Is fracing becoming a household word?

Hydraulic fracturing received much publicity during 2010. Oil and gas companies along with service providers find themselves trying to educate the public about fracing amid rising criticism about the practice from certain groups.

A new national survey shows that 45% of Americans said they already are very or somewhat aware of the controversy around fracing. Infogroup/Opinion Research Corp. polled 1,012 adults Nov. 26-28 for the nonprofit Civil Society Institute.

Survey results said more than three out of four Americans polled would support tighter public disclosure requirements and studies of the health and environmental consequences of chemicals used in natural gas drilling.

The Civil Society Institute said the survey interviews were weighted by four variables: age, gender, region, and race to ensure reliable and accurate representation of the total population, 18 years of age and older. In addition to the national survey, the group commissioned two separate surveys for New York residents and Pennsylvania residents.

Kathryn Z. Klaber, president and executive director of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, suggested the survey questions were “structured in such a way to generate predetermined outcomes.” Founded in 2008, the Marcellus Shale Coalition is an industry organization committed to the responsible development of the gas play.

Klaber believes industry must continue to educate communities about the steps it’s taking to protect the environment. She said industry believes educated citizens and landowners make for the best partners, and she encourages any efforts that contribute to “fact-based debate.”

The Colcom Foundation of Pittsburgh has set up a Marcellus Environmental Fund. Nonprofit organizations are being offered a total of $1 million in grants to study gas drilling practices used in the Marcellus shale development.

“Who can you trust? There is a great deal at stake,” said John F. Rohe, vice-president of philanthropy for the foundation.

Oil and gas companies study drinking water wells in Texas, Pennsylvania

Some oil and gas companies are starting to consider testing water wells before they drill oil and natural gas wells. This stems from the debate about whether hydraulic fracturing threatens the safety of drinking water.

Cabot Oil and Gas Corp. faced water-contamination questions in Pennsylvania while Range Resources Corp. faced similar questions regarding its Barnett shale operations in Texas. The accusations have caused some within the oil and gas industry to question the quality of drinking water before any oil and gas drilling was done.

Meanwhile, Texas Railroad Commissioner Michael L. Williams on Dec. 7 accused the US Environmental Protection Agency of “Washington politics of the worst kind” and of “grandstanding in an effort to interject the federal government into Texas business.”

Williams made his comments after the EPA suggested that gas operations by Range Resources contaminated two water wells in southwest Parker County, Tex., where gas was found in the water. Range Resources issued a Dec. 8 news release saying research indicates its operations did not cause any methane in the water wells.

For months, Range Resources worked with the RRC and others on extensive testing of both its gas wells and the water wells of concern.

Cabot Oil and Gas said in an Oct. 19 release that it has proof that methane gas has been present in water wells around the Dimock Township, Pa., area for generations. Four Dimock-area water wells have methane levels in the water that exceeds levels suggested by the US Department of the Interior.

“We do not believe that our operations caused the Dimock water-quality issues,” a Cabot spokesman said.

All of this is causing oil and gas companies to consider testing the water before they drill.

Food industry contributes to fracturing fluid formulation

Halliburton has introduced a hydraulic fracturing fluid formulation made with ingredients obtained from food suppliers. And no, the fluid is not considered edible.

Compounds used in fracing are under scrutiny as some members of Congress question its safety. The use of fracing in the US dates back to the 1940s. Currently, the development of shale plays and horizontal drilling has increased demand for frac services.

Halliburton said its CleanStim fluid system provides excellent pumpability, proppant transport, and retained conductivity. Laboratory tests showed over 90% retained conductivity after 24 hr of flow. The fluid can be applicable over a broad temperature range providing up to 30 minutes pumping time at 225° F.

CleanStim involves a gelling agent, crosslinker-buffer, breakers and a surfactant. Frac crews mix the CleanStim formulation with water at the job site.

Crews on conventional gelled frac jobs can use the CleanStim fluid. In addition, CleanStim components can provide friction reduction for water frac treatments commonly used in shale, Halliburton said.

Does Congress know about Environmentally Friendly Drilling?

Government oversight never will ensure environmental protection. Private stewardship is the key—people and companies doing the right thing for the sake of doing the right thing. In the oil industry, this stewardship already is happening.

Some members of Congress currently believe they can better protect drinking water resources by regulating hydraulic fracturing at a federal level. I wonder if they know about the Environmentally Friendly Drilling (EFD) program. This federally funded collaborative research involves Texas A&M University, the Houston Advanced Research Center, and others.

David Burnett, an A&M professor and director of technology for the Global Petroleum Research Institute, has worked for a decade on recycling water from oil fields. His work focuses on using membranes to recycle water used in hydraulic fracturing.

“Outlawing fracturing is like outlawing the trucking industry because trucks pollute. It would be incredible,” Burnett said. “It would just kill the oil and gas industry, which would kill a major part of what makes our country run.”

Gas shale plays require large volumes of water for hydraulic fracturing, which enables gas production. Burnett’s goal is to treat water used in fracturing so that the same water can be used for additional fracturing jobs.

He questions whether politicans understand hydraulic fracturing, which already is regulated by the states. The US Environmental Protection Agency in 2004 found no evidence that hydraulic fracturing posed a legitimate risk to ground and drinking water. The Ground Water Protection Council confirmed this finding.

Burnett said, “I don’t care about somebody being against oil and gas if they have their facts right.... Why should Congress prop up General Motors and make cars and trucks if we don’t have anything to run them on? That is essentially what is happening.”

Wyoming: Leave groundwater regs to state

Wyoming Gov. Dave Freudenthal signed a resolution asking the US Congress to not pass legislation that would diminish the state’s authority to regulate oil and gas well completion or diminish the state’s authority to protect its groundwater supplies.

The resolution stemmed from concerns about hydraulic fracturing. Wyoming lawmakers say they have extensive oil and gas production regulations in place, and that state regulators have the expertise to enforce these regulations.

State Sen. Bill Vasey, a Democrat, was a cosponsor of the resolution, which was sponsored by a bipartisan mix of both House and Senate members in the Wyoming legislature.

“Washington regulators should not be imposing new administrative costs and mandates that would not add to environmental protection,” Vasey said.

The US Environmental Protection Agency and the Groundwater Protection Council found no documented cases of groundwater contamination associated with hydraulic fracturing. Nearly 1 million oil and gas wells have been completed using this technology.

Vasey questions the motives of “East Coast environmental groups that are trying to shut down oil and gas development in Wyoming and elsewhere in the West. They think that they can do it by getting Congress to override state authority—and that is just plain wrong. It’s wrong on the science and wrong on the established safety record.”