Natural Gas Update: Technology and Regulatory Advances
Posted on December 2, 2011 by John Sturm
Tags, Climate and Conservation, Generation, Transmission, Distribution
Back in July, we wrote about the proliferation of shale gas extraction in the United States. Our conclusion was simple: because this rapid growth is likely to continue and there are significant environmental risks associated with extracting the gas, thorough studies and an open and frank dialogue involving all stakeholders are essential. None of that has changed, but there have been several developments since July that justify revisiting this topic.
New Technologies are Coming
A number of new and interesting technologies are in the works. Examples include: self-healing pipes that use nanotechnology to repair minor leaks without human intervention, smarter Pipeline Integrity Gauges (”PIGs”), and backhoes with GPS units programmed with the location of major gas lines to prevent the machine from operating when it is too close to a line.
Unfortunately, we have seen few new technologies related to fracking specifically. There has been some discussion of waterless fracking technology at the recent World Shale Gas Conference in Texas and in other forums, but the technology hasn’t seen a great deal of testing in the U.S. The process is not an alternative to fracking; rather, it involves pumping butane in to the earth rather than water. The advantage is that the butane allows for higher pressures, meaning less is used, and most of it can be easily recaptured. But it is almost certain the technology will not be appropriate in all shale formations, suggesting varied geological conditions may ultimately limit its use. So, while there is room for optimism, the jury is still out on this technology.
Regulatory Change is Happening
The regulatory framework for dealing with fracking remains something of a patchwork quilt, as it varies widely from state to state. We have yet to see any comprehensive federal legislation on the subject. In fact, the federal government has surprisingly limited authority over these activities as they are generally exempted from most relevant environmental laws in this country. There have been periodic attempts to push legislation through at the federal level, but they have been largely unsuccessful, and it’s not clear that this is likely to change any time soon.
At the state level, however, there have been some noteworthy changes. Perhaps most significant is increased adoption of chemical disclosure laws requiring gas companies provide greater detail about what they are pumping in the ground. Most recent in the trend of state disclosure laws is that of Oregon’s neighbor to the east. On Nov. 15, Idaho’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission approved fracking chemical disclosure rules that will take effect in 2012, presuming the Idaho Legislature does not reject them.
However, such laws have not come without controversy, as some gas-rich states have been reluctant to pass such legislation; or, in the case of Wyoming, and possibly Idaho as well, have watered legislation down by allowing so many exceptions (in the name of protecting trade secrets) as to swallow the rule. For more detail on these and other changes, take a look at the fairly comprehensive snapshot of the current legislative and regulatory trends for hydraulic fracturing put out by Marten Law in October.
The Science is Advancing
We have seen some movement toward better science from the federal government. For example, the Department of Energy (DOE), through the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, released a report (PDF) in August which calls for more “cradle-to-grave” assessment of the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas. More significantly, the EPA has announced a “Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources” (PDF), though it will likely be quite some time before the results are available.
University-lead study is moving along at a better pace. In May, scholars at Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment published the first peer-reviewed study establishing a link between shale gas fracking and drinking water contamination. The study looked specifically at wells in Pennsylvania and New York, and concluded that elevated levels of methane in the drinking water near fracking sites did in fact carry the chemical signature of the gas from the wells. The study did not find any clear indications of chemicals from fracking fluid in the drinking water. However, the study’s authors are already at work broadening the scope of the research and collecting more data to better assess these and other risks.
What’s Happening in Oregon
If you haven’t heard much about fracking in the local news, it’s because there just isn’t much of it going on here in Oregon. We have the Nehalem Basin, which contains the Mist Gas Field, but it’s used primarily for gas storage and, because it is a sandstone formation, the few producing wells there have not required fracking.
Oregon also has relatively modest potential for gas extraction in the Coos Bay Basin on the state’s southern coast. This gas is coal bed methane (a natural gas that is a byproduct of some coal deposits) and it generally does require fracking. In fact, at least nine wells in the basin were fracked several years ago. As noted in a recent OPB article that basin still holds some promise for development and initial developer estimates called for as many as 300 wells in the area. And a CUB reader wrote in to alert us to the fact that there may have been some fairly recent interest in the project. Oregon residents have good cause to stay on top of issues in fracking, and we’ll make sure the information remains available to you.
To keep up with CUB, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter!
03/28/17 | 1 Comment | Natural Gas Update: Technology and Regulatory Advances