Top 5 EPA Reforms That Scott Pruitt Will Likely Push

[Smokin Joe]

Well, I lost a long reply to you, @Smokin Joe and @thackney, and I don't have time to reconstruct it. 

I'll just go back to the original point...that there actually is groundwater contamination that resulted from poorly-done fracking, and that it's good that there's regulation, regulation that industry was trying to prevent less than 10 years ago. There are still problems, such as insufficient bonds to avoid costs being dumped on the taxpayer (e.g., the thousands of abandoned wells that still get added to our tab), but for the most part, things are pretty good.

An example why self-regulation alone doesn't always work.
And I brought up the Macondo example not to say that was directly comparable or fracking, but just to point out that even with experienced firms, mistakes can occur.  We can't always assume best practices will be followed.

Fracking is excellent.  I'm just calling for us not to believe we have an unsinkable Titanic, and hydrocarbon companies should be held to the Safe Drinking Water Act the same as everyone else.

Get back to well construction. If it is done right, then no contamination occurs. We don't do coalbed methane here, closest is in Wyoming where a colleague has worked numerous coalbed wells. According to him, they don't frac those wells there (Powder River Basin), they pull water out of them and the methane desorbs from the coal when the water level is low enough. This doesn't contaminate groundwater, but it can deplete it if the coals are the local aquifer, and those issues were subsequently addressed there.

Back to basics, regulation is and should be done on the State level. That said, each state should establish the regulations appropriate to the geology of their state, and enforce those regulations. Having the EPA or some other agency (which has so far only been against everything but the crony capitalism of wind and solar energy, and done everything to stop conventional fuel production and utilization, whether justified or not,) make blanket regulations for all geologic provinces is pure insanity.

It is, as I said, as sensible as building houses to California earthquake resistance standards in North Dakota, where the big earthquake was a 3.2 in my lifetime, and though I was likely within 20 miles of the epicenter, I missed it.

[Suppressed]

Get back to well construction. If it is done right, then no contamination occurs. We don't do coalbed methane here, closest is in Wyoming where a colleague has worked numerous coalbed wells. According to him, they don't frac those wells there (Powder River Basin), they pull water out of them and the methane desorbs from the coal when the water level is low enough. This doesn't contaminate groundwater, but it can deplete it if the coals are the local aquifer, and those issues were subsequently addressed there.

Back to basics, regulation is and should be done on the State level. That said, each state should establish the regulations appropriate to the geology of their state, and enforce those regulations. Having the EPA or some other agency (which has so far only been against everything but the crony capitalism of wind and solar energy, and done everything to stop conventional fuel production and utilization, whether justified or not,) make blanket regulations for all geologic provinces is pure insanity.

It is, as I said, as sensible as building houses to California earthquake resistance standards in North Dakota, where the big earthquake was a 3.2 in my lifetime, and though I was likely within 20 miles of the epicenter, I missed it.

I never argued for federal standards, other than the performance standards of the SDWA.  States should make their own regs regarding what they want for implementation of fracking, but just like any other industry, the SDWA should be followed.

[thackney]

.that there actually is groundwater contamination that resulted from poorly-done fracking

I don't agree with this claim.  The contamination in all cases has been shown to be faulty well construction, casing and cementing.

An example why self-regulation alone doesn't always work.

I have never proposed self-regulation.  This is a strawman argument.  It isn't the proposed solution by any major in the oil industry.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Sure, though the pressures of fracked wells increase the influence.

The point is, fracking can cause problems.  That's why it has to be done right.

Both @Smokin Joe and @thackney are attempting to explain a simple way that you seem to have trouble comprehending.

Drilling a well can be considered like laying a pipeline.  Both contain poisonous materials that flow through them.  If both are constructed properly at the get-go, then there is little hazard in pushing fluids through the pipeline or in fraccing a well.

A well not properly constructed to endure frac fluids/pressure of course has a good chance of failing, just like a pipeline not properly constructed to endure a certain pumping pressure.

However, in both cases, well designed construction, taking into account the operations which will be conducted on them, will minimize any failure.

[Smokin Joe]

I never argued for federal standards, other than the performance standards of the SDWA.  States should make their own regs regarding what they want for implementation of fracking, but just like any other industry, the SDWA should be followed.

First, the SDWA is an EPA run show. That makes it a political ball game.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Drinking_Water_Act

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the principal federal law in the United States intended to ensure safe drinking water for the public.[3] Pursuant to the act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to set standards for drinking water quality and oversee all states, localities, and water suppliers who implement these standards.

This is the great omnibus, because anything that exists in the environment with water, which is, basically, everything, (Except bottled water, that's FDA) can be regulated as a spinoff of this act. It is the ultimate federal takeover, especially when you add in the agency that wants to regulate the air you exhale (Carbon dioxide) and fart (biogenic methane production).

You do realize that there are parts of the US where the water just doesn't get past those acceptable standards, where it isn't drinkable? --not because anyone polluted it, but because it (naturally) just isn't good drinkable water? That there are places where oil seeps out of the ground in water? (That led to the discovery of an oilfield in Nevada, and I'm sure that isn't the only one). Considering the first oil wells in Pennsylvania were hand dug, I'd say there is a chance of that in the Appalachians, too.

Methane in groundwater was common enough that one fellow I knew out in West Virginia in the early 70s had a spring house built of heavy timbers with a light, hinged roof, so when the pump he had installed up there kicked in and the 'mixture' was just right, it only blew the roof off, and didn't destroy the whole thing.

But note:

SDWA applies to every public water system (PWS) in the United States.[4] There are currently about 155,000 public water systems providing water to almost all Americans at some time in their lives.[5] The Act does not cover private wells.[6]

(Also from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Drinking_Water_Act )
What? No Private wells? Only city water?
It is easy to blame fraccing or the oil industry for bad water, but let's get real. City water comes from surface supplies or 'deep' wells, and those not far from the city in question.

 Most, if not all, jurisdictions have setback limits which regulate how close an oil or gas well can be to existing, and especially occupied structures. Water supplies are jealously guarded (except maybe in Flint, but that is a different deal, and not oil related) because delivering bad water from a municipal system is not a way to make your city flourish. Water treatment plants are the means to address problems with the water before the water is distributed to consumers.

As for fraccing: Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program

The 1974 act authorized EPA to regulate injection wells in order to protect underground sources of drinking water.[22] Congress amended the SDWA in 2005 to exclude hydraulic fracturing, an industrial process for recovering oil and natural gas, from coverage under the UIC program, except where diesel fuels are used.[23][24] This exclusion has been called the "Halliburton Loophole". Halliburton is the world's largest provider of hydraulic fracturing services.[25]

(Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Drinking_Water_Act)

Again, in hydraulic fracturing, the use of fluids to induce fracturing in the target formation can be two miles below municipal water sources, separated by the same strata which kept the oil trapped. This isn't fluid disposal, but a temporary increase in pressure in that reservoir rock layer to cause fractures and push sand or another proppant into those fractures to keep them open. Any increase in pressure in the target reservoir formation will be relieved by production of the oil and/or natural gas from the well. Short of spillage at the surface, the frac fluid won't get into groundwater.

So, where do those water problems come from? According to NOAA, http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/pollution.html

Eighty percent of pollution to the marine environment comes from the land. One of the biggest sources is called nonpoint source pollution, which occurs as a result of runoff. Nonpoint source pollution includes many small sources, like septic tanks, cars, trucks, and boats, plus larger sources, such as farms, ranches, and forest areas. Millions of motor vehicle engines drop small amounts of oil each day onto roads and parking lots. Much of this, too, makes its way to the sea.

That such pollution would end up in the riparian environments which feed most municipal water supplies is no surprise. Away from the coasts, it goes into riparian (fresh water rivers) environments on its way to marine (salt water/brackish water and ocean) environments. You can blame oil companies if you want, but in reality, you need look no farther than your nearest gas station, driveway, or parking lot for the problem.

[MajorClay]

Shhhh, let him get confirmed first.

[libertybele]

I'd love to see #2 and #5 in particular changed.

[Smokin Joe]

I'd love to see #2 and #5 in particular changed.

Keystone? DAPL!

Actually, I'm for the whole list. The ethanol mandate is a fixed volume to be mixed into fuels without regard for the percentage of the ethanol in fuel. For non flex fuel vehicles, this generally means fuel system damage after 10% ethanol. For small engines, (chainsaws, lawnmowers, generators, outboard motors, etc.), and older vehicles, ethanol in fuel is highly destructive. No Ethanol gasoline is currently about 60 cents more per gallon here, sold as 'premium', but that isn't available everywhere.
Ethanol isn't mixed into aviation fuel because, after all, you can't just pull over when the engine quits up there.

Remove the mandate and let the market decide.

[Suppressed]

You do realize that there are parts of the US where the water just doesn't get past those acceptable standards, where it isn't drinkable? --not because anyone polluted it, but because it (naturally) just isn't good drinkable water?

Yes, and I'm aware that the SDWA addresses natural contaminants.

Methane in groundwater was common enough that one fellow I knew out in West Virginia in the early 70s had a spring house built of heavy timbers with a light, hinged roof, so when the pump he had installed up there kicked in and the 'mixture' was just right, it only blew the roof off, and didn't destroy the whole thing.

And nobody is asking industry to do anything about naturally occurring problems, only ones they exacerbate.

If it's so irrelevant to mineral-resource wells, then why was the oil and gas industry so insistent that they should get a special exemption?

Water supplies are jealously guarded (except maybe in Flint, but that is a different deal, and not oil related) because delivering bad water from a municipal system is not a way to make your city flourish. Water treatment plants are the means to address problems with the water before the water is distributed to consumers.

So even if an oil company causes a problem, you want the taxpayers to just suck it up and pay to treat the problem?

Short of spillage at the surface, the frac fluid won't get into groundwater.

So putting that as enforceable should be no problem, eh?

You can blame oil companies if you want, but in reality, you need look no farther than your nearest gas station, driveway, or parking lot for the problem.

Actually, a lot of the nonpointsource pollution is handled by bacteria in the soil cover, as the rate of application doesn't overwhelm the system the way a catastrophic release would.

I deal with groundwater pollution sources every day, professionally.  I deal with a huge amount caused directly by an oil company. 

Yes, many sources of contamination exist, but that doesn't mean we should just ignore the potential of a new one.  I'm not saying to shut it down, but if there's a failure, those responsible should be held responsible.  I'm glad that industry has largely lost the battle, as have the wacko activists, and we're in a bit of a sane middle-ground.

[Smokin Joe]

Yes, and I'm aware that the SDWA addresses natural contaminants.

And nobody is asking industry to do anything about naturally occurring problems, only ones they exacerbate.

waitaminute. Either the problem is naturally occurring or not. If so, then the oil company isn't the one who caused it. As for exacerbating a naturally occurring problem, what exactly do you mean by that?
What naturally occurring problem are the oil companies going to make a problem?

If it's so irrelevant to mineral-resource wells, then why was the oil and gas industry so insistent that they should get a special exemption?

From https://www.epa.gov/sdwa

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the federal law that protects public drinking water supplies throughout the nation. Under the SDWA, EPA sets standards for drinking water quality and with its partners implements various technical and financial programs to ensure drinking water safety.

What special exemption? You are citing regulations concerning drinking water supplies as provided to people, and then saying oil companies have an exemption when oil companies aren't providing the water supplies?

You keep providing tangential arguments in order to make fraccing a boogeyman, from surface pollution (mostly runoff from streets and parking lots) to blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico, and now the oil companies are supposed to provide drinking water? WTf?

So even if an oil company causes a problem, you want the taxpayers to just suck it up and pay to treat the problem?

I'm not sure how old the problem that is pissing you off is, nor whether it dates back to world war two or what, but name a problem caused in the last twenty years by an oil company that isn't being remediated by the oil company. Not only are there fines involved, but the oil companies pay for the cleanup. An oil company even trucked in potable water for Pavilion Wyoming while it was being determined that the pollutants in the town's perched water table originated right there in town, and accumulated in the isolated aquifer.

So putting that as enforceable should be no problem, eh?

Now, you aren't making sense. Putting WHAT as enforceable?

That oil companies don't pollute? Go back to the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1898, it is covered--and has been.

Actually, a lot of the nonpointsource pollution is handled by bacteria in the soil cover, as the rate of application doesn't overwhelm the system the way a catastrophic release would.

Since the source I quoted dealt with marine pollution, no. A lot of it goes down storm drains and makes it to the oceans. If ground spills are the boogeyman you have against fraccing, then what happened to those soil bacteria? Or do they not work unless the local okays it?

I deal with groundwater pollution sources every day, professionally.  I deal with a huge amount caused directly by an oil company. 

I never said oil companies haven't caused pollution. My guess, since you won't just come out and say so is that you're dealing with an abandoned refinery or storage facility, from decades ago. Your harping on taxpayers getting stuck with cleanup costs implies that whatever commercial entity made the mess is no longer in existence, so the taxpayers got stuck. So it is with many industrial polluters long gone, many of which were gone before there was an EPA.
Blaming the exploration and production end of the oil industry today on those messes made decades before the standards were changed or even the need for those standards recognized is wrong, and you should know that. It is the equivalent of blaming modern building contractors for asbestos used in the 20s.

Yes, many sources of contamination exist, but that doesn't mean we should just ignore the potential of a new one.

  Oh, it isn't being ignored, and the effort was being made to ban fraccing. Now, that was at least 80 years late (that's how long hydraulic fracturing has been around), and I worked my first horizontal well in 1990, so that isn't exactly new, either. What is 'new' (well, about 20 years old, too) is that it was applied to an unconventional resource with outrageous success and threatened the Islam based oil cartels of the Middle East with our liberation from their oil supply. Barrack Hussein Obama and other interests saw that as a threat, not only to the pay for play solar power grant siphon, but the big wind power ripoff as well. After all, he had stated he wanted our gasoline to cost as much as it does in Europe.

I'm not saying to shut it down, but if there's a failure, those responsible should be held responsible.

If there is a failure, those who are responsible are held responsible. State laws make sure of that, and here, regulatory people are on site as the Frac is conducted. 

I'm glad that industry has largely lost the battle, as have the wacko activists, and we're in a bit of a sane middle-ground.

Why don't you just come out of the closet and admit you have you have a problem with the oil industry? Industry didn't lose the battle. Industry came out clean as a whistle or the Obamites would have banned fraccing and we'd be on our way back to $5/gallon (or more expensive) gas.

Every attempt to prove properly conducted (industry standard, regulated by state law) fraccing has caused or created problems has failed.

Wake up please, to the fact that the goals of the Obama administration were to cripple the ability of the United States to produce electrical power (by regulating stack emissions to the degree that coal fired plants were shut down) to justify the dumping of public funds in the form of grants and loan guarantees to often questionable or failing startups. Some of those funds (See: Solyndra) were kicked back to political entities.

Along came the oil companies and found a way to produce incredible quantities of Natural Gas from geological formations previously thought to be impossible to produce from.

Power plants were converted, when feasible, to Natural Gas, which we were told burns cleaner. New plants were built which burn natural gas to produce electricity. But the pipelines to carry that gas are being fought, which is why natural gas is higher in New England than the rest of the country.

(In there, half a billion dollars went to one failing solar power company, which failed --tax money pissed away, subsidies went to wind and solar power--more tax money pissed away, and the oil and gas industry has not only jumped through every regulatory hoop imposed on it, but performed and did so without a taxpayer dime.)

The effort to make electric cars, wind, and solar power competitive with $5/gallon gas (and up) failed, because the oil companies produced enough to bring the price back down, again from geological formations not known to be productive except in rare instances.

That price drop was enhanced by the return of production facilities in Libya to oil providing status, the new deal with Iran, and other tricks which should have buried the American Oil industry. Again, the resilience of the industry is underestimated, but the people the Obamites wanted funded after the 'Arab Spring' are cashing in on the oil sales.

The only way to stymie that domestic production of both natural gas and oil was to attack the production technique itself, and this was done in the media (recall Gasland, now debunked for the propaganda it is), by the government (using those precious tax dollars and the EPA), and by environmental groups who were sucking up donations based on lies and getting their share of those tax dollars through lawsuits.

We could tell when the 'war on fraccing' failed.

How? The Keystone XL pipeline, which would have taken a mere 100,000 BOPD out of this region to refiners was stopped after a decade long process of jumping through hoops because: Big Oil! The proposal had been studied, modified, and remodified and brought into compliance, and the permit denied at the end of that lengthy and expensive process.

The trucks and trains being used to transport oil were attacked as being unsafe (even though they have been transporting everything from oil to chlorine gas, to anhydrous ammonia to gasoline and diesel fuel, to hydroflouric acid, to well, you pretty much name it up to and including nuclear warheads.

Even pipelines have been attacked with litanies of lies about them, all in the ongoing effort to make conventional energy sources more expensive while pissing away tax dollars on 'renewables' and ethanol subsidies and claiming those were good investments because the price of conventional energy sources was being artificially pushed up through regulation, abusive litigation, and arbitrary rulings without basis in law or fact.

If you want to know what has driven other industry offshore, well that's the gambit. Make ours too expensive to produce or keep changing the rules so production is intermittent, and our factories close. This is the sort of thing that has driven industry (and jobs) out of the US.

In the meantime, the EPA pulls the plug out of the Gold King Mine and pollutes an entire river system.

But back to my bet, that either you are dealing with an old refinery or storage site, not an oil well drilled in the last 30 years, or maybe a railroad shop. So come clean, what are you dealing with, and how does that relate to hydraulically fracturing an oil well in North Dakota or a gas well in PA?

[Suppressed]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/opinion/03tue3.html

Yeah, it's an opinion piece, and yeah, it's biased...but I don't have the time to reply point-by-point when it seems you're missing the overall point, so it gives quick info -- that oil companies tried very hard to avoid that very regulation you are now touting.

I'm not talking about an abandoned refinery or storage facility.  But neither am I talking about exploration sites, granted.

If ground spills are the boogeyman you have against fraccing, then what happened to those soil bacteria? Or do they not work unless the local okays it?

Re-read.  I pointed out that the rate is important.  The "drip-drip" from oil pans is different from the yearly dose being all applied at once from a release. 

the effort was being made to ban fraccing. Now, that was at least 80 years late (that's how long hydraulic fracturing has been around), and I worked my first horizontal well in 1990, so that isn't exactly new, either.

There's a lot of fascinating history to the oil industry; I'm quite aware of the long-time use of fracking -- some of the groundwater contamination I've seen came from fracking done decades ago.  I admit that I haven't sat a fracking operation since the 90s myself, but I think my points are valid.

Since the source I quoted dealt with marine pollution, no. A lot of it goes down storm drains and makes it to the oceans.

The issue was groundwater contamination, and you're responding with storm drains.

Why don't you just come out of the closet and admit you have you have a problem with the oil industry?

No closet.  I'm quite vocal that I have a problem with the oil industry -- when they try to play games (as they used to do with fracking).  I'm very supportive when they are reasonable.  I've publicly supported them at public meetings, and I've submitted comments during public-comment periods when they have been under assault.  I also have a problem with the wacko activists who lie and mislead, too.

I'll now ask you to take off the blinders, and see that just because they are complying now, they have fought tooth-and-nail to avoid getting here...and eternal vigilance is necessary.  Plus, off the direct topic of groundwater contamination, taxpayers continue to get stuck with bills from gas exploration.  Even though states have successfully fought oil and gas companies over bonds in recent years, the amounts are still insufficient.  For example:  http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-orphan-wells-leave-states-holding-the-cleanup-bag-1424921403

Wake up please, to the fact that the goals of the Obama administration were to cripple the ability of the United States to produce electrical power (by regulating stack emissions to the degree that coal fired plants were shut down) to justify the dumping of public funds in the form of grants and loan guarantees to often questionable or failing startups.

Agreed, 100%.

So come clean, what are you dealing with, and how does that relate to hydraulically fracturing an oil well in North Dakota or a gas well in PA?

I'm dealing with a number of examples of where, despite being environmentally or economically disadvantageous, certain actions resulted in groundwater contamination.  I put forth the idea that, left entirely to their own devices, oil companies would proceed in a manner that would result in groundwater-contamination incidents.  The fact that they are currently using good practices is the result of regulation that they previously have fought hard.

[Smokin Joe]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/opinion/03tue3.html

Yeah, it's an opinion piece, and yeah, it's biased...but I don't have the time to reply point-by-point when it seems you're missing the overall point, so it gives quick info -- that oil companies tried very hard to avoid that very regulation you are now touting.

I'm not talking about an abandoned refinery or storage facility.  But neither am I talking about exploration sites, granted.

Re-read.  I pointed out that the rate is important.  The "drip-drip" from oil pans is different from the yearly dose being all applied at once from a release. 

There's a lot of fascinating history to the oil industry; I'm quite aware of the long-time use of fracking -- some of the groundwater contamination I've seen came from fracking done decades ago.  I admit that I haven't sat a fracking operation since the 90s myself, but I think my points are valid.

The issue was groundwater contamination, and you're responding with storm drains.

No closet.  I'm quite vocal that I have a problem with the oil industry -- when they try to play games (as they used to do with fracking).  I'm very supportive when they are reasonable.  I've publicly supported them at public meetings, and I've submitted comments during public-comment periods when they have been under assault.  I also have a problem with the wacko activists who lie and mislead, too.

I'll now ask you to take off the blinders, and see that just because they are complying now, they have fought tooth-and-nail to avoid getting here...and eternal vigilance is necessary.  Plus, off the direct topic of groundwater contamination, taxpayers continue to get stuck with bills from gas exploration.  Even though states have successfully fought oil and gas companies over bonds in recent years, the amounts are still insufficient.  For example:  http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-orphan-wells-leave-states-holding-the-cleanup-bag-1424921403

Agreed, 100%.

I'm dealing with a number of examples of where, despite being environmentally or economically disadvantageous, certain actions resulted in groundwater contamination.  I put forth the idea that, left entirely to their own devices, oil companies would proceed in a manner that would result in groundwater-contamination incidents.  The fact that they are currently using good practices is the result of regulation that they previously have fought hard.

So kindly enlighten me about just where (and what and when) you are talking about instead of waving the hazy flag of evil oil companies somewhere somewhen. There have, in any industry, been those who did not do things right. As for fighting Federal Regulation, sure, why not? Even if I agree with regulation of lands within this state in principle (that is, the idea of the regulation being a valid cause for governmental intervention), I will fight to have that regulation established at the State level and NOT the Federal one. Why? Because I have workid in enough geologic provinces to know that the need for regulation in the Great Basin may be completely different than the need for Regulations in the Williston Basin.
The basics of not spilling anything on the ground (including perhaps drips in parking lots which either soak into the ground or are carried with runoff to riparian environments where they might go into a water intake for some municipality), of having good (checked) casing integrity, of keeping spills off the ground were standards developed by oil companies.
If you look at the BLM approved well pad designs for single wells, those were lifted from Amerada Hess. It was being done already.
Now, i have only been 'at it' since 1979, but I haven't seen the resistance to doing the job right in the time I have been in the industry, nor in the states I have worked in and admittedly, my work has been confined to the Exploration and Production aspect of the industry. But that is the part of the industry where fraccing occurs. We have only been doing horizontal wells up this way since the mid-80s, prior to that the wells were vertical, but in all cases, casing strings to protect groundwater (Conductor pipe, Surface casing), lined reserve pits, liners as layers in the well pad, all were designed to prevent contamination of water sources. Again, in this area, ranching and farming have been the mainstay of the economy, anything which will make the livestock sick or the land unusable isn't considered worth any short term gain.

So spare me and the other readers on this site the guesswork and be more specific about the sort of messes, when they date from, and where they are.

If they don't compare to present day practices, then why harp on the people who are doing it right?
Slavery has been replaced with tractors, but that doesn't mean that the tractors need to be freed.

PS I would have read the article at your second link, but I'm not paying 12 bucks to do so.