Reduced Ethanol??

On November 15th 2013 USA Today came out with an article explaining the changes in recent Ethanol use regulations and how this once championed bio-fuel law of 2007 has not been working as had once been expected.  In fact for the first time, officials are planning to reduce the amount of ethanol in the US's fuel supply.  At the beginning, the law had hoped to address climate change concerns while encouraging homegrown bio-fuels that would burn cleaner than gasoline.  The ethanol cut back, would require approximately 3 billion gallons less ethanol to be used.  The variable that had not been considered during the initial bio-fuel discussions, was the possibility for such fuel economy improvements as what has taken place over the last several years.  "Bio-fuels are a key part of the Obama administration's 'all the above' energy strategy, helping to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, cut carbon pollution and create job," stated EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy.  This proposed ethanol reduction could bring some flack, when reflecting on statements of the past.  In addition the ethanol mandate has caused quite a stir amongst both oil companies and environmental groups.  As the market continues to fluctuate and technology undoubtedly progresses, what will be the future of bio-fuel vehicle use?

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.

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?

Who Has the Time?

You have to be kidding me!  I got an email today from a colleague who asked if I was interested in weather-based irrigation controllers as a possible grant request under an AWEP proposal.  This would be an irrigation efficiency kind of approach.  The actual email was a link to the EPA's WaterSense page where the agency is setting up to take a second round of public comments on equipment specifications.  The EPA line is:

"EPA Releases WaterSense Revised Draft Specification for Weather-Based Irrigation Controllers. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has released the WaterSense Revised Draft Specification for Weather-Based Irrigation Controllers. The revised draft addresses stakeholder comments on the initial draft released in November 2009.

With more than 13.5 million irrigation systems currently installed in the United States, replacing existing standard clock timer controllers with WaterSense labeled weather-based irrigation controllers could offer significant water savings for homeowners and organizations using irrigation systems. Weather-based controllers create or modify irrigation schedules based on the landscape needs and real-time weather data."

I went to the link (EPA Watersense Page - Weather-based Irrigation Controllers) to learn a little more.  YIKES!  IF you were wanting to intelligently participate in the process of offering public comments, at this site you'll find 31 links and 614 pages of materials you will need to explore first!  Get real!  There has to be a better way!  I won't be participating.