« | »

API: EPA Rules May Reduce Fracking By 52%

From the oil industry outlet, RIGZONE:

API: Proposed EPA Emission Rules Will Reduce Shale Gas Drilling


Proposed regulations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce air emissions from hydraulic fracturing operations would drastically reduce shale gas drilling by 31 percent to 52 percent, or 12,700 to 21,400 wells, over the 2012 to 2015 time period, according to a study by the American Petroleum Institute (API).

Sure, the API might be biased in this. But let’s see someone refute their numbers.

The API study also found that:

* 5.8 to 7.0 quadrillion Btu (Quads) of otherwise economic unconventional natural gas would not be developed and produced by 2015, a 9 percent to 11 percent reduction
* 1.8 billion barrels of otherwise economic unconventional liquids would not be developed and produced by 2015, a 21 percent to 37 percent reduction
* federal royalties of $7 billion to $8.5 billion that would otherwise be collected would not be paid in the first four years after the requirements go into effect
* state revenues from severance taxes amounting to $1.9 billion to $2.3 billion would be delayed beyond the first four years after the requirements go into effect

The study, conducted for API by Advanced Resources International, examined the potential impact of the requirements for use of reduced emissions completions (REC) equipment on hydraulically fractured wells, including potential revenue from methane, cost impact and delays in unconventional resource development

The analysis did not estimate lost jobs associated with reduced drilling, oil and gas supply services and indirect employment.

EPA in July 2011 proposed a number of regulatory requirements to reduce air emission from the oil and gas industry. These proposals include reducing emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) through the use of RECs, which simultaneously reduce VOC and methane emissions

EPA’s proposed rule, expected to take effect sometime next month, would impose REC requirements on most unconventional gas wells

According to the ARI report, the cost assumptions used by the EPA are unrealistically low, and the impacts also are underestimated. API on Nov. 30 commented on the proposed rule, saying that equipment required to conduct REC would not be available in time to comply with the current final rule schedule.

"We believe it will take years to manufacture sufficient specialized equipment and adequately train operators how to safely conduct these operations." API also noted that the equipment is fairly specialized, the number of shops licensed to make the equipment is limited, and some components have long lead time…

EPA’s current methodology for estimating gas field methane emissions is not based on methane emitted during well completions, but instead on a data sample of methane capture during well completions, according to a 2011 IHS CERA report.

The assumptions underlying EPA’s methodology do not reflect current industry practices

Nitpickers. They don’t understand how important it is for the Obama administration to destroy all of our domestic sources of energy. Fracking, drilling, coal, nuclear power.

That is Obama’s real ‘all of the above’ approach.

This article was posted by Steve on Friday, March 16th, 2012. Comments are currently closed.

10 Responses to “API: EPA Rules May Reduce Fracking By 52%”

  1. tranquil.night says:

    Cutting us off from that which fuels the engine of individual freedom is fundamental. Mobility in the flow of trade and information are anathema to Statist desire for centralized command & control.

  2. Right of the People says:

    Just another page in the Alinsky playbook that Barry the little boy king is following. He wants to crater our economy and make everybody dependent upon the guvmint. The government is in need of a drastic re-org. Agencies like the EPA, HUD, HHS, IRS and plenty others need to be disbanded or severely reduced. That would go a long way towards balancing the budget and possibly reducing the debt.

    If Barry the Lame manages to get re-elected this fall (God help us all) I think it’s time for a revolution.

  3. canary says:

    Bill Clinton announces Solar Energy Commitments in Haiti, along with other federal funded charities.


    Does this make sense when people are living in squabble in Haiti and need medical care.
    Follow the solar panels and that might be where the Clintons have been hiding their treaures over the years.

  4. Gladius et Scutum says:

    As a general thing, we do not disclose too much about ourselves on the web, but in this case I think it is more than warranted.

    The girlfriend I had through most of my early twenties went on to move to the west coast and marry a mutual friend. She then became active in environmental causes. She got a staff position at one of the larger environmental organizations. When she was in town (at that time, Chicago), she would stay with me, and later with my wife and me.

    About ten years ago, on one of these visits, we began discussing environmental trade-offs. A familiar example of this concept for environmental types is the question of “disposable diapers (deforestation, landfill) versus cloth diapers (water use, energy)” What for most seems a dilema, she had an answer for:

    Her: “Well, Americans have to get used to a lower standard of living.”
    Me: ” Oh, uh, have you joined the Communist Party?”
    Her: ” I can’t answer that.”

    I was dismayed, but no longer am. There are idiots and there are communists, but there are few if any “environmentalists”. I might say the same about any number of American (bowel) movements.

  5. GetBackJack says:

    I’m not knee-jerk on this topic.

    My best friend and attorney is heavily involved in the oil and gas business, besides being Chief Counsel for a decade for one of the Seven Sisters. He freaks out when I question fracturing practices, and won’t hear anything against it.

    But …. out where I live – the great Colorado Basin – fracking is not an easy subject to deal with. I know folks out in the hinterlands who in fact have had their domestic water wells, some 120 years old, ruined by nearby fracking for natural gas. Either the well dried up, or their well became contaminated with chemicals. Undrinkable. After decades on their land scratching out a ranching life they can’t live there anymore because they have no potable water.

    How would you feel?

    I know two ranchers up in Wyoming who, before nearby fracking – and I’m talking about mile+ – had clean pure water in their domestic wells. Now they can light their water on fire and often it’s more methane than water coming up into the pipes. Which normal gaskets and washers on faucets aren’t designed to hold back. Sometimes they have to shut off a furnace because the house is filling up with natural gas coming out of the water pipes.

    Apocryphal tales of this are easy to find out here near fracking sites.

    Flip side to this are industry statistics which prove no harm and very few instances of damage done.

    Now, the folks I know who are experiencing the “damage done” are all Conservatives, God guns, guts, faith, family. Serious flag wavers. Hard core salt of the earth folk who make their living off the land and hate Washington with a passion you only think you have. I guarantee you, these are the people you want covering your back when this all falls apart. Many are Oath Keepers. And make their living off petroleum fueled trucks, tractors, ATVs, etc.

    So I listen to them.

    What I’ve concluded after a decade+ of watching energy development out here is that while the technologies are sound, and a great leap forward, implementation in the field by wildcatters and less than first tier exploration companies are responsible for the damage done.

    We need the energy, abundant and cheap.

    But we don’t need MF’ing yayhoo oil field trash effing it up and killing the goose because they’re in such a hurry they screw all our pooches.

    (go look up someday the accident statistics for “water trucks” – the big rig water tankers that carry water to fracking sites – the hours those men work, the relative absence of training, the grueling schedules, the laughably dangerous “roads” they’re required to navigate and the aging untended equipment they’re driving is so dangerous, patrolling in Afghanistan is safer) (and that’s just one example)

    (oh hell, let’s go for another – wherever oil field trash go – and that’s what they call themselves proudly rampant violent drug cultures go with them. 1994 – the Hells Angels had a meetup with the Sons of Silence in Palisade, CO. A little peach orchard town on the edge of what would become a vast new exploration of natural gas. Peaceful little place. About six hundred hard core drug dealing violent bikers descended and usually these two rival gangs will kill each other on sight. And they weren’t there to raft the river, chew ham sandwiches and swill peach tea. They were there to divvy up new territory for meth. See, they knew two years before the oil field explosion got going that the oil companies were coming. Haliburton and Schlumberger hadn’t even built offices yet, but the gangs knew and were getting ready. That’s part of the oil field experience, and it ain’t pretty)

    • tranquil.night says:

      Hmm. Have they sued the companies for liabilities? If so, what was ruled? Is it bad enough to require a federal bureaucracy making sweeping agenda driven edicts rather than local and state solutions?

    • GetBackJack says:

      Tranq – Yes, there are lawsuits, and plenty of reports on local television affiliates where this is an issue. But, the majority of people I personally know (that’d be like 9 out of 10 folks) do not have the money resources to go to war against bottomless pockets, and no law firm with any sense is going to bite off chew this big. Far too expensive to keep up what will surely be turned into a decade and half paper blizzard battle.

      That said, there are several high profile suits, but wouldn’t you know, they’re brought by environmental anti-oil deep pocket activist law firms in behalf of a family or two who neither ranch nor farm, but who live close enough to a big Metropolitan Statistic Area to gain media coverage and the attention of a Legislature.

      Let me stress again, I’m impressed with the latest iterations of fracking technology, especially in the hands of first tier exploration companies – but – not the older earlier version of fracking technology still being deployed by wildcatters and fly by night cheap-ass drilling companies (and there’s a ton of those out there).

      Today’s fracking 99.99% takes place below 5,000 feet subsurface, with water tables rarely below 600 feet subsurface. That said –

      multi-year study by the Energy Institute

      1. Researchers found no evidence of aquifer contamination from hydraulic fracturing chemicals in the subsurface by fracturing operations, and observed no leakage from hydraulic fracturing at depth.

      2. Many reports of groundwater contamination occur in conventional oil and gas operations (e.g., failure of well-bore casing and cementing) and are not unique to hydraulic fracturing.
      Methane found in water wells within some shale gas areas (e.g., Marcellus) can most likely be traced to natural sources, and likely was present before the onset of shale gas operations.

      3. Surface spills of fracturing fluids appear to pose greater risks to groundwater sources than from hydraulic fracturing itself.

      4. Blowouts — uncontrolled fluid releases during construction or operation — are a rare occurrence, but subsurface blowouts appear to be under-reported.

      And #4 is the real and persistent problem, Blowouts – as I’ve been yelling at my best friend for the past years the problem is in your own house. You’ve got to police your own, or activist legislatures will, and their approach will kill your business.

      Blowouts are the result of poor or hasty construction of the bore casing, the liner cemented in place around the bore hole to prevent leakage. It still happens, but the faster and more frantic these wildcatters work, the details and quality get left behind in a mad rush to be there first with the most holes and valid claims. “We’ll fix that sh*t later” is an accepted rule of thumb. You recognize the drill.

      It’s a very real problem for the very real people it’s happened to and the smart thing
      for the industry to do would be to triage like crazy on instances that happen, instead of bunkering down and trying to blow it off or lawyering up.

      But that won’t happen either in a litigious world full of greedheads and the stupid.

    • tranquil.night says:

      “the problem is in your own house. You’ve got to police your own, or activist legislatures will, and their approach will kill your business.”

      Amen sir.

      Thank you for your time and thoughtfulness addressing my questions. You have insights into this that would be very difficult to attain trying to research through conventional media filters.

  6. canary says:

    EPA to regulate ammunition in gun control


    This may be another way to get Obama’s Bill passed to mark ammunition. Do you recall after Obama was elected a Bill to have all ammo marked, setting a deadline date that you could not own unmarked ammo.
    Example it would have gone from a bullet costing 10 cents to $1 dollar and of course a way to trace ammo.

    And most likely the ammo will be bar-coded. ;)

« Front Page | To Top
« | »