Fracking’ fears unfounded, oil economist says

Posted on September 22, 2011 by Staff under Controversy, Fracking

The American Petroleum Institute chief economist John Felmy shows a diagram about hydraulic fracturing in Santa Barbara County and California.

Daniel Dreifuss/Staff

By Marga K. Cooley/Associate Editor mcooley@syvnews.com

The chief economist for the American Petroleum Institute defended the safety of oil and natural gas extraction by “fracking” in a local interview last week and said the process is well regulated by state officials.

Concerns about groundwater contamination from the process known officially as hydraulic fracturing are unfounded and more regulation is unnecessary, added the API economist, John Felmy.

“Before you call for more regulation, prove there’s a problem first,” he said, speaking after an appearance on a local radio show.

Fracking, in which pressurized liquid is pumped into a wellbore so that the pressure cracks the surrounding rock, has been used since the 1940s, but only recently in Santa Barbara County. How it’s regulated is being debated at the state and federal level, as well as locally.

On Tuesday, the county Board of Supervisors decided not to impose a moratorium on fracking but instead to require oil producers to get an oil drilling and production plan approved by the Planning and Development Department.

Additionally, supervisors directed staff and the county Fire Department to review and modify requirements for the business plan that oil and gas producers must file regarding hazardous chemicals.

Interviewed before the supervisors met, Felmy said that fracking has fallen victim to “hysteria” brought on by misinformation, such as that contained in the film “Gasland,” and a lack of education on the subject on the part of both the public and politicians.

“As an industry we have to get out there because it’s (oil and natural gas production) so vital to the nation’s interest,” he said.

Felmy used as an example his home state of Pennsylvania, which has one of the largest shale gas reservoirs – the Marcellus Formation.

Because of the need for jobs in the state, he said, people recognize fracking “as an opportunity,” although Pennsylvania also has its share of fracking opponents.

But, he said, “you gotta do it right or you won’t be able to continue to operate.”

“Learn what it is before you listen to rhetoric,” he continued. “There has been a lot of irresponsible conversation.”

When fracking’s high-pressure liquid cracks underground rocks, it allows oil or gas to flow out at a greater rate than normal. The process is contained, industry representatives say, and occurs below the water table so that the chemicals injected into the well do not mix with groundwater.

Oil producers are not required to disclose their mixture of chemicals. Many, however, voluntarily state what chemicals are used without revealing the actual recipe, which is considered a trade secret.

Some of the chemicals used are toxic, including diesel, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, methanol, formaldehyde, ethylene glycol, glycol ether, hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide.

The process is estimated to account for more than 30 percent of U.S. recoverable oil and gas reserves, and has been responsible for the addition of more than 7 billion barrels of oil and 600 trillion cubic feet of natural gas nationwide, according to the petroleum institute.

Fracking gained local prominence in June when rancher Steve Lyons discovered that wells on his property near Los Alamos had been fracked by Venoco Inc. Property owners have no power to stop the owners of their land’s mineral rights from drilling on the land.

The operations on the Lyons ranch were the first known instances of fracking in the county.

Wells on property owned by Gerard and Kathleen Kilgallon were also fracked by Venoco, and in a June 6 letter to county supervisors, their attorney, Brian McMahon, stated that fracking causes risks in underground oil and gas wells, on the surface around the well site, in the transportation of fracking fluids and in disposal wells, and that it uses enormous amounts of fresh water and is much noisier than standard drilling.

He contends the county “has not been sufficiently vigilant in monitoring oil and gas drilling operations and in enforcing its regulations, given the environmental risks that fracking creates.”

The fracking incidents led to informational hearings with state and industry representatives by the county Board of Supervisors, as well as several local meetings on the topic.

The California Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources has numerous regulations and monitoring protocols for fracking operations, including those to protect against fresh-water contamination. For example, all underground injection wells have at least two lines of steel defense against leaks in areas where fresh water is present,

DOGGR also requires operators to run periodic tests to ensure no holes have formed and seals are adequate, and has a comprehensive set of standards to ensure underground fresh-water resources are protected.

But locals say there are loopholes, and have asked the county to take more responsibility.

In August, the Board of Supervisors asked county staff to research the feasibility of a local moratorium on fracking and the possibility of a programmatic environmental impact report, which would require a broader look at the impacts of a fracking project.