracturing being done in the Marcellus Shale of Appalachian Basin in the NE, or the Bakken in the Dakotas and Montana, or the Barnett in Texas.  What if it takes 15 years for migration paths to translate to the surface?  Just because we haven't seen any yet doesn't mean it's not happening.  And one of those potential conduits has to be all the un- and improperly plugged oil and gas wells of the past in our state.  Nobody yet has gone on record saying these relics are of no consequence.

The water supply needs for fracking are also handled curiously in the KGS circular.  They are compared to irrigation use in quantity and characterized as a single (one-time only) use of 2-4 million gallons of water.  Sounds like not much to worry about.  But keep in mind that there have been 244,000 oil and gas wells drilled in Kansas since 1947.  This past use, at 3 million gallons per well, is a supply need of 732,000 acrefeet of water - all consumptively used and never to be used again.  In the 50 years ahead of us, this could easily reach another 900,000 or 1,000,000 acrefeet due to the accelerated drilling trends - and all of this water is being and will be used outside of the water rights system currently in place.  Don't get me wrong, irrigation uses a lot of water in Kansas, but my point is that oil and gas water needs are not insignificant.

I love the KGS and the work they do, but I'm not completely sold on their assessment of HF in Kansas, yet.  I can only hope they're right on the money... 

 
 

Yet Another Ban on Fracking

The City of Longmont, Colorado, or rather the voters therein, just passed a ban on not only the use of hydraulic fracturing for the recovery of oil and gas within the city limits, but also on open storage pits and the disposal of solid or liquid wastes associated with oil and gas drilling and/or production.  The vote was 59% for the ban. 

The City of Longmont had earlier placed a moratorium on such operations as it developed its own regulations - based on citizen opposition.  The council eventually developed its own regulations and then lifted the moratorium as those new regs took effect.  Poor Longmont, they then got it from both sides.  The state of Colorado sued in July claiming that only the state Oil & Gas Commission can regulate the industry, and a green citizens' group named “Our Health, Our Future, Our Longmont” placed an initiative on the November 6 ballot called Question 300 - which would actually ban the procedure if passed, because they didn't think the regulations went far enough in protecting their health and environment.  Well it passed, and now it seems, no one is happy but for the pro-Question 300 folks.

This approach to oppose fracking - township or city or county governments regulating it out of business or outright banning it - has been tried many, many times in the past, and has most of the time been challenged in court by the pro-energy development forces - either the governing bodies wanting to cash in on the development, or by the oil and gas industry, or the individual oil and gas companies themselves.  Everyone, including the folks of “Our Health, Our Future, Our Longmont” expect such a legal challenge in the Longmont case as well.  I guess that's how the system works.

I'm sorry to say that I'm not up on how most of the industry challenges have turned out in the other cases of government controls or bans.  I do know that a 2-year moratorium on drilling instituted by the City of Binghampton, NY was recently struck down by a state judge. In this case, the court said that not sufficient "emergency need" was demonstrated by the city since there was still a statewide moratorium in effect in NY State.

Does anyone have some specific case results they'd like to share?  I'm guessing it's going to be a mixed bag, some failing and some successful.  As with many resource issues, it seems, "who" gets to say what the rules are is just as important, if not more so, as the rules are themselves.  And there is always a higher level of government wanting to be that rule-maker in the really important issues.

Comments?

December 11, 2012 Update:  Colorado Governor Hickenlooper has announced that the state of Colorado will not sue Longmont over its recent fracking ban, but that the state will support oil and gas companies that do file suit.  See his comments here.  He says he thinks the ban is a regulatory takings of mineral rights from private owners, but doesn't feel comfortable with the state filing suit since the state doesn't own any such rights.

December 18, 2012 Update:  Colorado Oil and Gas Association (COGA) has filed suit against the City of Longmont asking the courts to invalidate the recent voter's ban on fracking operations.  COGA says the ban denies property owners the right to develop their property and also prohibits a private activity that is allowed by state law.  The City of Longmont says it will vigorously defend the voters' action.  This will get interesting.

Promised Land - The Movie

Well, Hollywood has stepped up to the plate finally on the issue of oil and gas production and hydraulic fracturing (or fracing, or fracking, or don't frack with our water, or...whatever...).

Starring Matt Damon, Frances McDormand, John Krasinki and Hal Holbrook, this new movie is all about the land and water and people of rural America - and of course the private corporate structure that wants the profits to be made from same.

Some suggest it will be that Hollywood envirofest that will give Erin Brockovich a run for her money - pardon the pun.  And the trailer seems to support this notion.  It certainly ups the ante when in one scene we see the whole farm go up in flames - not just something as mundane as a kitchen faucet.  What a visual.

I won't tell any more about the film so as not to spoil anything, but for us groundwater types that have had an inkling or more of "experience" with the oil and gas industry, it should prove very interesting, indeed.  Oh, and it's NOT a documentary like "Gasland", but a real moving picture show.  It plans to release on December 28, so watch for it in a theater near you.

Let The Games Begin!

The first Mississippian zone horizontal oil well in our GMD started drilling operations Wednesday in Gove County by Apache Corp.  While approved for 6 individual wells on the same drilling pad, the company says it will start with just 1 well to see how the formation looks.  No mention of whether or not hydraulic fracturing will take place, but I'm certain that it will based on the water right filed - 4 million gallons of fresh Ogallala groundwater.  While the water right information is available for this well, the approved Intent to Drill (ITD) from the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) is nowhere in sight.  Since this is all very new, I'm going to give Apache and the KCC the benefit of the doubt on this oversight - probably just not posted on the KCC website yet.  I personally don't think any oil well should be drilled until the ITD and water right information are available to the public. 

Incidentally, the second horizontal oil well - also by Apache, Corp. - is also slated to begin soon.  I was able to find a copy of this well's ITD but not any paperwork on its water right.  In Kansas the ITD's are issued by the KCC while the water rights are issued by the Division of Water Resources (DWR). So, in our first two oil wells, each agency is one for two.  Of course, neither well shows up in the national FracFocus.org website - an issue I've discussed before.  This is supposed to be the site where fracking information is voluntarily registered - well locations, chemicals used, etc., etc. - but is a year and a half behind in their postings.  Supposedly Kansas has made it a requirement that fracking activities get posted here, but I'm not holding my breath.  As of this post, there are only 67 wells listed on this site for the entire state of Kansas with only 2 of them located in the NW quadrant of the state that I'm interested in.

My intention is to track these wells and monitor the activities on them.  If nobody gets any local groundwater quality samples, maybe this can be a GMD activity - creating a baseline quality data set.  If the board wants to do this, we're going to need to know where all the wells are, and start collecting groundwater samples soon.  At the very least we can watch the construction of these wells and any subsequent plugging activities.  Let's hope all goes well.

 

Fracking in Kansas - KGS Rendering

The Kansas Geological Survey (KGS) has created a hydraulic fracturing (fracking) page on their website with a fairly complete synopsis of fracking in the state of Kansas.  They come to the conclusion that fracking in Kansas is not that big of a deal - environmentally - due to the unique geology we have, the abundance of deep injection disposal wells and a Corporation Commission that has regulated the industry for many years.

However, they continually use wording that leaves a lot of wiggle-room, such as "..Fracturing jobs are normally engineered to restrict the fractures to the target formation."  and   "..Although in most cases only a limited number of additives are used.."  and many, many more such examples.  The bottom line, as I have said before, is that if done under the right conditions in the right way, it likely is not a huge risk.  But I'm not sure every state and every operator understands what all these conditions and procedures are.  I'm also not sure the state regulators are keeping up adequately with the advances being made by the producers which KGS says are prodigious.

Anyway, KGS is to be congratulated for the posting of this material.  It is a very good overview containing a ton of basic information from which more meaningful public discussion can continue.  It has also provided me the background to ask the regulators and the industry several more specific questions that I hadn't thought of before.  We all need to insure that the extraction of oil and gas is done responsibly.  On this point I think everyone agrees.

Fracking and Pavillion, Wyoming

Well the EPA report on the Pavillion, Wyoming groundwater contamination claims has just been released after 3 years or so collecting water samples, production data and evaluating everything.  It isn't comforting to find that EPA thinks the vertical fracking activity and the production operations have both been responsible for some fairly significant groundwater contamination at this location.  The list of chemicals in the groundwater, while predominately methane gas as initially claimed by the residents, is reportedly lengthy.

I was surprised to find that the hydrocarbon production was as close to the usable groundwater as it was.  Most of the drinking water wells in the area (within 4 miles of the production wells) were completed anywhere from 400 feet to 600 feet below land surface.  As nature would have it, the geology is quite complex there due to all the folding and faulting the area has experienced throughout its geologic history.  It is this very geologic activity that has provided all the hydrocarbon traps that are being produced today.

I was also surprised to see the stratigraphy map of the area (click graphic to enlarge). There is not a single confining layer in this rendering that is not listed as a "leaky confing layer".  This means that there are no real confining layers at all in the entire vertical section.  I have to ask what the company geologists thought might happen as they fracked and produced natural gas literally 500 feet or so under the groundwater being used by the residents.  According to EPA, of the 160 or so production wells in the area, only two had the appropriate amount of production pipe installed and cemented.  Not only that, but most of the cement bond logs found incomplete and inadequate cementing jobs of what production pipe was installed. 

The production company is aggressively lambasting the EPA preliminary report, which has not been through peer review yet and made final.  The company says that:

*  the peer review process will conclude that EPA's drilling and sampling process was faulty and resulted in the apparant contamination found in the deep wells;

*  that no man-made chemicals used in the fracking process have been found in excess of water quality standards; and

*  EPA ignored well known geologic and hydrologic conditions of the Pavillion field.  They conclude that EPA's release of this preliminary report was grossly irresponsible.  And the debate goes on.

My read is that whatever is ultimately concluded, the fracking and gas production in Pavillion will continue (there are only 161 persons using the groundwater within 4 miles of the site), and will continue everywhere else, too.  For sure, the geology and hydrology at Pavillion is very different from everywhere else, and even if the conclusion here is that mistakes had been made, it doesn't necessarily follow that mistakes will be or are being made everywhere else or anywhere else.  Every area will have to deal with these issues on their own.  The energy is simply too important (and let's not forget valuable) to do otherwise.  Besides, we can always clean up the water if we have to. (Ouch!)  Mind you, this is my read, not necessarily my opinion. 

My final point is regulation. There are those calling for federal regulation by EPA of all fracking activity.  The oil and gas industry is vehemently opposed to this approach, which makes most think it probably is the right one.  But I think the individual states can do this better - IF each one of us makes sure their state is appropriately addressing the public concerns.  I still think it is easier to make state regulations do what they are supposed to do when they are inadequate than federal regulations if they miss the mark. 

But one thing is for sure, someone needs to step up with a set of regulations that adequately protects the drinking water.

Can A Report Be Too Technical?

The EPA released the report, PAVILLION AREA GROUNDWATER INVESTIGATION Pavillion, Fremont County, Wyoming on August 30, 2010 which concludes groundwater contamination in the production area from hydraulic fracturing. You can read the report at the link just provided.  What caught my attention more than anything in picking up this report to read is the over the top use of acronyms in the introduction.
 
Using only the acronyms, the first introductory paragraph reads:

This ARR for the ESI at the Pavillion Area GW Investigation site (CERCLIS ID# WYN000802735) in Fremont County, Wyoming, has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of TDD No. 0901-01 issued to UOS under the EPA Region 8 START 3 Contract No. EP-W-05-050....Field activities were conducted from January 18 to January 22, 2010, in Pavillion, Wyoming. Field activities followed the SI format during the ESI, applicable UOS TSOPs, and the QAPP (UOS 2005b; UOS 2005a). This ARR is intended to be used in conjunction with the FSP (UOS 2010).
  
Got it?  I'll give copious props to anyone who can translate this paragraph by completing all the abbreviations.  Well I know no one can do it, so I'm going to provide them for you - just so you fully understand this report.

They are:

ARR = Analytical Results Report
ESI = Expanded Site Inspection
GW = Groundwater
CERCLIS = Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System
TDD = Technical Direction Document
UOS = URS Operating Services, Inc.  (clever - using an acronym inside an acronym)
EPA = Environmental Protection Agency  (or perhaps Extraordinary Participation of Acronyms)
START 3 = Superfund Technical Assessment and Response Team 3
SI = Site Inspection
TSOPs = Technical Standard Operating Procedures
QAPP = Generic Quality Assurance Project Plan  (they obviously tried to trip us up on this one)
FSP = Field Sampling Plan

After suffering through the introduction, quite frankly I didn't care a whole lot about what they found in the way of fracking impacts, and I still haven't read the rest of the report yet.  I'm guessing these EPA report writers must have completed a special Rosetta Stone course before this assignment.  Just haven't figured out which one yet.

Finally, A Federal Fracking Foray...Phooey?

On May 5, 2011, U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu asked the Natural Gas Subcommittee of his Energy Advisory Board to make recommendations on improving the safety and environmental performance of natural gas hydraulic fracturing from shale formations.  Good.  But note it was not a directive of "Should this be done or not?' but one of "It's going to be done, now, how can we do it responsibly?"

This request is part of President Obama's "Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future" - crafting a comprehensive plan to reduce America's oil dependence while saving consumers money and making the US a world leader in clean energy. The Subcommittee's task is:

"...work to identify, within 90 days, any immediate steps that can be taken to improve the safety and environmental performance of fracking and to develop, within six months, consensus recommended advice to the agencies on practices for shale extraction to ensure the protection of public health and the environment." (Blueprint, page 13)

The Subcommittee met for the first time on May 18, 2011 and held 5 additional meetings on June 1-2, June 13, June 28, July 13 and October 31 - all discussing issues and gathering information on the good, bad and ugly of hydraulic fracturing operations.  They report that they have received "a tremendous amount of public input" since their first meeting, and have provided a website for the review of all these comments, but it's not a working link as of today when I visited.   I wonder how many of these comments asked that it not be done at all?

They also released the first draft of their obligatory 90-day report on August 11, 2011 and took public comments until August 17, 2011 - receiving 163 comments on this specific document.  Of the 163 comments, 16 were detailed responses, 10 provided by environemtal groups or persons and six by oil and gas interests.  Their own summary of these comments states:  "These comments include complaints about the limited time for reviewing the report and objections to the Subcommittee makeup. Numerous respondents oppose hydraulic fracturing, recommend additional regulation of natural gas operations, and oppose development of non-renewable energy sources."  And most of us are just now hearing of this entire effort. 

Anyway, the Subcommittee just released its second and final ninety-day report which is dated November 18, 2011, in which they review the progress that has been made in implementing the 20 recommendations in its initial report of August 18, 2011.  Nice, It sounds like the entire public process didn't add, delete or change a single recommendation they originally came up with.  Moreover, even though most opposed the practice altogether, it is clear that some vestige of the current efforts will be assured of continuing.  I guess it's also possible that every issue identified by the public was already in the 20 initial recommendations.

You can read the November 18 draft report here.

The full committee was supposed to convene a public meeting on November 14, 2011 (via conference call) to discuss this report.  We were all duly noticed because they put the announcement in the Federal Register. Gad!  I missed it!  Again!  But don't worry, that notice included the following message:  "In order for public comments to be most useful to the Committee, they must be submitted by noon on November 14, 2011."  Makes me feel right on top of things as I read all of this process today.

And finally, from the November 18, 2011 report:  "The Subcommittee has the impression that its initial report stimulated interest in taking action to reduce the environmental impact of shale gas production by the administration, state governments, industry, and public interest groups.  However, the progress to date is less than the Subcommittee hoped and it is not clear how to catalyze action at a time when everyone’s attention is focused on economic issues, the press of daily business, and an upcoming election.  The Subcommittee cautions that whether its approach is followed or not, some concerted and sustained action is needed to avoid excessive environmental impacts of shale gas production and the consequent risk of public opposition to its continuation and expansion."

Yikes, is this entire effort simply a request by this committee for each individual oil and gas operator involved in fracking to step up to the plate and "do the right thing"?  Kumbaya?

Oddly enough, most of my suggestions are loosely included in the committee's suggestions, so maybe there is a glimmer of hope for these items yet.  It will be interesting to see how much of it survives this process.

Fracking Without Water

OK, so the oil companies have finally figured out a way to do their fracking operations without water - using essentially propane, or liquified natural gas instead.  This solves one of the main problems (what to do with the fracking fluid flowback) but as far as I can tell does nothing for the other main problems - leaking gas production - either through up hole leaks or via fracturing that may penetrate overlying formations in addition to the target formation.  Some contend these other problems, at least the up-hole leaks, are the larger problems by far.

I'm beginning to feel that hydraulic fracking commands a new and well-thought out set of regulations.  I'd like to see each state address this issue, or collaborate on one set for all states, but I'm afraid the industry is far too influential in all the major producing states to get very far down that road.  Looks like there is much work to be done in convincing the Kansas Legislature that special regulations should be developed in the interest of groundwater quality protection.  (Heck, maybe there is a local GMD role that can be explored here as we have groundwater quality responsibilities as well.)

I've said before that we need at least:  1) assurances that production well integrity is checked more often and carefully maintained; 2) ditto for injection wells; 3) engineering plans for the target zone fracturing are made a matter of record; 4) ditto for fracking chemicals used; and 5) there should be an adequate fund established for fixing problems that is readily accessible by state regulators. 

For debate, I'd also like to see the industry do a moderate level of groundwater sampling (if usable groundwater exists in the immediate area) before operations begin; and submit production samples as fingerprint items for future reference; and be required to use non-fresh water for all their operations whenever possible. Might as well ask - Christmas is just around the corner.

As far as I see it, without more industry accountability we're going to continue arguing over mistakes, accidents and natural occurrences forever, and as long as this situation continues as it is organized now, the oil and gas industry is going to win 99 times out of a hundred.

Haven't Been Fracked Yet But Are Concerned?

The question was posed to the SW Kansas GMD 3 as follows:  "If I were a concerned domestic well owner in an area where hydraulic fracking operations were to begin, what should my initial, pre-fracking, water quality sampling protocol include?" 

This is actually a very astute question and one that many folks may want to think about as the oil and gas industry ramps up and dives deeper and deeper for extra hydrocarbons.  A baseline, pre-oil activity, water sample (or set of samples) seems like a very smart idea that is more likely to give you a starting point should groundwater quality problems crop up after these areas become active.  Turns out GMD 3 contacted the Kansas Geological Survey (KGS) and asked their opinion, which is recounted here in this blog.  Thanks, Mark!  Click this link to the KGS if you want to review their website.

The KGS approached the question in an interesting way, beginning with "If someone wishes to at least have some basic, affordable, analysis made of his/her ground water, I would suggest...".  How thoughtful and actually dead on this approach was.  Anyway, they go on to suggest some basic inorganic tests including:  pH, specific conductance, calcium, magnesium, sodium, alkalinity or bicarbonate, chloride, sulfate, nitrate, and fluoride concentrations.  They like this suite of tests in that it will provide a background quality that will be helpful in distinguishing the pre-activity water quality from any post-activity quality should there be the more common problems of:  oil or gas brine leaking from waste at the surface; or through a faulty production or injection well; or through a poorly plugged (old) oil or gas well nearby that may have been affected by the fracking process.

They continue on to say that the other fracking chemicals are organic and will be much more expensive to include in a testing protocol - but none-the-less are as important.  While many of the organic constituents of fracking activities are none that landowners or farmers would be normally using, there are some that are - like ethylene glycol (antifreeze), methanol (antifreeze, windshield fluid and denatured ethanol) and isopropanol (glass cleaners and fuel additives).  Unfortunately, these are the same 3 organics they recommend being tested for because they are also the most commonly used in the fracking process.  If they show up in the post-activity testing, be prepared to prove that they're not yours!  If they show up before oil operations and you've been using these products, perhaps you have a leak in your septic system or have had poor storage and disposal practices on the farm already.

In any case, KGS recommends you contact a company certified by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment for whatever testing you decide on.  This link or This link can be used to find a KDHE qualified lab.

They also indicate that the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) and the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) are working with the industry to obtain samples of actual fracking fluid being used in Kansas horizontal wells, but I have not confirmed this.  Presumably this would yield a fairly accurate fingerprint of these water qualities for future reference and comparisons.  There is also an understanding that other fracking operations in different formations in Kansas will require a different fracking brew, so this may be a long and involved process.

I have to reference the industry FracFocus website at this time as well.  This is a voluntary site where drilling companies can choose to list the chemical constituents of their fracking formulas along with a lot of other information on the listed well.  A breeze through this site for fracking wells close to your area could give you far more specific information about what is most likely being used.  You could then choose to test accordingly.  Some companies use this site more than others, and some states have required its use, like Texas.  Kansas has not.  Might be something to talk to your legislators about...

Anyway, I hope this gives some direction on how landowners can approach a water quality sampling effort that gives them some peace of mind yet doesn't require their entire life savings.

[Update: October 26, 2011]

KGS has offered an interesting alternative to those who have not yet leased land for oil and gas operations that makes sense to me.  Thanks, guys.  In their own words:

"Dave Newell at the KGS had an excellent suggestion concerning negotiating an analysis for a new lease and I have added some procedure to it that you might consider adding to your blog:

If a land owner is being approached to lease their land, a baseline laboratory analysis paid by the oil/gas company could be negotiated as part of the leasing agreement. This is not costly compared to the total leasing agreement and drilling, and in some ways, it could protect both the property owner and the company. In this case, a third party could collect and submit a water sample to an independent certified laboratory and both the oil/gas company and landowner should receive the results."

Hydraulic Fracking in Kansas - 2

A little more light on Kansas hydraulic fracking (HF) history and activities.  I attended a joint Legislative Committee session today in which several presentations were made on HF in the state - one by the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC) and one by Kansas Independent Oil & Gas Association (KIOGA).  According to both presentations HF is well regulated in the Kansas.

KIOGA strongly opposes EPA regulating the practice, so touted KCC regulation as very sufficient.  KCC said they regulate many phases of the practice, but had to admit that they have never generated any statutes or regs that specifically apply to, or even mention the HF process.  All their regulations which they claim adequately protect Kansas are covered by their existing general oil & gas regulations.  These would include surface pipe; production casing; and well cementing regs; and their intent to drill and pipe permitting processes and reporting requirements.  Excuse me, but just how effectively do these old original regulations deal with the new issues of HF when the process never even appears in the statutes?

The joint committee did get the closest look yet at Kansas activity.  As I wrote on February 2, 2011 (here), HF was first done in 1947 in Grant County, Kansas.  Moreover, the KCC reported that probably 80% of all oil & gas and coalbed methane wells in the state have been fracked.  The good news was that Kansas has just over 19,000 injection wells readily available to take all the flowback fluids, so this waste stream in Kansas is 100% injected.  This of course was to ease water treatment concerns that are a huge issue in other parts of the US.  They regionalized some crude figures on HF water use and injection pressures.  From lows of 200 bbl of water per well and 300-1000 psi injection pressures in SE Kansas, to 2700-5000 bbl of water per well and 2500-3600 psi injection pressures in NW Kansas.

I have to admit, they were pretty convincing, but then again, they weren't challenged very hard with probing questions.  They made a big deal out of the FracFocus.com web-registry for fracking chemicals used, but never mentioned that Kansas operators rarely use this voluntary site.  Remember, in February, 2011  I queried for every Kansas well in the entire registry and got two returns.  They made huge pitches for the KCC regulation of HF, yet just an hour earlier they reported on several KCC rulings that made it more unlikely that the industry (or anyone else) would ever be held responsible for older abandoned oil & gas wells.  They touted again that not a single case of groundwater contamination in the US has yet been verified from HF.  They criticized all the anti-fracking materials, from the New York Times series to the Gasland documentary.  And they mentioned three times that the industry is all about transparency, yet never mentioned how they have fought chemical disclosure.  Quite frankly, I sensed them being just as radical and entrenched in defense of the practice as they accused the environmental groups of being in opposition to it.

All this leads me to believe the real answer is somewhere in the middle, which is essentially what I said back in February.  I do wish the committee would have asked more questions, though.  They were far too polite.  I would think that Kansas should consider a set of regulations specifically for HF that include at least:  1) full disclosure of HF chemicals and injection pressures; 2) full disclosure of flowback fluid injections; 3)  full disclosure of engineering work-ups on the fracking plans used; and 4) a remediation fund should any problems occur.  Now, if your activities are 100% safe and will never cause a problem, why would you oppose these basic requirements?

Hydraulic Fracturing in Kansas

The process of hydraulic fracturing an oil or gas zone to enhance production has become a hot topic of late in many areas of the US that produce oil and gas. The Marcellus Shale regions of Pennsylvania and the gas producing areas of Wyoming and Colorado have been at the forefront of this controversial issue – over claims that 1) the process is affecting or can affect potable groundwater supplies, and 2) the use of freshwater in this process is a waste. It was a surprise to learn that an estimated 75% to 90% of the Kansas oil and gas production wells have undergone this process. In fact it was mentioned that the process here in Kansas has been used since the mid 1940’s and the very first well fracked in the US was done in state.

Hydraulic fracturing is a process of pumping sand and water (and a tad bit of other proprietary chemicals – mostly ethylene glycol based) into a tight production zone under pressure. The fracking materials fracture the producing horizon allowing the sand to enter and then prop open the fractured veins – thus increasing production. The proportion of chemicals used to the sand and water is small – usually on the order of 1% or less.

Like everything else, this process done correctly and in the right situations and places, is not likely to be an environmental problem. However, done incorrectly or in the wrong places or situations, it can be. Add to it the fact that the specific chemicals used, albeit small amounts, are proprietary (unknown to anyone but the company doing the work) and you can see why state regulatory agencies are snookered – there’s no way to associate or directly connect contaminated water to the fracking process. Another legal issue is that the oil and gas wells have been excluded from federal environmental laws like EPA’s Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).  On the bright side, all this activity in Kansas requires a water right - either permanent or term, and the state is not allowed to approve any water right for fresh water when other, lesser quality waters are available to be used.  Presumably this would find very small (if any) amounts of fresh water being used for fracking, or any other oil & gas purpose, in Kansas. (see update below)

It’s clear there is a significant economic benefit of using this process – and to eliminating it. Kansas claims oil and gas is a $4.5 billion dollar industry that would be not near as lucrative if the additional production from fracking processes were eliminated.  From my readings, it's clear that the economic prowess of these operations weigh heavily on every state when it starts considering additional regulation.  Of course, many are opposed to it on environmental arguments as well.

The sides are lining up in many states, but not here in Kansas it seems. To date there has been no significant or organized opposition to this process that I'm aware of. This is likely because either it is working well here, or, everyone in the state has been asleep at the switch. Not being aware of any insults in Kansas at this time, and knowing that not everyone is clueless, I have to conclude that our geologic conditions and fracking activities have been compatible. We have 1 oil and gas water right in this GMD that was approved from the brackish Dakota Aquifer many years ago for a secondary recovery water flood project. From my limited experience, it seems that the water quality aspects of the issue are working here as well.

Update - October 12, 2011:  As it turns out, no freshwater can be approved for use in Kansas when lesser quality waters are technologically and economically feasible.  As a result, freshwater is in fact being used in Kansas at this time for oil and gas industry uses.