Crude Law: New CA fracking legislation sets a low standard

On September 20th, California Governor Jerry Brown passed historic legislation regulating hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking”, prompting mixed reactions from both drillers and environmentalists. S.B. 4 is the nation’s first law regulating the highly contentious method of drilling for shale oil and natural gas that combines horizontal drilling with blasting shale rock with sand, water and chemicals at depths of 8,000 feet. Fracked shale gas is among the fastest growing energy sources and has been fully endorsed by the Obama administration [1]. To be sure, the new legislation concerning fracking — an industry that has hitherto gone unregulated —  is a step forward. Yet growing concern over the negative environmental and health effects linked to fracking has many unconvinced that the law is stringent enough to curb the mounting negative impacts on groundwater, agriculture, ecosystems and climate change.

S.B. 4 is the nation’s first law regulating the highly contentious method of drilling for shale oil and natural gas that combines horizontal drilling with blasting shale rock with sand, water and chemicals at depths of 8,000 feet.

The new law is deliberately timed, coinciding with the mass effort by drillers to uncover the supposed vast reserve of shale oil under California’s Monterey Shale and the pushback from concerned environmental groups to keep the reserve untapped. The law requires drillers to disclose some of the chemicals used, notify landowners prior to drilling, and test groundwater near drilling sites. However, a last-ditch effort by oil industry lobbyists effectively cut language from the bill that would have halted all fracking until environmental reviews were concluded.

Although the full extent of the environmental and health effects of hydraulic fracturing have yet to be assessed by the Environmental Protection Agency [2], evidence of the harmful impacts is widespread in communities throughout the U.S. where fracking occurs [3]. Drillers use fresh water for their operations, drawing from wells that are also needed by nearby farms and drinking water supplies. Wastewater treatment plants are not designed to cope with the cocktail of chemicals used in fracking. Toxic pollution from these chemicals has tainted water supplies in Pennsylvania and Ohio [4]. In addition to these, various water contamination cases have been kept under the radar by drillers that buy affected homeowners’ silence with cash settlements or property buyouts [6]. In California, a state with high agricultural output and a large population, contamination of freshwater sources from fracking chemicals could be economically and ecologically devastating.

Water contamination is not the only collateral damage from the recent fracking movement. In September, severe flooding caused devastating oil and gas spills in Colorado where the number of fracking wells has increased dramatically in recent years. The flooding also caused damage to storage containers of toxic fracking fluid, contaminating floodwater with potentially disastrous health consequences for residents [5]. In July, a train carrying shale oil derailed and exploded in rural Lac-Megantic, Quebec, killing 50 people and spilling several tons of crude oil [7]. Such accidents are offshoots of the surge in natural gas production, combined with deregulation and decreased labor used in rail transport — the main method of transporting shale oil. Fracking has also stimulated earthquakes in extractive areas, causing the largest earthquake ever recorded in Oklahoma, and over 100 quakes in Ohio in the span of one year [8].

Nonetheless, the Obama administration touts natural gas from fracking as a “transition fuel” that will reduce carbon emissions while cleaner technologies and sequestration methods are explored. The shift from coal to natural gas from fracking (together with the economic downturn) has led to a 12 percent drop in US carbon dioxide emissions between 2005 and 2012, the lowest levels since 1994 [9]. Yet, while natural gas emits less carbon dioxide, leakage and emissions of methane — a much more potent gas than CO2 — from fracking sites could simply make up the difference in greenhouse gas emissions [10].

The current administration’s emphasis on natural gas as a transition fuel is undermined by its “all of the above” energy strategy. The U.S. supports ceaseless expansion of nuclear energy and fossil fuel resources including coal, Canadian tar-sand oil, and deep sea drilling in addition to fracked natural gas and shale oil. Indeed, the U.S. is encouraging coal consumption in China, pushing for construction of the Keystone XL pipeline, and using its influence in Iraq to tap more oil reserves. Globally, the current U.S. Democratic administration has encouraged expansion of unconventional fossil fuel production in the Andes, Colombia, Poland, Ukraine, Jordan, Mexico and elsewhere [11].

The current administration’s emphasis on natural gas as a transition fuel is undermined by its “all of the above” energy strategy. The U.S. supports ceaseless expansion of nuclear energy and fossil fuel resources including coal, Canadian tar-sand oil, and deep sea drilling in addition to fracked natural gas and shale oil.

Meanwhile, the U.S. offers only limited support to renewable energies such as wind, solar and sustainable biofuels (not to be confused with industrial agrofuels)  —  a trifecta that many argue has the best chance in offsetting carbon emissions enough to curb climate change.

Amidst the efforts by the U.S. government and oil companies to jumpstart the unconventional energy revolution, a pushback from environmental groups and grassroots organizations is developing. Disasters caused by corporate negligence such as the BP Gulf oil spill and the recent tragedy in Quebec, along with increasing popular awareness of global warming, are fueling popular discontent. In California, 150,000 signatures to ban fracking were collected by MoveOn.org and over 100 groups signed a letter to Gov. Jerry Brown calling S.B. 4 insufficient and demanding a moratorium on all fracking operations [12].

With any luck, S.B. 4 will not be the blueprint for future regulation concerning fracking and more stringent legislation will come to pass. But what is truly needed is an energy plan that veers away from fossil fuels toward a mix of renewable energies and reduced energy consumption. We are already experiencing the effects of global warming on a massive, if uneven, scale; time is of the essence. No doubt the challenge is great. However, when it comes to the warming of our planet, the drinkability of our water, the safety of our food, do we really have a choice?

Notes:
1.http://www.iea.org/media/training/presentations/Day_2_Session_2x_Uncoventional_Gas_USA.pdf; Foster, John Bellamy, “The Fossil Fuels War”, The Monthly Review; Vol. 65, No. 4, September 2013.
2. http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy
3. http://www.frackcheckwv.net/impacts/the-human-story/
4. Pennsylvania: http://www.vanityfair.com/business/features/2010/06/fracking-in-pennsylvania-201006; Ohio: http://truth-out.org/news/item/16547-resistance-in-ohio-frackings-dumping-ground
5. http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2013/9/29/house-democrats-callforhearingonoilgasspillsincoloradofloods.html
6. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-06/drillers-silence-fracking-claims-with-sealed-settlements.html
7. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2013/jul/11/1
8. http://grist.org/news/fracking-triggered-more-than-100-earthquakes-in-ohio/
9.http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887324763404578430751849503848
10. http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130916/study-delivers-good-news-bad-news-methane-leaks-fracking-operations
11. Foster, John Bellamy, “The Fossil Fuels War”, The Monthly Review; Vol. 65, No. 4, September 2013.
12. https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.credoaction.com/images/SB_4_statement.pdf