“are well understood, we are currently unable to accurately predict the magnitude or occurrence of such events due to the lack of comprehensive data on complex natural rock systems and the lack of validated predictive models.”
The authors note that methodolo- gies can be developed for “quantita- tive, probabilistic hazard assessments of induced seismicity risk,” and that “such assessments should be under- taken before operations begin in areas with a known history of felt seismicity and updated in response to observed, potentially induced seismicity.” Opponents of fracking have seized on the seismicity issue as a reason to ban its continuance, while others say the control of it shouldn’t extend that far.
In a March 9 op-ed, “Is That a Fracking Earthquake?” Los Angeles Times editorial writer Dan Turner wrote that while “it’s a very good idea to hold off on major projects until more is known about the science ... those who seek to ban fracking because of its earthquake risks should consider the more beneficial technologies they may be quashing,”
A State Issue? Besides EPA, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is involved with fracking, announcing proposed rulemaking in May that contains two “common sense” measures: improving assurances on well-bore integrity to verify that fluids used in wells during fracturing operations are not escaping and confirming that oil and gas opera- tors have a water management plan in place for handling fracturing fluids that flow back to the surface.
“The proposed rule would provide disclosure to the public of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, strengthen regulations related to well-bore in- tegrity, and address issues related to flowback fluid management,” according to BLM. “The proposed rule seeks to maximize flexibility, minimize duplica- tion and complement ongoing efforts in some states to regulate fracturing activi- ties by providing a consistent standard across all federal and Indian lands and making reported information easily accessible to the public.”
Having the federal government involved with fracking oversight does not go over well with some people. “Very few people want to see the federal government in charge of this,” said Nickolaus with the Groundwater Protection Council. “This is a state issue.”
Crafting the regulations in a man- ner that resolves the public’s right to know with the need to preserve trade secrets is challenging. Other aspects potentially in need of reporting are well construction history, the proximity of a fracking job to other wells and a mea- surement of the differences in water quality, the proximity to underground sources of drinking water and the de- tails of fracking such as depth, pressure and volume of water used.
DOGGR has several intentions in mind for its fracking regulations, beginning with ensuring that frack- ing fluid injected into a reservoir stays where it belongs, Habel said. Officials also want to be sure wells are con- structed to protect freshwater zones as well as other hydrocarbon zones. “The key is not what industry is injecting but to confine it to the zone,” Habel said.
Bakersfield
See a map of the Water Replenishment District, www.wrd.org
“Nobody has ever said hydraulic fracturing has adversely impacted the groundwater or caused any other environmental concern. The record is highly commendable.”