The dome of the Capitol is reflected in a puddle in Washington February 17, 2012.REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Another debt ceiling debacle could sink the economy

Last year's Congressional debt standoff hurt consumer confidence more than the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Betsey Johnson and Justin Wolfers write. This time could be worse.  Read more at Counterparties  

EPA begins study on shale gas drilling

Related Topics

WASHINGTON | Thu Mar 18, 2010 5:02pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Environmental Protection Agency said on Thursday it will begin to take a closer look at the environmental and human health impact of shale gas drilling, which could mean new regulations on a booming area of the energy sector.

The drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking", is not subject to the federal safe drinking water law. New regulations could discourage removing gas from shale rock formations, which account for 15 percent to 20 percent of U.S. natural gas production and provide a relatively clean energy source for the United States, which is trying to reduce its dependence on foreign oil.

The EPA study, which the agency said could take two years to complete, will put the spotlight on the possible dangers of hydraulic fracturing at a time when major oil companies such as Exxon Mobil, BP, Statoil and Total are pouring investment into the shale gas sector.

"Our research will be designed to answer questions about the potential impact of hydraulic fracturing on human health and the environment," Paul Anastas, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Research and Development said in a statement. "The study will be conducted through a transparent, peer-reviewed process, with significant stakeholder input."

Separately, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said Thursday his department is examining whether it should require shale gas producers using federal land to disclose the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing.

"It is an issue that we are looking at," Salazar said at hearing before a House Appropriations subcommittee.

The EPA has allocated $1.9 million for its study, which the agency said is in the very early stages.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is conducting its own investigation into the effects of fracking.

Legislation is also pending in the House that would require oil and gas companies to disclose the chemicals they use.

The EPA said in a separate notice published Thursday in the Federal Register that the agency's science advisory board would hold a two-day public meeting over April 7-8 to discuss how the EPA plans to study hydraulic fracturing.

The EPA said in its notice that the agency plans to gather existing data for its study on hydraulic fracturing, seek input from affected groups, catalog "potential risks" to drinking water supplies and identify data gaps.

Hydraulic fracturing injects a mixture of water, sand and chemicals into rock formations to stimulate oil and natural gas production.

Some environmental groups claim the technique is unsafe and want the government to regulate it.

Energy companies say improved fracking technology allows them to drill for oil and gas in an environmentally safe manner. They also say there is no evidence fracking has contaminated water supplies.

"We expect the study to confirm what 60 years of experience and investigation have already demonstrated: That hydraulic fracturing is a safe and well understood technology for producing oil and natural gas," said the American Petroleum Institute.

"We are confident that a scientific and data-driven examination will provide policymakers and the public with even greater reassurance of the safety of this practice," said America's Natural Gas Alliance, which represents 34 of the leading U.S. natural gas companies.

U.S. natural gas reserves are up by a third since 2006, thanks to unconventional gas development including shale gas, with estimated reserves sufficient to supply the U.S. market for nearly 100 years at current rates.

(Additional reporting by Ayesha Rascoe; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

Related Quotes and News

Company
Price
Related News
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
wrote:
Whoever came up with the nickname for fracturing technology must have been a big Battlestar Galactica, the new version, fan. It was hard to concentrate on the content of the article without laughing. And it is a serious topic. We don’t know if this technology could devastate groundwater levels and quality. The way business has been allowed in the past to function is to let them rape the land for profits and then government, meaning we the taxpayer, gets to pay to clean it up. Maybe this time the government can be proactive and protect us if necessary.

Mar 18, 2010 12:54pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Landowner5566 wrote:
Has anyone thought about the chemical compounds that the farmer uses and that his use for the surface is exempt from analysis for harmful pesticides, insectisides, growth fertilizers, etc. this stuff does go directly into the acquifers. If the study wants to impact something then lets start with what the groundwater baseline is today and then see if any of the chemical effluences from farming has an impact along with any effluences from deep subsurface events….because gravity shoves surface chemicals and water down not up….just thinking….again.

Mar 18, 2010 1:52pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
dozerman wrote:
For your information the EPA already has done, is doing and will do tests on the ground surface chemicals that farmers are using. If it were not for the farm chemicals that are used today you would likely not be here along with millions of others around the world. The loss of agricultural chemicals in use today would result in an increase of 40-75% in the cost of food. Elimination agricultural chemicals would mean a 40% drop in the world food supply which equivilant to feeding two billion people or the combined populations of China and India. Malaria kills over 800,000 a year and River blindness carried by a black fly afflicts a million Africans a year. If the chemicals were taken away that number would skyrocket. The average lifespan of an American has gone from 47 in 1900 to 77 today because of a adequate supply of healthy food. Because of farm chemicals 2% of the population is able to feed the remaining 98% plus an additional 95 billion of commodities to other countries. In 1950 trace amounts of chemicals, both man-made and natural could be detected at one part per million and any level below that was considered zero. By 1965 it was one part per billion and in 1975 zero was pushed back to one part per trillion and today we have the ability to detect one part per quadrillion. Don’t be an alarmist. Do your homework before you open your mouth and condemn the very people and things that put food in your mouth and cloths on your back. If you want to see what no regulation looks like, go to Bangkok Thialand. They have no EPA.

Mar 18, 2010 3:11pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.