Mike Soraghan, E&E reporter
Published: Thursday, July 5, 2012

This is only the latest in a string of negative environmental consequences due to fracking. The inordinate amount of fresh water used is also a big concern. I think fracking should be outlawed. DV

What may be the first class-action suit against oil and gas companies for unleashing earthquakes is working its way through the federal courts in Arkansas.

The suit stems from a “swarm” of earthquakes as strong as magnitude 4.7 that rattled the northern part of the state. The quakes prompted state officials last summer to ban drilling waste disposal wells in a 1,150-square-mile area. Four wells ceased operations. The people who brought the suits and their attorneys say the companies knew about the risk of earthquakes from their operations but did not do enough to prevent them. “Defendants, experienced in these operations, were well aware of the connection between injection wells and seismic activity, and acted in disregard of these facts,” says the suit, filed by the Little Rock class-action firm Emerson Poynter LLP on behalf of Stephen Hearn and several other residents of Faulkner County, Ark.

The suit says that the companies’ “ultrahazardous” actions have made residents fear for their safety and caused the cost of earthquake insurance to skyrocket. The suit names subsidiaries of Chesapeake Energy Corp., which operated two of the wells, and BHP Billiton, which acquired the wells from Chesapeake as part of a larger purchase in 2011. Spokesmen for the two companies declined comment, but each has filed blanket denials with the court.

A smaller well owner, Deep Six Water Disposal Services of Oklahoma, was dismissed from the case last week. Another well owner, Clarita Operating of Little Rock, filed for bankruptcy after the first suits were filed. Several class-action suits have been consolidated into the case under Hearn’s name. The case is currently in discovery and is scheduled for trial in March 2014. In a brief email exchange with EnergyWire, lead attorney Scott Poynter said he was not familiar with any other suits against drillers for causing earthquakes with disposal wells.

There is no federal law against causing earthquakes, but the suit alleges that the quakes were caused by negligence, amounted to trespassing and created a public nuisance (EnergyWire, June 18). Before two of the wells stopped operating in the spring of 2011, there were 85 earthquakes with a magnitude of 2.5 or higher. Since the shutdown there have been fewer quakes, according to the state Geological Survey. The state’s moratorium was based in part on the finding of University of Memphis seismologist Steve Horton, who said continued injection would risk a damaging earthquake in the area. He later published findings linking the earthquakes to drilling-waste wells.

The earthquakes were not linked to hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking.” But fracturing creates millions of gallons of briny, toxic wastewater that drillers must eventually dispose of, usually by injecting it into the type of wells that are at the heart of the case. Advances in fracturing technology that involve blasting millions of gallons of water into production wells have led to a surge in gas production in shale formations such as Arkansas’ Fayetteville Shale.

It is well understood among scientists that injecting wastewater underground — whether from energy production or something else — can lubricate faults and create earthquakes. But there are about 40,000 oil and gas disposal wells in the country, and only a few have been linked to earthquakes. There has never been a death or serious injury from such a quake. State officials in Ohio also shut down several waste injection wells earlier this year after linking a magnitude-4.0 quake and a host of smaller ones to a well in Youngstown.

Scientists are investigating whether other earthquakes in Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas are linked to drilling activities such as waste injection. Seismologists at the U.S. Geological Survey have suggested that some of those quakes, along with the Arkansas swarm, are part of a “remarkable” increase in the number of earthquakes in the middle of the country that is “almost certainly man-made” and likely linked to oil and gas operations (EnergyWire, March 29).

Special thanks to Richard Charter

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-07-06/pdf/2012-16152.pdf

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2012-07-06/html/2012-16152.htm

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Over two years since the largest oil drilling disaster in American history, the Gulf can finally celebrate a victory. The President has just signed the RESTORE Act, directing BP’s Clean Water Act to be used to restore the Gulf’s damaged ecosystems.

I wanted to make sure that you saw Aaron’s email (below) from last week about how critical your support has been to us. Victories don’t happen overnight. Achieving this milestone took persistence, patience, and focus. This legislation is a huge step forward for the people and places of the Gulf on this long road to restoration.

To ensure that GRN is able to sustain this fight, we rely on the support of our members. Please consider becoming a member this weekend and help us continue to hold BP accountable, and implement the RESTORE Act to its fullest potential.

For the Gulf,

Cyn Sarthou
Executive Director

GRN Basic Header

RestoreFunds.jpgDear DeeVon,

We’re expecting big news from Congress tomorrow or the next day, and it’s thanks to you! The RESTORE Act, which will dedicate BP’s Clean Water Act fines to Gulf restoration, has been included in the larger Transportation Bill that is poised to be voted on and signed into law very soon. Thank you for all your phone calls, emails to Congress, donations, petitions signed, events held, and all you’ve done to make Congress prioritize restoring the Gulf. This wouldn’t have been possible without you.

This is a giant step forward for the health of the Gulf, and we’re elated to see the country and Congress demonstrate their dedication to this valuable region. Like many policy and environmental victories, this is not the end of the journey. The ultimate success of this legislation will take time and effort to ensure, and we’ll need your support as we continue working hard to:

Hold BP accountable. The legislation directs BP’s eventual Clean Water Act fines to the Gulf, but there is a wide range of possible fines. We’ve got to keep the pressure up so BP pays the maximum penalty under the law; and,
Ensure effective restoration. As the dollars start to flow, it will be incumbent upon Gulf Coast states to make sound decisions about restoration spending. We’ll be watchdogging the process to make sure the money is well-spent.

So, take a moment to relish in this hard-fought victory. Together, we pushed Congress to show their support for the Gulf! That’s impressive.

Now, please show your continued dedication by digging deep and making a generous donation to Gulf Restoration Network. With the long-haul fight we’ve still got ahead, please consider a Gulf Sustainer automatic, monthly membership.

With sincere appreciation for all you do,

Aaron Viles
Deputy Director

Finally–someone is casting a critical eye on the presumed reliance on the use of large volumes of dispersants in the water column to clean up oil spills. This after the grand BP experiment in the Gulf wreaked havoc on the water quality and benthos in areas where dispersants were used. I think it is patently unsafe to do so—the dispersants settle on the bottom and smother all life. They don’t dissipate as on the surface; it’s a whole new cycle of death to marinelife. It’s high time this came to light in Congress. Yay Markey and Miller!!!!! You are my heroes of the day! DV

Jeremy P. Jacobs, E&E reporter
Published: Friday, June 29, 2012

Little is known about how chemical dispersants used following an oil spill behave when applied below the water surface or in extremely cold environments, the Government Accountability Office said today. There’s a general understanding of how dispersants behave on the surface of water, GAO said, but questions remain about how quickly or slowly the dispersants biodegrade.

“[A]ll the experts GAO spoke with said that little is known about the application and effects of dispersants applied subsurface, noting that specific environmental conditions, such as higher pressures, may influence dispersants’ effectiveness,” GAO said. “Knowledge about the use and effectiveness of dispersants in the Arctic is also limited.”

GAO’s report, requested by Democratic Reps. Brad Miller of North Carolina and Ed Markey of Massachusetts, found that the government has spent $15.5 million on dispersant research, with the majority of that money coming after the 2010 Gulf of Mexico spill. However, “relatively few projects” focused on applying the dispersants below the surface of the water and hardly any focused on cold-water environments.

Miller and Markey said they requested the study because of how little is known about how dispersants interact with the environment and whether they pose a risk to ecosystems or human health.

“It’s stunning how little we know about the effect of dispersants just two years after using millions of gallons in the Gulf of Mexico,” said Miller, a senior member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. “And whatever lessons we learned from the Gulf of Mexico are probably useless in the Arctic.” They also noted that the report comes just days after Shell announced plans to send two drilling rigs to the Arctic.

The report also says that there are several challenges for dispersant research, most notably that demand and, consequently, funding only pick up following an environmental disaster. “It is difficult for federal agencies to fund longer term studies,
such as those needed to understand chronic toxicological effects of dispersants,” GAO said.

Miller and Markey also sent a letter to EPA today asking the agency what steps it has taken to make sure the dispersants are safe before they are used again. “In light of the expansion of offshore drilling in both the Gulf and Arctic regions, it is necessary that the EPA ensure that future spill mitigation agents, such as dispersants, have undergone appropriate testing for real response situations prior to their deployment in our waterways,” the lawmakers wrote.

Special thanks to Richard Charter

Margaret Kriz Hobson, E&E reporter
Published: Thursday, June 28, 2012

In the coming weeks, as the thick winter ice melts in the Arctic Ocean, U.S. researchers will sail into the frigid waters north of Alaska to collect seafloor data that could help pave the way for the largest national expansion since the Louisiana Purchase.

The United States is mapping the floor of the Arctic Ocean and the territory off its other coasts to determine whether the nation can lay claim to lands beyond its 200-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ). In total, the United States might be in line to take control of outer continental shelf lands that are the equivalent of two Californias, according to David Balton, deputy assistant secretary of State for oceans and fisheries.

To assert a claim to the areas beyond the EEZ, the government would have to show “that the seafloor beyond 200 miles is a natural prolongation of your continent,” Balton said. “But that term ‘natural prolongation’ is defined in a number of different ways, and we’re exploring just how far out we can make such a claim in the Arctic and elsewhere.”

At least 50 countries have submitted data to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, a United Nations panel, in support of claims to lands beyond their EEZs. Territorial requests are pending in the Arctic from Canada, Norway, Russia and Denmark on behalf of Greenland.

The United States is still studying the seabed terrain along its coasts. Eventually, the government expects to assert a claim over
territory in the Arctic, the Atlantic and the Gulf of Mexico, as well as off the Pacific Northwest coast and in the Bering Sea. Other offshore lands may also be claimed, including areas off the Aleutian Islands and along some U.S. Pacific islands.

“We’re likely to have one of the largest areas of the continental shelf of any country in the world,” Balton said. “The biggest piece will almost certainly be in the Arctic.”

But even if the United States can prove that Alaska extends far into the Arctic, the government can’t guarantee ownership because the nation is not a part of the United Nations’ Law of the Sea Convention. “Once we’re ready to set the outer limits of our continental shelf, the obvious, best way of doing so is as a party to this treaty,” he said. “If we are still a nonparty at that point, I really don’t know what will happen. And I doubt that we would have the same ability to establish the outer limits.”

With the other Arctic countries eager to tap the region’s plentiful oil and gas resources, President Obama is pulling out the stops to persuade the Senate to approve the pact.

The 1982 Law of the Sea treaty sets rules for freedom of navigation, fishing, oil and gas development, deep seabed mining, and
environmental protection. Ratification of the treaty, approved by 160 other nations, continues to fall short in the United States because conservative Republicans argue that it would undermine U.S. sovereignty.

Balton said the oil industry would be reluctant to explore beyond the 200-mile EEZ unless the United States can finalize the seafloor territory boundaries. “They would not get the financing or the insurance necessary to actually begin exploring for oil and gas and other resources out there unless there were no cloud on the title of that land,” he said. “Unless we joined the Law of the Sea convention, there will always be a cloud on the title of those pieces of seafloor.”

Treaty talk in the Senate

Today the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is holding a hearing featuring business leaders who favor the treaty. Obama administration Cabinet secretaries and military chiefs argued for ratification at earlier hearings.

In testimony set to be delivered this morning, American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard backs the treaty. “The Law of the Sea Convention provides the certainty that companies need to invest billions required and offers the potential of greatly and definitely broadening the offshore areas from which we can access new resources to meet our nation’s growing energy needs,” his testimony says.

“In addition, it will give the United States a seat at the table as the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf continues the process of dividing up millions of square miles of offshore territory and assigning management rights to all of the world’s marine resources– a process that has been described as probably the last big shift in ownership of territory in the history of the Earth.”

Treaty opponents, including former Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld, warn that the pact would send a small portion of royalties from oil drilling on the extended continental shelf to be distributed by a U.N. body (E&E Daily, June 15).

Under the terms of the Law of the Sea convention, countries can develop resources beyond their 200-mile zone for five years without having to pay royalties into an international fund managed by the United Nations. On the sixth year, the country would be required to contribute 1 percent of the value of the resources extracted. The royalty would increase by 1 percentage point for six years and plateau at 7 percent.

Balton said the royalty formula was developed with the help of the oil industry. “They still support it today, in part because they believe that at almost all sites on the continental shelf, they would be able to extract the large majority of whatever resource might be there within the first five years,” he said.

At a June Senate hearing, Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation questioned the administration’s hand-wringing over the treaty, saying that “no legal barriers prevent U.S. access, exploration and exploitation of the resources of the deep seabed. The United States has long held that U.S. corporations and citizens have the right to develop the resources of the deep seabed and may do so whether or not” the Senate approves the treaty.

Special thanks to Richard Charter