Fracking Phobias -- The Motley Fool

A reader sent this link/story -- thank you.

The information in the Motley Fool story has been previously reported at the blog, but this is the first time the two stories appear together, coherently. Very, very nice to see.

As often noted, I generally don't care for superficiality of Motley Fool stories, but this one is a good one. A big "thank you" to the reader for sending it to me. From the linked article:

Yet oil and gas industry services specialist Nuverra Environmental Solutions has been telling anyone who will listen that fracking doesn't cause groundwater pollution. The company, which was previously known as Heckmann and is the leading supplier of water to the oil and gas industry, says fracking occurs 10,000 feet below the surface -- and water seeps down, not up, so the probability that it is responsible for the polluted water supplies is negligible.

The DOE study, which injected tracer chemicals into the fracking fluids so they could follow them, confirmed that. It injected the fluids some 8,000 feet below the surface and then monitored for them at 5,000 feet. None were ever detected, meaning that groundwater -- which is typically situated around 500 feet below the surface -- was about a mile away from any potential contamination. 

No doubt those conclusions are behind the EPA's decision to drop its study of groundwater contamination in Wyoming, instead allowing the state to complete it. Originally, the study was slated to be peer reviewed, but after questions about its methodology arose, it decided to abandon it altogether.

"Water seeps up, not down." Sometimes one wonders if any of the activist environmentalists ever graduated from 8th grade, and/or understand the principle of gravity. Thank goodness hydrocarbons have their unique "fingerprints" which makes it possible to identify source of hydrocarbons. 

Wyoming Shenanigans -- Update; EPA Closes The Books On This One

The Wall Street Journal is reporting:

The Environmental Protection Agency said Thursday that it would drop an investigation that had linked contaminated water to natural-gas drilling in Wyoming, in a boost for Encana Corp. and other firms that practice the drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing.

The EPA will allow the state of Wyoming to continue the investigation but doesn't "plan to rely upon the conclusions" of its previous study, the state and the agency said in a joint statement. 

Platts tweeted this:

Wyoming to take lead in study of Pavillion-area groundwater pollution, as US EPA backs away from linking it to fracking.

The tags will take you to the many other posts regarding this subject.

EPA Establishes Fracking Research Advisory Team

Oil & Gas Journal is reporting:

A panel of 31 experts has been formed to review the US Environmental Protection Agency’s hydraulic fracturing research, EPA’s independent Scientific Advisory Board announced on Mar. 25.

It said the group will be asked to specifically seek input from applied scientific practitioners to get fresh information on emerging science and technology in what SAB considers a rapidly changing industry.

The panel is comprised of 5 current employees of companies and consulting firms; 2 government employees; and 21 academics and university professors (including some previously employed in the oil and gas industry), according to SAB.

It said the group would review a draft report that EPA expects to complete in 2014 on any potential health and environmental impacts of fracing on drinking water resources. It also will be asked to provide scientific feedback on EPA’s research leading up to the peer review, the SAB said.

It never quits, does it?

From Forbes: Natural Gas Production Not Likely To Decrease Next Four Years

Link here to Forbes.

.... a key element of both the Romney and Obama energy platforms: increased domestic natural gas production.  It is generally expected that the Obama administration will continue to push for more oversight and regulation of shale fracking. 

The April 2012 EPA decision to reduce air emissions from fracking could well be followed by an effort to end exemptions from certain elements of the Safe Drinking Water Act.  In the case of the EPA air emissions oversight, the rules were relaxed somewhat, and industry was given two years to bring activities into compliance.

In the case of water regulation, the conversation may well continue to drag along slowly for some time to come.  In the end, there is only so much regulation that is likely to occur at the national level.  The 2005 Energy Policy Act essentially gave most regulatory responsibility to individual states, and it will probably remain there.

Regardless of the final regulatory outcome, gas production is likely to soar, especially as gas use grows in transportation, industry, and electric generation.  And don’t forget the significant potential for LNG exports, as numerous license requests have already been tendered.  

The Marcellus area, and Pennsylvania in particular, should continue to see rapid growth. 

A new study from ASD Reports announced today suggests that production could increase more than seven-fold from 2011 levels, from  just over 1,000 billion cubic feet equivalent (bcfe) in 2011 to almost 5,000 bcfe in 2015, before finally leveling off at over 7,600 bcfe in 2020.

I'll be sleeping better tonight. 

Obama: More Than One Way To Kill Fracking

Link here.

This is incredible. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to sort this out.

The Obama administration continues its war on fossil fuels, leaving virtually no stone unturned in looking for ways to slow fossil fuel production. C.J. Ciaramela reports on still more stalling shenanigans in an article at the Washington Free Beacon:

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Association (FMCSA) in June re-interpreted a 50-year-old rule limiting the amount of time trucks delivering water and sand to drilling sites can stay on-site.

The rule interpretation, which was put into effect immediately, and without either review or industry input, seems to target fracking:

The new interpretation of the rule would remove a “waiting time exemption” for trucks at drilling-sites, making any time they spend on-site count toward their 11-hour work limit. Because oil and gas drilling sites are often located in remote areas, sometimes without paved roads, and because of the unpredictable nature of the work, it is often necessary for trucks to stay on-site for more than 11 hours.

Federal Fracking Rules Comment Period Extended Through Early September -- Election Year Shenanigans

File under "election year shenanigans."

A big "thank you" to a reader for sending me this link. I had missed the story. I'm surprised no one else took me to task for missing this story:

The oil and gas industry is celebrating last week's news that the Interior Department is suspending its proposing rules for hydraulic fracturing on public lands. The better way to view this is as the calm before next year's federal regulatory surge.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar issued the new draft fracking rules in May, elbowing in on turf long occupied by the 50 states. The regulations, covering everything from disclosure of drilling chemicals to well integrity, are redundant. Drillers on federal lands are already subject to state regulations, and there have been no notable scandals or examples of botched oversight. The Environmental Protection Agency has tried to dig up pollution stories, only to have the evidence turn out to be phony or otherwise explainable.

Mr. Salazar has agreed to extend the comment period on the rules for 60 days. The Obama Administration says the delay is proof of its reasonableness, a point it is trying to stress in this election season. Note well, however, that Mr. Salazar isn't offering to kill the rules.

Google it: the story is hard to find. In fact, all Ken Salazar did was extend the comment period until September 10, 2012. Election shenanigans.

*****************

Links to other articles prior to this announcement:

Tribal leaders opposed to federal regulations: Bismarck Tribune

Department of Interior claims authority to regulate fracking: Indianz.com

Federal fracking rules will hurt development of the reservations: BakkenBeacon


Mixed Wyoming reaction to proposed Federal fracking rules: Billings Gazette


Tribes roundly reject proposed Federal fracking rules: MHA Nation


Federal rules would slow Fort Berthold oil development: Oil Patch Dispatch, Forum Communications

NDIC: the state is best able to regulate fracking: a PDF file

I was unable to find any article in which the Native Americans in North Dakota publicly stated support for Federal fracking regulations.

Too Bad It's No Longer a Scientific Argument -- Fracking

Link here to Rigzone.

Methane emissions from hydraulically fractured wells are 50 percent lower than estimates found in a 2010 study by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), according to survey results released Monday by the American Petroleum Institute (API) and America's Natural Gas Alliance (ANGA).

The API-ANGA study found the venting of methane into the atmosphere during liquids unloading – a technique to remove water and other liquids from the wellbore to improve the flow of natural gas -- is 86 percent lower than EPA's estimates.

EPA had estimated that liquids unloading accounted for 51 percent of EPA's total "Natural Gas Systems" methane emissions in the 2010 inventory. Applying emission factors based on ANGA/API data reduces the calculated emissions for this source by 86 percent, from 4.5 million metric tons to 637,766 metric tons of methane.

Twinkies and Fracking

Another great article from PennEnergy.

That wasn’t always the case. Nitrilotriethanol, for instance, is not a compound most people are familiar with. Without a specific reason to be concerned about it, the chemical can be written off in the public consciousness as easily as thiamine mononitrate. It’s just another big word that’s probably not worth worrying about. Of course, one of those big words is used in fracking fluids. The other is an ingredient in Twinkies. But on paper, they’re both big, complex words seemingly uninteresting to the average person. That unfamiliarity and un-interestingness could have kept people from concerning themselves with fracking. Then somebody’s tap water caught fire, and everything changed. 

It's a great article but unfortunately one needs an eighth-grade education to be able to read it to the finish and understand it. 

Permitorium in North Dakota? Don't Worry, Be Happy

Updates 

December 9, 2012: fracking is doomed, story posted July 27, 2012, at CNBC.  I don't know if fracking is doomed, but if anyone thinks solar and wind is going to replace oil and gas anytime in the next ten years hasn't followed the news. Or done the math.  We need to follow this up in 2030. 

Later, 9:00 p.m.: this article may help resolve some of the confusion regarding mineral oil, fracking, and several other issues. It's been linked before at this blog, but I had forgotten. A lot of information in this story but it explains a lot, and, to me suggests several options (all with good outcomes). 

Later, 7:40 p.m.:  See first comment. It almost sounds like diesel is no longer an issue. If so, diesel is another Hitchcockian McGuffin, or a "red herring."


Don't Worry, Be Happy, Bobby McFerrin

Original Post

Link here to Bismarck Tribune.

Helms said the permitorium, while better than a moratorium, could delay each oil well permit at least 45 days compared to the 15 days it takes now for a state permit.

“The activity level will be hugely impacted,” Helms said.

All but one well driller in North Dakota use diesel in fracking, where it activates certain chemicals and makes the frack fluid thick and slippery in the formation.

Helms said even 45 days to hold hearings and test water sources is a “best case scenario.

This will tie it up in red tape.”

Tripling the time needed for a federal permit is the "best case scenario." We've seen this movie before. It was the (non)-development of oil in the reservation about then-Senator Dorgan stepped in and got the BLM to streamline the process.

Not good news.

One step forward, two steps back. 

And just the other day someone sent me a comment telling me not to worry about the EPA. I didn't post it; it added nothing to the conversation. Whoever sent it was clearly "out of the loop."

What crazy science! The faux environmentalists are worried about a few bbls of diesel going down a pipe that will eventually produce 900,000 bbls of oil coming up that same pipe.

Two Three Four Five questions:

• if diesel is not used, will that allow the driller to avoid the EPA permitorium?
• how is that one operator that does not use diesel doing?
• can operators use Newman's Own Salad Oil instead of diesel? 
• what about Willie Nelson Biodiesel?  -- if you have not heard of this company, it's not too late
• could sunflower oil be used instead of diesel? This is a great initiative for the man who gave ND, SD, and IA farmers ethanol (then-Senator-turned-lobbyist Daschle). Wow, what an opportunity!

Dimock, Pennsylvania, Water Safe To Drink -- EPA -- Yes, a Fracking Story

If you missed the story, like I did, it's not your fault: the EPA released the news six (6) minutes after 6:00 p.m. last Friday, after the news cycle for the week was over. Incredible.

Link here.

Something tells me the first-gay president won't mention it when he visits Pennsylvania.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said drinking water is safe to consume in a small Pennsylvania town that has attracted national attention after residents complained about hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, for natural gas.

The EPA has tested water at 61 homes in Dimock, Pennsylvania, where residents have complained since 2009 of cloudy, foul-smelling water after Cabot Oil & Gas Corp drilled for gas nearby.

"This set of sampling did not show levels of contaminants that would give EPA reason to take further action," Roy Seneca, a spokesman for the regional EPA office, said about the final set of data released Friday. The agency released data for only 59 of the homes as they could not contact residents at two of them.

Good News? EPA, Fracking and Diesel

Another top story of the year, if the headline to the story is accurate.

There are only three significant issues when it comes to the EPA and fracking regulations:

• states' rights
• bureaucratic redundancy
• use of diesel in fracking

The first issue is beyond the scope of this blog.

The second issue is ... well, for the moment, uninteresting.

The third issue: the only issue that could have, with a stroke of a pen, shut down fracking as "we" know it in the Bakken. See this post.

The story at the first link: if the headline is accurate, this is great news for the Bakken boom. But the devil is in the details with phrases like "the use of diesel will be considered on a case-by-case" basis.

The draft guidance outlines for EPA permit writers, where EPA is the permitting authority, requirements for diesel fuels used for hydraulic fracturing wells, technical recommendations for permitting those wells, and a description of diesel fuels for EPA underground injection control permitting. The draft guidance describes diesel fuels for these purposes by reference to six chemical abstract services registry numbers. The agency is requesting input on this description.

While the guidance undergoes public notice and comment, decisions about permitting hydraulic fracturing operations that use diesel fuels will be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the facts and circumstances of the specific injection activity and applicable statutes, regulations and case law, and will not cite the draft guidance as a basis for decision.

One WSJ Op-Ed Piece Paid for The Subscripton -- Aubrey McLendon

I don't know if you can get to this article without a password; hopefully you can it.

It reminded me how much I enjoy the Wall Street Journal -- but then I'm reminded of that every day.

In this case, it's an opinion piece by the WSJ editorial staff on CHK's CEO. Actually it's hardly an opinion piece. It's simply a collection of Aubrey's thoughts on energy and politics expressed during a recent visit to the WSJ offices.

This on the Keystone decision is typical of his comments:

...the message the president should have delivered in January when he rejected the pipeline. "What he should have said is: 'OK, so we're not going to build Keystone and you the American people, I just want you to know that this will result in higher gasoline and diesel prices for you for the rest of your lives because I just woke Canada up from a 50-year slumber and I slapped them in the face and they will now build a pipeline to Vancouver. And the Chinese today are celebrating. And as a consequence prices for oil in the U.S. will be higher.'"

Warming to the topic, he relates with more than a little dismay that after the rejection of Keystone XL "then [Mr. Obama] comes to Oklahoma and stands in front of a bunch of pipe—which I don't think he knew what it was—and says, 'I'm going to greenlight southern Keystone.' It didn't need any presidential decisions to be made. I mean the only presidential decision is the 12 inches at the Canadian border. We needed that."

And on fracking:

...I think we're moving beyond the whole fracking controversy as [the Environmental Protection Agency] kind of systematically takes a step back from all their allegations." Several hours after Mr. McClendon's visit, the EPA announced draft fracking rules that were less onerous than expected.

Not that he fears a temporary ban in any case. "You want to go ban fracking for a year? Knock yourself out. It would be marvelous for our share price," because the limit on supply would send gas prices soaring. "Essentially every well in the U.S. is fracked," he continues, and therefore a ban on gas production would eliminate the energy on which utilities and their customers rely. "You'll kill tens of thousands of people, freeze them out. You'll starve them out. It's completely unthinkable."

I hope you can get to the link.

He didn't mention the Bakken. Or least the WSJ didn't mention it.

EPA Gives "Green Light" to Frackers -- The Bakken, North Dakota, USA -- For Investors Only

Link here to MarketWatch.com.

At least one other "celebrity" has talked about last week's EPA announcement concerning fracking (I won't mention names -- I don't want folks to stop reading -- smile). Kirk Spano (at the link) is the second I've come across.

The EPA announcement did not make headlines; in fact, I think it was announced pretty much outside the normal news cycle, but I can't say for sure. I didn't make much of it at the time because I am too much of a cynic when it comes to the EPA and the current administration. I pay less attention to what they say, and more attention to what they do.

But in this case, I may be wrong. This may be a bigger deal than folks realize, especially for investors. At the link:

Last week, tucked into the headlines was a story describing how the Environmental Protection Agency decided to give oil and gas companies until 2015 to fully comply with so-called "green completions" for their hydraulic fracturing operations. In the near term, this move removes the risk for companies engaged in "fracking" of having the EPA slow their high growth via the rapid implementation of new rules.

Kirk Spano argues that two things will follow from the EPA announcement:

a) the announcement itself will encourage investors to invest in the Bakken; it removes (albeit temporarily) the EPA's sword of Damocles hanging by a single thread over companies like CLR and Oasis; and,
b) if EPA is true to its word, it makes it easier for Bakken companies to meet their production goals

For investors, Kirk mentions the following companies:

• CLR
• Apache
• National Oilwell Varco (nice building/complex west of Williston)
• Baker Hughes (huge new complex west of Williston)
• Carbo Ceramics (in discussions to build North America's largest ceramics distribution complex near Dickinson)

It is interesting to note that Kirk did not provide names of companies involved in manufacturing the natural gas / liquids separators that will benefit from the EPA rules that now go into effect in 2015. 

President To Announce New Pollution Standards When Completing Gas Wells

Whatever the standards will be, they will be delayed two years

Updates

Later: Rigzone provides a much better explanation of the rules and the delay in implementation. And by my reckoning the delay is more than two years: the new rules won't go into effect until 2015. That's all of 2014, all of 2013, and most of 2012.

Later: here's the USA Today story reporting the Presidential announcement. The references are all to "gas wells." So, unless I'm missing something, this does not affect the Bakken. I must be missing something.

Original Post

Again, a most confusing story, the way it is written.

The Debbie Downer headline: President to announce federal standards to reduce pollution from fracking

But one has to read several paragraphs before you finally get to the pre-announcement:

Administration officials who briefed The Associated Press in advance of Wednesday's announcement said drillers now would be given an additional two years to reduce pollution during that stage. The Environmental Protection Agency will require drillers to burn off gas in the meantime, an alternative that can release smog-forming nitrogen oxides, but will still reduce overall emissions.

So, I guess we will wait to see if the President's announcement sheds more light on the new standards.  Unless I'm missing something in the story, the article simply states the President will delay for two years implementation of emissions standards involving gas wells.

*********************

Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood, The Animals

Baby, do you understand me now?
Sometimes I feel a little mad,
But don't you know that no one alive can always be an angel?
When things go wrong, I feel real bad.

I'm just a soul whose intentions are good.
Oh, Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.

The EPA has new standards to reduce pollution,
We'll just delay them for two years.

I'm just a soul whose intentions are good,
Oh, Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood.

No Plan B

Updates

March 20, 2012: How very, very interesting. Earlier today I posted the note below. I purposely "hid" it here and posted it nowhere else, feeling that it was too speculative for the blog. Then this story that just popped up on Drudge Report: IMF says oil could spike 30%.

IMF chief Christine Lagarde warned Tuesday that crude oil prices may spike by up to 30 percent if Iranian supplies were disrupted, causing "serious consequences" for the global economy.

The standoff between Iran, the world's second-largest supplier of oil, and the West over the Islamic Republic's nuclear program is seen as a flashpoint that could sharply increase world crude prices.

March 20, 2012: it looks like April 1, 2012 is the day the countdown begins for Israel to launch against Iran. ICE will slow down trades beginning April 1, 2012, in an attempt to minimize large price swings. Gee, I wonder which way the price could go?

Original Post

I assume that most readers have heard of Mexico's Cantarell field. I think I've been reading about it for years: in addition to natural depletion, its annual production has taken a hit because the Mexican constitution forbids foreign drillers from operating in Mexican oil fields.

Bloomberg has an interesting story on the Cantarell field and how it plans to increase production from this aging field. [Update: CNNMoney posted a story about Mexico's "big oil" problem on August 17, 2012. It was fairly superficial, a throwaway article, but some folks might see something I missed.]

The article appears to be just another Bloomberg article but it is full of wonderful data points. Here are some of those data points and my comments:

It's hard to believe that Mexico is the world's third-largest oil producer and produces only 2.55 million bbls of oil/day. Iran is #2 and exports about 2.6 million bbls/day.

The Cantarell field is now down to less than 501,000 bopd: for newbies, the Bakken is solidly above 500,000 bopd and increasing about 5 percent each month. I think it's fair to say that the Bakken could hit 750,000 bopd by the end of the year, if the current rate continues.

On the other hand, the Mexicans say they hope to increase production by 6% over the next couple of years, going from 2.55 million bopd now to 2.7 million bopd.

“We plan to increase production to 2.7 million barrels in the next couple years,” Suarez Coppel said. Pemex will produce 3 million barrels a day “by 2017 or 2018, given that we invest enough.” 

"Given that we invest enough." Wow, Mexico even hedges on being able to increase production by less than 20 percent over the next five to six years. Remember, Mexico is the world's third largest producer.

Switching gears......

If Mexico is the world's third largest producer, producing about 2.55 million bopd, can you imagine what might happen with price of oil if we suddenly lost all that production? Well, that is the amount that Iran exports, about 2.6 million bopd.

I posted the other day that the Iranian embargo was to take effect July 1, 2012, but the insurers stopped insuring Iranian tankers effective January 23, 2012. Way back on February 24, 2012, I suggested that countries were already scrambling to find new sources for oil and suggested that was the reason we were already starting to see a spike in the price of oil.

Well, it turns out that may been very, very accurate. Bloomberg is reporting that Iranian shipments are already declining close to 500,000 bopd. My hunch is that the administration thought they had until July 1, 2012, for a diplomatic solution, and had not counted on insurers to bring this to a head much earlier. Although it's also possible, the administration was looking for maximum pain at the pump, only to come in as the shining knight in late June to say that a diplomatic solution had been reached, that Iranian oil was flowing again. The sudden drop in the price of oil/gasoline would occur just as the presidential election closing in on November.

The perfect storm......

Back on March 2, 2011, I wrote that once the global economy turns, the demand for oil will more closely match supply. Anything that disrupts supply, and threatens that demand/supply match (or appears to threaten that demand/supply), there will be a spike in the price of oil.

We now have something that threatens the supply of oil. This time it is not just Libya, it is the number 2 producer of oil in the world, Iran.

Whining.....

Obama cites bottlenecks and speculators as "possible" gasoline price factors.  I'm looking forward to the presidential debates: permitorium, moratorium, the Keystone, ....

It appears the administration has appointed Vermont's Bernie Sanders to be their point man to try to convince Americans that speculators are the cause of the recent rise in the price of oil. Because of the size of our economy, because of the size of our oil industry, it takes awhile to see how policies affect outcome. In the past three years: slow-rolling the domestic oil and gas industry; refusing to allow any drilling off-shore Alaska, or almost anywhere off-shore in the continental US; the moratorium and then then permitorium in the gulf (which caused much more economic damage than the original event); and the killing of Keystone XL.

Bernie whines about speculators, and overlooks everything else. I really don't know who the average American will believe: Bernie Sanders or someone else. It may not matter: at $6.00 gasoline, folks are not interested in casting blame; they are interested in seeing prices come down.

Speaking of the "average American" and the "average price" of oil.....

Yesterday, I wrote that AAA's "average" price of gasoline is not the same as the price that the "average" American is paying for gasoline. In today's news, the evidence. The Drudge headline reported today there is a gasoline station in Los Angeles charging $6.00/gallon. That may or may not be an outlier. But this is the real story: the cost of gasoline in California is now $5.00/gallon. The "average" price of gasoline in the country might be $3.79, but the "average" American is paying much more, and many "average" Americans may be paying as much as $5.00/gallon now.

Anyway, enough of this rambling. I think folks get the picture.

Three years of slow-rolling the domestic oil and gas industry, killing the Keystone XL, the permitorium, the continuing moratorium, .... Steven Chu did not have a Plan B if the Iranians embargoed their oil.

Oh, I haven't even mentioned the three refineries that closed down on the east coast for a variety of reasons, including the cost of environmental compliance.....and the EPA ready to shut down fracking.

.... and Pinocchio's Nose Just Got a Bit Longer ...

The EPA say it did not condemn fracking in its draft report on the shenanigans in Wyoming.

“We make clear that the causal link to hydraulic fracturing has not been demonstrated conclusively, and that our analysis is limited to the particular geologic conditions in the Pavillion gas field and should be assumed (sic) to apply to fracturing in other geologic settings,” James B. Martin, EPA’s Region 8 administrator in Denver, told the House Science, Space and Technology Committee’s Energy and Environment Subcommittee.

“It should be noted that fracturing in Pavillion is taking place in and below the drinking water aquifer and in close proximity to drinking water wells—production conditions different from those in many other areas of the country,” he added.

Is there a "not" missing in that first quote, or I am misreading that sentence?

But, yes, I suppose one could argue that the EPA did not "condemn" fracking -- but then, the agency doesn't need to condemn something to halt it. Just saying more study is needed can be enough to place a moratorium on fracking. 

And, yes, I did note the way the Oil and Gas Journal spells "fracking" in headlines: "fracing."

Very, Very Interesting -- EPA Water Results Won't Hold Water

For "idiom-challenged" folks and foreigners, click here before reading further.

To find out why the EPA's water results won't hold water, click here.

To properly test such water wells, they must be first purged three times to make sure fresh water from the surrounding formation flows in for testing, Clarey said.

“We ‘re not sure they produced out all the water that may have seeped out of the formation during the drilling process or well development,” Clarey said. “So we’re not even sure they’re getting an accurate formation sample.”

The EPA data indicates the agency only flushed the wells one-quarter of the amount needed, he said.

If anyone has trouble interpreting this, let me know.

Oil and Gas Journal has the story also. 

*******************

Meanwhile, four senators from oil states have written the EPA regarding broad definition of diesel:

Four US senators expressed concern about the US Environmental Protection Agency’s possible plans to regulate hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SWDA) when diesel fuel is used.

“From a practical standpoint, a key issue is whether EPA’s actions will cause unnecessary confusion and open the door for states to lose their primacy for [underground injection control (UIC)] permitting programs,” the lawmakers said in a Dec. 21 letter to EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson.

James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Environment and Public Works Committee’s ranking minority member; Lisa Murkowski (R-Alas.), the Energy and Natural Resources Committee’s ranking minority member; and E&NR Committee members Mary L. Landrieu (D-La.) and John Hoeven (R-ND) signed the letter.

They said the 2005 Energy Policy Act clarified the SDWA to specifically exclude from the UIC definition’s scope “the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities.”

Again, as I've said before, to the EPA, if it has C and H in it and it is used in fracking, it will be considered "diesel." This includes salad oil.

Jim Cramer: One Day Away From a Complete Ban on Fracking -- CNBC, Mad Money -- December 20, 2011

Jim Cramer's opening statement: "We're one day from a complete ban by the EPA on fracking."

He's not saying the EPA will ban fracking tomorrow, but it could literally happen overnight. Lynn Helms (NDIC) and Jim Cramer are on the same page.

But I'm no longer worried. Teegue says there is no chance that the EPA will ban fracking.

Fracking, Filloon, and Investing -- The Bakken, North Dakota, USA

SeekingAlpha.com link here.

I haven't read the article yet, but thought folks might like to see it. Sent to me by Don.

Again, this is not an investment site, see disclaimer at the right.

From the Filloon article:

Stories about possible frack contamination are plentiful. Fracking itself Is very safe. This process is straight forward, as seen in this video from Northern Oil and Gas' website. In drilling, ground water does have contact with the drill bit, and drilling fluid. The casing and cement create a barrier between the well and ground water. If the casing and cement are not properly installed there could be contamination.

There have been instances of the casing and cement failing. This could be a structural problem, or poor installation. A Denbury well near Killdeer, North Dakota reported leaking of its casing. The water system in this area was tested and deemed safe. In November of 2010, Whiting  had a well near New Town, North Dakota that was shut down after a valve failed near the well head. Neither well caused environmental damage.

The story is the same no matter where researched. There are numerous articles written on the possibility of fracking polluting ground water. The problem with this is the word possibility. There is very little to prove this is happening. North Dakota, Texas, and Oklahoma, are the home of thousands of unconventional wells. If we look at all of these wells there is very little to prove the fracking process is environmentally unsound, if done properly. If this technology were flawed, there would be consistent reports of pollution.

I'm no longer worried about EPA and fracking; Teegue says not to worry.

By the way, Filloon says the same thing I do about the availability of water in North Dakota:

The Williston Basin has no shortage as the Missouri River and Lake Sakakawea easily meet demand. Areas like the Eagle Ford in Texas, are much dryer and have had difficulties.

EPA - Wyoming Shenanigans

Update

November 14, 2016: cased closed (?). Wyoming DEQ finds no fracking fluids in groundwater.  I'm so sick of this subject, I want to throw up.

June 19, 2013: the EPA closes the books on this one. The EPA says it will turn over the "investigation" to the state of Wyoming.

January 11, 2012: Comment period extended for the third time; extended almost another year, to September 30, 2013.

December 6, 2012: Encana calls on EPA to abandon Pavillion natural gas well tests. Paraphrasing: "the tests are flawed and the EPA needs to start over. Re-focus."

October 18, 2012: link to OGJ -- USGS did a better job testing the water at Pavillion, WY, than the EPA did -- API.  When you read the story, it sounds just like the Lance Armstrong doping controversy. The USGS did not find some of the substances that the EPA said they found in the water.

October 11, 2012: WSJ story, page A3; essentially a press release by the EPA;

September 27, 2012: Bloomberg story. Encana disputes the interpretation of these findings and this story, at ABC News.

March 9, 2012: EPA to re-test water from the various wells in Wyoming -- Reuters.

January 9, 2012: apparently Encana has had enough of this craziness; Encana is asking EPA to suspend the comment period; asking the EPA clarify its concerns and its data; and then re-open the comment period.

January 1, 2012: EPA-CYA -- Bismarck Tribune

December 27, 2011: Well, well, well, isn't this interesting. It looks like the EPA testing was flawed on so many levels. This is what I wrote as soon as I heard the original story about the EPA results. "There is so much in this short article that does not ring true with regard to fracking, but the timing is remarkable." The Dickinson Press was the first (or among the first) regional paper in the state to publish the EPA story when it broke. It will be interesting to see if The Dickinson Press prints this update.

December 14, 2011: in drips and draps, the truth is coming out.

The fracking at Pavillion involved vertical — not horizontal — wells, and many wells didn’t have the protective casing that’s commonly used to prevent chemicals from leaking into the surrounding environment.

That contrasts with most major shale gas plays across the U.S., where fracking typically occurs in horizontal wells drilled as deep as two or three kilometres underground, well below any aquifers or groundwater supplies.

Even the EPA hedged its bets. To me, it appears EPA was looking for a headline; the EPA folks are a bit like the North Koreans: when they feel ignored they do something to make headlines.

December 10, 2011: Encana agrees -- the science doesn't add up. Exactly what  I said below. I wonder if the EPA administrator was personally aware of what was going on in Wyoming?

Doug Hock a spokesman for Encana, said concerns about the pollution of drinking water "are not borne out by the facts." The EPA's test wells, he noted, were far below the depth of drinking water wells.

"At a depth where you would expect to find hydrocarbons, they found hydrocarbons. In drinking wells, they found no impacts due to oil and gas," he said.

"We've done extensive testing, the state has done extensive testing, and never have we found the effects of oil and gas in these drinking water wells," Hock said.

Original Post

From The Dickinson Press link here.

CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the first time has implicated fracking — a controversial method of improving the productivity of oil and gas wells — for causing groundwater pollution.

The finding could have a chilling effect in states trying to determine how to regulate the controversial process.

It is not uncommon for hydrocarbons to be found in well water. "Fingerprinting" will reveal these hydrocarbons did not come from fracking.

There is so much in this short article that does not ring true with regard to fracking, but the timing is remarkable.

For a much better report, click here. Also, here in the LA Times.