Fall 2013 BY DANIEL JAKUBOVITZ LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Fall 2013
BY DANIEL JAKUBOVITZ LEHIGH UNIVERSITY
1
Introduction Hydraulic fracturing, commonly known as fracking, is one of the hottest and most controversial topics within the spheres of the environment, energy, foreign policy, and the economy. The situation surrounding federal regulations for fracking may not be as well publicized, but is equally as important. Every industry has regulations whose purpose is to prevent potential hazards to the public’s health, environment, or general wellbeing.
The fact that federal regulations for fracking are practically nonexistent makes this an important topic for better understanding the controversy. Regulations dictate how the process is actually carried out at the technical level. Because of the harms that fracking can have on the environment, it is important to have stringent and consistent regulations across the country to ensure that this harm is minimized. However, the current situation of federal regulations does nothing to ensure the practice’s safety, and rather this responsibility is left up to the states.
This current situation of regulatory framework further perpetuates the
controversy surrounding fracking. Some believe that more federal regulations are necessary to ensure the safety of the practice as it continues to grow. Others believe that the states should be the main regulators, as more federal regulations would be redundant and harm the industry.
Understanding this debate is important for Lehigh University students and
the general public to understand. The public can have a large influence on the industry through public demonstrations and pressuring their legislators. Seeing as those directly affected by fracking are average people who happen to live in fracking areas, it is important for them to understand the industry and current situation before choosing a side. Understanding this crucial piece of the controversy can help people frame the fracking situation as a whole, and get a better understanding of the forces at play that control the industry.
If the public is aware of the current system of federal regulations, the impact
it has, and the outlook for the future, then people can use their influence in the most educated and purposeful way possible, and can direct their efforts to the issues that matter the most.
Current State of Affairs of Fracking Regulations The federal regulatory process for protecting the nation’s environment
generally goes like this: Congress passes a piece of legislation regarding the environment, such as the Clean Air Act or Clean Water Act, giving certain agencies, typically the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the authority to create technical regulations to enforce the law. It is then the EPA’s responsibility to make sure that involved industries meet the regulations and abide by the law. However, when it comes to hydraulic fracturing, legislation at the federal level does not exist,
2
preventing the EPA from enacting regulatory oversight of the practice, and leaving the controversial practice almost deregulated.
Deregulation at the federal level, however, does not mean that no regulations
exist. “In the absence of clear federal guidelines, it remains up to state regulators to figure out how best to proceed with hydraulic fracturing,” explains Daniel McGlynn, an independent journalist covering science and the environment (McGlynn 2011, 1053). This system of regulations has both positives and negatives, and there exists both proponents and opponents to the current status quo.
The proponents of the system say that there are sufficient regulations
already in place and an additional layer of federal regulations would be redundant and will slow development while increasing costs. “Industry officials and state regulators say that arrangement works well because each state has its own unique geological formations, environmental considerations and drilling techniques,” says McGlynn in an article for CQ Researcher (McGlynn 2011, 1056).
Environmentalists and opponents of the status quo, however, argue that
without a baseline of regulations, dangers to the environment can slip through the cracks. As the industry grows, it becomes increasingly difficult for states to keep up with the necessary number of inspections and oversight.
A drill rig near the town of Pinedale, Wyoming. (Source: Abrahm Lustgarten/ProPublica)
To better understand this controversy, it is necessary to understand how the current situation came to be. This section will explore the history of federal fracking regulations, or the lack thereof, explaining the current loopholes that exist and the most recent attempts to close them. This section also will examine the role of the EPA in the current regulatory framework and notable developments concerning the agency.
3
History
While hydraulic fracturing has been around in some form since the 1940s, its popularity did not boom until the turn of the 21st century when natural gas companies discovered that they could use the process, coupled with horizontal drilling, to extract valuable natural gas from shale deposits deep beneath the Earth’s surface. The increased usage of the technique, and public concern with its safety, forced the EPA to conduct a study to evaluate the potential risks of the practice on the safety of drinking water. The study, initiated in 1999, was completed in 2004 after extensive internal and external review and public comment (EPA). The results concluded that fracking “poses little to no threat to USDWs [Underground Sources of Drinking Water] and does not justify additional study at this time” (EPA 2004, Chapter 7-‐5).
Using the momentum from this study, the 2005 Energy Policy Act included
an amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to exclude hydraulic fracturing processes – except in the case when they use diesel fluid – in the definition of “underground injection.” As it reads in the act, on page 102, section 322 (Energy Policy Act of 2005):
"The term 'underground injection' – (A) means the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well injection; and (B) excludes – (i) the underground injection of natural gas for purposes of storage; and (ii) the underground injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities."
The most significant impact of this loophole is that natural gas companies do
not have to disclose specifics about the chemicals they use in the fracking fluid, unless they use diesel fluid. The rational was that the chemicals used are a “trade secret” and the oil and gas industries have the right to retain their formula in the name of competition. It is comparable to Coca-‐Cola not wanting to release its special formula that makes its signature drink so popular.
This exemption colloquially became known as the “Halliburton Loophole”
because then-‐Vice President Dick Cheney, the former Chairman and CEO of the energy giant Halliburton, and his Energy Task Force were rumored to be instrumental in the passage of this part of the act. Additionally, members of President George W. Bush’s cabinet and big oil lobbyists supposedly met countless times behind closed doors before getting the bill passed, which effectively deregulated the practice at the federal level. “That pretty much closed the door. So we absolutely do not look at fracking...under the Safe Drinking Water Act. It’s not done,” says Greg Oberly, an EPA groundwater specialist (Lustgarten, 2008).
4
All in all, fracking, to some extent, is exempt from “parts of at least 7 of the 15
sweeping federal environmental laws that regulate most other heavy industries,” some of which came about from the Halliburton Loophole, while others have been around since the 1980s to promote the oil and gas industry in general, and not fracking in particular (Urbina, 2011). This includes exemptions from the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Superfund Act, among others, which have regulations that other industries must abide by. “Coal mine operators that want to inject toxic wastewater into the ground must get permission from the federal authorities. But when natural gas companies want to inject chemical-‐laced water and sand into the ground during hydrofracking, they do not have to follow the same rules,” writes Ian Urbina for the New York Times (Urbina, 2011).
In 2009, the first attempt to close the Halliburton Loophole and enact some framework of federal regulations was presented in Congress. The Fracking Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act (FRAC Act) failed to pass on its first attempt, and was introduced again in 2011 and in the summer of 2013. Each time it has failed to pass through the committee stage of Congress (Goss, 2013). The act aims to amend the SDWA to repeal the exemption of fracking and allow the EPA more regulatory oversight across the country, replacing the current fragmented system put in place by the states.
Each attempt of the bill has been introduced to both houses of Congress – the Senate and the House of Representatives – to increase the chances of it being passed. Perhaps not surprisingly, for each attempt, a Democratic Member of Congress from either Pennsylvania or Colorado, two states with large fracking presences, have been the sponsors of the bill. For the 2013 bill, which was referred to committee on June 11, Democrat Robert Casey Jr. from Pennsylvania was the Senate sponsor, and Democrat Diana DeGette (who first proposed the original bill in 2009) from Colorado was the sponsor in the House (DeGette, 2013). For the first time, the 2013 bill introduced in the House includes a Republican co-‐sponsor, signifying a “bipartisan attempt to protect drinking water aquifers from potential contamination from chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing” (Energy Solutions Forum, 2013).
Rep. Diana DeGette (D-‐Co.) has pushed for more federal regulations (Source: Politico).
5
Until Congress passes such a bill, it will be mostly up to the states to regulate and monitor the process of fracking, an increasingly difficult duty as the industry expands and the public becomes more aware of the potential dangers.
The next section explores how the lack of federal regulations affects the main
federal environmental regulatory agency, the EPA, and the role it has undertaken in lieu of the ability to regulate the process.
Environmental Protection Agency The Environmental Protection Agency, established in 1970, is the major
federal agency dedicated to protecting the various facets of the environment, but, because of the lack of fracking regulations at the federal level, it does not have much influence over this particular practice. Rather, it is left to a primarily researcher role, conducting studies about the environmental impact of fracking throughout the country in order to provide information for citizens in fracking areas and legislators in Washington.
The EPA’s Role as a Researcher At the request of Congress, the EPA is currently conducting a study to
determine the potential effects of fracking on the nation’s groundwater (Lustgarten in Shankman, 2009). The completion date continues to be pushed back, with the most recent update estimating a completion date of 2016. The EPA will collect water samples from five different case study locations in Colorado, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Texas (EPA’s Hydraulic Fracturing Study, 2013). The study will “assess the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water resources, if any, and to identify the driving factors that may affect the severity and frequency of such impacts” (EPA’s Hydraulic Fracturing Study Progress Report, 2012, 19). It will evaluate this through five different steps in the process: water acquisition, chemical mixing, well injection, flowback and produced water, and wastewater treatment and waste disposal (United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2011, ix).
The previously mentioned 2004 study, which essentially had the same goals
as the current study, concluded that there was little-‐to-‐no risk of fracking contaminating underground sources of water. These results were seen as a clean bill of approval from the EPA concerning fracking. Since then, politicians and industry officials have used these results to justify the fracking boom and supporting legislation, including the exemptions created under the 2005 Energy Policy Act. Using the assurance of the safety of fracking from the EPA, and the sign of approval from Congress, the practice took off. Today, 9 out of 10 natural gas wells in the United States use the fracking technique (Lustgarten, 2008).
The 2004 EPA study, which has become a cornerstone of the fracking
industry, is not without controversy, however. Since the study was published, there have been numerous claims of contaminated water in areas with a heavy fracking presence, challenging the EPA’s conclusions. The image that has gathered the most attention from the public and the media is one of residents in a fracking area being
6
able to light his tap water on fire due to high levels of chemicals (especially methane) in the water supply. The public outcry and evidence contradicting the EPA’s conclusions is what influenced Congress in 2009 to urge the EPA to review the 2004 study and conduct a new study on fracking’s effect on drinking water.
A still image from the documentary “Gasland” showing a resident being able to light his tap water on fire due to high levels of methane gas (Source: Gasland).
In 2011, Ben Grumbles, the Assistant Administrator of Water at the EPA at
the time of the 2004 study, revealed that the findings from the 2004 report had been exaggerated and have been incorrectly used by the oil and gas industry as justification of the practice’s overall safety. Grumbles became the President of the Clean Water America Alliance (currently the U.S. Water Alliance) in December 2010, after leaving his post at the EPA in 2009. At his new position, he disclosed that the EPA “never intended for the report to be interpreted as a perpetual clean bill of health for fracking, or to justify a broad statutory exemption from any future regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act” (Grumbles, 2011). Jeffrey Jolie, one of the 2004 report’s three main authors also echoes the same statements as Grumbles, saying that it was too narrowly focused and didn’t consider the various ways fracking is used. “It was never intended to be a broad, sweeping study,” he says (Lustgarten, 2008).
Not only was the study misinterpreted, but also the scientific findings
themselves may have been compromised. EPA scientist and whistleblower Weston Wilson wrote a letter after the 2004 report came out voicing his concerns with the integrity of the study. He wrote that, “based on available science and literature, EPA’s conclusions are unsupportable” (Wilson, 1). He also reported that five of the seven members on the peer review panel for the study could have potentially had conflicts of interest, including members who currently or formerly worked for the oil and gas industry. Wilson believed that the study was not comprehensive enough, did not disclose all of the information, and he warned that they should be wary of
7
exempting fracking from the SDWA. This letter was published in October 2004, almost a year before the passage of the Energy Policy Act.
Outside Pressures on the EPA There have been other cases of the EPA making questionable calls when it
comes to its studies related to fracking, and questions have been raised about the influence of political pressures and industry lobbying on these decisions. In the past two years, the EPA has closed investigations, reversed viewpoints, and failed to enforce the one fracking regulation that it has control over – preventing diesel gas from being used in the fracking process (Lustgarten, 2013).
A slide from the EPA’s PowerPoint about the contamination of groundwater in Dimock, Pa. (Source: Desmogblog.com).
In 2012, in the midst of the EPA’s investigation of the effects of fracking on drinking water in Dimock, Pa., the agency abruptly closed the case, declaring that the drinking water was safe despite not releasing any of the data to support this claim. The action to close the study came from the agency’s Washington office, while staff members in the regional office argued for the completion of the assessment (Phillips, 2013). A few months later, an internal PowerPoint presentation was leaked showing that there was evidence to support groundwater contamination as a result of fracking (Sinding, 2013). The conclusion slide (pictured above) shows that the EPA believed that there were legitimate connections between a fracking site and nearby water contamination. The PowerPoint notes that methane is released during
8
the fracking process, and can seep into aquifers causing damage to the water quality.
This is a stark contradiction to what the EPA released to the public. “It
became apparent to those of us on the ground that they were playing politics,” said Ray Kemble, a resident of Dimock and former gas industry employee. “EPA officials literally told us officially that our water was safe to drink but then told us off-‐the-‐record not to drink it” (Beans, 2013). Similar cases like this occurred with the EPA’s abandoned studies in Pavillion, Wyoming, and Weatherford, Texas (see ‘Additional Web Resources’ section to find more information about these cases). In all three instances, the EPA stepped in because state regulators proved inadequate at fulfilling their duties, an impact of placing the entire regulatory burden on the states. Also in every case, outside pressures from the industry, lobbyists, or Washington influenced the EPA to make adjustments to its studies, sometimes handing responsibility back to the state regulators that had failed in the first place (Beans; 2013).
This recent trend from the EPA questions the agency’s ability to deliver
impartial results to citizens and follow through on studies. This concern comes at a crucial time as the EPA is in the midst of its comprehensive national study about fracking. “The agency has maintained publicly that it remains committed to an ongoing national study of hydraulic fracturing, which it says will draw the definitive line on fracking’s risks to water,” (Lustgarten, 2013). The peer review and transparency of this upcoming study becomes of utmost importance, as recent events have made the EPA seem to be less than the objective federal oversight agency it is supposed to be. The public and legislators expect unbiased, factual information from the EPA so they can draw conclusions about fracking and decide what actions to take.
Conclusion In lieu of federal rules, individual states have taken the responsibility of
monitoring and regulating fracking. While this provides the benefit of catering to an individual state’s local geography and specific needs, it prevents broad, baseline national regulation from existing, which would benefit environmental protection. As the industry continues to boom, regulation and inspection will become an increasingly difficult burden placed upon the states’ shoulders.
Increased oversight and transparency from federal regulatory agencies
would certainly improve fracking’s safety, and gain trust and support from local communities and politicians. Certain loopholes that prevent federal agencies from doing their required jobs are clearly detrimental. This fact becomes even more obvious as evidence emerges that challenges the integrity of the central EPA study that acts of proof as the safety of fracking and encouraged its continued growth.
9
It is possible for fracking procedures to satisfy the needs of both the energy industry and environmentalists, but both sides need to be willing to compromise to allow a fair level of national regulation, just as any industry has, to ensure that the practice is being done correctly.
Stakeholder Interview Steve Hvozdovich is the Marcellus Campaign Coordinator for Clean Water
Action’s Pennsylvania office. He has traveled across Pennsylvania lobbying, rallying, and educating people about the Marcellus Shale and the potential dangers of the growing fracking industry. Clean Water Action is a grassroots environmental organization aimed at protecting the environment, securing safe water, and ensuring a quality of life for all community members. His answers are paraphrased. What are the positive or negative consequences of enacting federal fracking regulations?
The benefits of enacting federal regulations are that it will create universal rules and laws that apply to the industry across all 50 states. Since we don’t currently have strong federal guidance across this industry, we have a patchwork of regulations across the states. One state may have adequate rules to protect the environment and public health while another state may not. This is especially true when it comes to the disclosure of chemicals used in the fracking process, as some states require certain levels of disclosure while others are more lax about the issue. We have had state regulators who have been slow to develop and have not been adequate in their jobs, and as a result we have allowed the industry to call the shots and begin developing fracking in a manner that threatens the environment. What impact does the Halliburton Loophole continue to have on the industry and on policy in Washington?
The Halliburton Loophole was really the catalyst that started the ball rolling. When that exemption was put in place, it limited the federal government’s ability to have oversight over the practice, forcing them to pass the buck down to the states. I think closing the loophole through legislation like the FRAC Act is a great step, but it won’t solve all the issues. But having the FRAC Act pass would be a great first step toward empowering the federal government to have more oversight. Will more federal regulations work to rally more support from the general public for fracking?
People are currently wary of the industry and how safe it is because it seems like the oil and gas industry is getting a lot of exemptions and there isn’t strong oversight. A variety of universities have conducted polls in which the public has said that they support more oversight. The only way for us to truly know if the practice can be done safely is to have more regulations and oversight in place, which is what the public certainly wants to see as well.
10
How has the current regulatory framework had an impact on the environment? The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has examined
161 cases in the past year in which they said natural gas drilling operations have contaminated people’s drinking water, so absolutely this industry acting in the absence of federal regulations is having a negative impact. You see more water contaminations and more lax regulations on the industry state by state. What are the biggest obstacles toward enacting more federal regulations?
There are two big obstacles. The first one is industry influence through campaign donations and lobbying. They obviously have a strong lobbying arm and they’ve been proven to give large amounts of money to congressional candidates, especially in those states where natural gas drilling is occurring. The other reason is because we are still in challenging economic times and people see this development as a source of jobs. In this difficult economic time, nobody wants to be the person who’s painted as being against job growth and so they are reluctant to put any sort of burden on the industry.
Profiles of Key Individuals and Groups Diana DeGette (D-‐Co) represents the first district of Colorado, which encompasses the greater Denver metropolitan region, and is a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. Colorado has seen a large expansion of fracking in the past decade, and DeGette is leading the charge to regulate the industry as it begins to encroach on metro areas. She believes that, “there's a need for ‘a federal framework of common-‐sense fracking regulations’ to resolve a patchwork of state policies,” according to an article in The Denver Post (Finley, 2013). As previously mentioned, DeGette was the primary sponsor on the original FRAC Act which was introduced to Congress in 2009, and has continued to lead the charge with the two subsequent attempts of getting the bill passed. She is an important and powerful player in Washington, who is trying to protect communities from fracking both in Colorado and nationwide. Her website lists options for contacting her either through her Denver or Washington, D.C., office: http://degette.house.gov/contact. Shawn M. Garvin was named the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 3 on November 5, 2009. The Region 3 office covers the Mid-‐Atlantic region including the states of Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Prior to serving in this post, he worked for the office for over 10 years. As this regional office serves states that sit directly on top of the Marcellus Shale and have a heavy fracking presence, the office is active in managing and studying the practice. With the EPA’s recent controversial studies in Dimock and elsewhere, the office has felt public pressure to reopen them and be more transparent with the agency’s actions. The EPA website lists contact information for
11
Garvin: http://www2.epa.gov/aboutepa/shawn-‐m-‐garvin-‐administrator-‐epas-‐mid-‐atlantic-‐region-‐region-‐3 The Independent Petroleum Association of America is an industry trade group formed in 1929 that represents “the thousands of independent oil and natural gas producers and service companies across the United States.” According to their website, independent companies develop 95 percent of domestic oil and gas wells. They are committed to protecting the domestic oil and gas industry as a means of economic development. They are against increased federal regulations, claiming that the states have sufficient ability to do this job, which is already given to them. “One of IPAA’s major priorities is to fight this encroachment of federal government on the shale revolution and ensure that production increases and our imports continue to decrease,” writes Julia Bell on their blog (Bell, 2013). They have also produced a documentary called Truthland in response to Josh Fox’s anti-‐fracking documentary Gasland. IPAA can be contacted via their office in Washington, D.C.: http://www.ipaa.org/contact-‐us/. The Sierra Club, founded in 1892, is one of the largest and most influential grassroots environmental organizations in the country, whose name has become commonplace in the sphere of environmental protection. It uses its vast network of over 1.3 million volunteers and activists across the country to garner support for its goals. Throughout its long history, it has become a well-‐known and respected conservation organization with proven influence and effectiveness in Washington.
One of the Sierra Club’s priority campaigns at the moment is called “Beyond Natural Gas.” It believes that if fracking cannot be performed safely, then it shouldn’t be happening at all. It believes that stringent regulations are necessary to ensure that this process is done safely. “No state has adequate protections in place. Even where there are rules, they are poorly monitored and enforced. Thanks to the multiple federal exemptions, we can’t even count on the federal government to keep us safe,” said former Sierra Club President Allison Chin in 2012 (Sierra Club, 2012). It advocates for more regulations at both the state and federal level, and use their influence to support legislation aimed at closing the various federal loopholes that the oil and gas industry currently enjoy. More information about this can be found on its website, as well as their contact information: http://www.sierraclub.org/contact/.
Additional Web Resources Earthworks:http://www.earthworksaction.org/reform_governments/oil_gas_accountability_project
Earthworks is a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting communities and the environment from hazards that come about from irresponsible energy development. It supports drilling communities mainly by advocating for policy reforms. Its website contains information about the history of federal regulations, current loopholes, and efforts to reform legislation at the state and federal level. It
12
also contains links to press releases, texts of certain bills, external news reports, and detailed fact sheets. EcoNews: http://ecowatch.com/category/news/energy-‐news/fracking-‐2/ EcoNews is powered by EcoWatch, which is an online platform for all things environmental. EcoNews reports on a number of hot environmental topics, and has its own section related to fracking. EcoWatch is dedicated toward green living and environmental protection, and so the news is heavily focused on anti-‐fracking movements and is not the most balanced source. However, it is a good resource to keep up on the latest news about various environmental organizations and the latest developments in the industry. ProPublica report on abandoned EPA studies: http://www.propublica.org/article/epas-‐abandoned-‐Wyoming-‐fracking-‐study-‐one-‐retreat-‐of-‐many
This report from the independent investigative journalism website ProPublica examines, in depth, the recent history of EPA’s abandoned studies. It does a superb job of investigating the various actors and influences involved in order to paint a picture of the situation. It attempts to present the information in an unbiased manner to allow the public to make their own conclusions, and provides plenty of external links to give the reader more information about the topic. FracFocus: http://fracfocus.org/.
FracFocus is the national fracking chemical disclosure registry, run by two independent organizations whose goal is environmental protection and conservation. It provides factual information about fracking without choosing a side on the topic. It provides a registry of the specific chemicals used at certain well sites across the country. While the website is independently run, it is used by some states as their official chemical disclosure, as per the regulations in that state. While this is not strictly a federal issue yet, as the federal disclosure of chemicals becomes a highly debated issue, in terms of federal regulations, this website will certainly be directly involved in the process moving forward. Environmental Protection Agency: http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/
The EPA’s website about fracking contains general information about the practice itself, regulation of the practice, and information about studies they have done. Being a government agency, the EPA attempts to remain as objective as possible. This is a good resource to read the original language in different studies or bills that directly affect the current regulatory framework. CQ Researcher-‐ Fracking Controversy: http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2011121600&type=hitlist&num=0#.UqeejWRDvTc
This comprehensive report from CQ Researcher, a source for original, unbiased reports about hot topics in the news, provides the history, current
13
situation, and future outlook to the controversy of fracking. It touches upon a number of different topics surrounding fracking, including a focus on the regulatory situation. The report provides a timeline of fracking history, pro/con arguments, related short features, external links to news stories, and a list of contacts on both sides of the controversy.
For More Information http://www.edcnet.org/learn/current_cases/fracking/federal_law_loopholes.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/us/DRILLING_DOWN_SERIES.html http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Fracking#Regulations http://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/water/fracking/ http://www.propublica.org/series/fracking http://anga.us/issues-‐and-‐policy/safe-‐and-‐responsible-‐development/hydraulic-‐fracturing-‐101#.UqeiCGRDvTc
References Energy policy act of 2005, H.R. 6, 109th CongressCong. (2005).
doi:http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/pdfs/epact_2005.pdf Beans, L. (2013). Dimock residents demand EPA reopen fracking water contamination
study EcoWatch. doi:http://ecowatch.com/2013/08/13/Dimock-‐residents-‐demand-‐epa-‐reopen-‐fracking-‐water-‐study/
Bell, J. (2013). U.S. oil production overcomes imports-‐ don't mess it up, feds IPAA. doi:http://www.ipaa.org/2013/11/14/u-‐s-‐oil-‐production-‐overcomes-‐imports-‐dont-‐mess-‐it-‐up-‐feds/
Fracturing responsibility and awareness of chemicals act of 2013, H.R. 1921, (2013). doi:https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/hr1921#overview
Energy Solutions Forum. (2013). FRAC act reintroduced as bipartisan bill. Retrieved, 2013, from http://breakingenergy.com/2013/05/17/frac-‐act-‐reintroduced-‐as-‐bipartisan-‐bill/
Finley, B. (2013, ). DeGette says common-‐sense federal framework needed to govern fracking. The Denver Post doi:http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_23210587/degette-‐says-‐common-‐sense-‐federal-‐framework-‐needed-‐govern
Goss, S. (2013). FRAC act reintroduced in the senate. Retrieved, 2013, from http://ecowatch.com/2013/07/16/frac-‐act-‐senate-‐lacks-‐regulation/
Grumbles, B. (2011). Presidential pipeline: Drill, maybe, drill! Clean Water Alliance America. doi:http://www.uswateralliance.org//pdfs/pipeline2011.05.17.pdf
Lustgarten, A. (2008). Buried Secrets: Is natural gas drilling endangering U.S. water supplies?. New York, NY: ProPublica Inc.
Lustgarten, A. (2009). In Shankman S. (Ed.), Congress tells EPA to study hydraulic fracturing. New York, NY: ProPublica.
14
doi:http://www.propublica.org/article/congress-‐tells-‐epa-‐to-‐study-‐hydraulic-‐fracturing-‐hinchey-‐1110
Lustgarten, A. (2013). EPA's abandoned Wyoming fracking study one retreat of many ProPublica. doi:http://www.propublica.org/article/epas-‐abandoned-‐Wyoming-‐fracking-‐study-‐one-‐retreat-‐of-‐many
McGlynn, D. (2011). Fracking controversy. CQ Researcher, 21(44), 1049-‐1072. doi:http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/
Obama, B. (2013). In Office of the Press Secretary (Ed.), Remarks by the president in the state of the union address The White House. doi:http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-‐press-‐office/2013/02/12/remarks-‐president-‐state-‐union-‐address
Phillips, S. (2013). LA times: EPA not in agreement over Dimock StateImpact. doi:http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2013/07/28/la-‐times-‐epa-‐not-‐in-‐agreement-‐over-‐Dimock/
Sierra Club. (2012). Thousands gather for stop the frack attack rally doi:http://sierraclub.typepad.com/compass/2012/07/thousands-‐gather-‐for-‐stop-‐the-‐frack-‐attack-‐rally.html
Sinding, K. (2013). Leaked report shows EPA censored Dimock's fracking water contamination study EcoWatch. doi:http://ecowatch.com/2013/07/29/epa-‐censored-‐Dimocks-‐fracking-‐water-‐study/
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2004). In Office of Water, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water and Drinking Water Protection Division(Eds.), Evaluation of impacts to underground sources of drinking water by hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane reservoirs. Washington, DC:
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2011). In Office of Research and Development (Ed.), Plan to study the Potential Impacts of hydraulic Fracturing on drinking water resources. Washington, DC: doi:http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/hf_study_plan_110211_final_508.pdf
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). Hydraulic fracturing background. Retrieved, 2013, from http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/wells_hydrowhat.cfm
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2012). In Office of Research and Development (Ed.), Study of the potential impacts of Hydraulic fracturing on Drinking water resources: Progress report (EPA/601/R-‐12/011 ed.)
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2013). EPA's study of hydraulic fracturing and its potential impact on drinking water resources. Retrieved, 2013, from http://www2.epa.gov/hfstudy/case-‐studies
Urbina, I. (2011, ). Pressure limits efforts to police drilling for gas. The New York Times, pp. A1. doi:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/us/04gas.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
15
Wilson, W. (2004). In Allard W., Campbell B. and DeGette D.(Eds.), EPA allows hazardous fluids to be injected into ground water. . Denver, CO: doi:http://latimes.image2.trb.com/lanews/media/acrobat/2004-‐10/14647025.pdf
Related Documents
