American Oil and Gas Reporter - January 2015 - 220

volume hydraulic fracturing is unlikely
to be obtained, the health study admits,
but it asserts "the overall weight of evidence from the cumulative body of information" in the review shows significant
uncertainties about adverse health outcomes and the effectiveness of mitigation
measures. While a guarantee of absolute
safety is not required in assessing HVHF's
possible risks, the health study says, at a
minimum, there must be sufficient information to understand what the likely
public health risks are, and it concludes
that the information available is insufficient.
According to the study, the health outcomes and environmental impacts potentially associated with hydraulic fracturing include:
* Air impacts that could affect respiratory health because of increased levels
of particulate matter, diesel exhaust, or
volatile organic compounds;
* Climate change impacts from
methane or other VOC releases;
* Drinking water impacts from underground migration of methane and/or
fracture fluids associated with faulty well
construction;
* Surface spills potentially resulting
in soil and water contamination;
* Surface water contamination resulting from inadequate wastewater treatment;
* Earthquakes induced during fracturing; and
* Community impacts, including increased vehicle traffic, road damage,
noise, odor complaints, increased demand
for housing and medical care, and stress.
A Missed Opportunity
"Fracturing is just the latest choke
point for environmentalists. And God
knows it won't be the last," assesses Mischa Popoff, a policy adviser for the Heartland Institute. "But the good news is that
if the leaders of a state such as New York
want to take their state out of the fracturing
business, it will only mean more businesses
for the states that embrace this technology.
Of course, Cuomo will be hailed as a
hero if he bans fracturing. And to that I
say the people of New York have the
governor and environmental commissioner
they deserve."
Paul Hartman, Northeast director for
America's Natural Gas Alliance, calls
New York's action an ill-advised decision
that denies state residents the opportunity
to take advantage of the environmental
and economic benefits of natural gas. He
says the governor's decision was based
on politics, not public health concerns.
"Natural gas provides an engine for
the economy of New York, which is the

nation's fifth-largest natural gas user, and
the state is forgoing the advantages its
neighbors enjoy from natural gas production," he asserts. "The decision to
prohibit hydraulic fracturing is based on
data that do not justify the Cuomo administration's decision. Natural gas has
been produced responsibly in communities
across the country, and we are proud of
our industry's safety record."
NYSPC's Moreau says New York is
wasting a major opportunity to help fuel
the nation's future.
"Just next door in Pennsylvania, more
than $630 million has been distributed to
communities since 2012, including more
than $224 million in 2014 alone," she
says. "These once economically challenged
areas now are thriving. The commonwealth

also has benefited from more than $2.1
billion in state and local taxes generated
by the shale energy industry. Revenue
from natural gas production supports road
and bridge improvements, water and
sewer projects, local housing initiatives,
environmental programs, and rehabilitation
of greenways. We are resolved to continue
to fight for these benefits in New York."
Gill says the governor's decision is a
blow to the landowners in the Southern
Tier, who once again have been hurt by a
state action. "I am sure they are absolutely
livid over this decision, as are we. In addition, it harms the natural gas industry;
not so much those conventional operators,
but certainly those companies interested
in shale gas development in New York,"
Gill assesses.
r

Groups Fight Federal Agencies'
Proposal To Expand Authority
By Danny Boyd
Special Correspondent
WASHINGTON-A proposed change
in the definition of "waters of the United
States" (WOTUS) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers will expand
federal authority needlessly and force independent producers to spend more time
and money navigating bureaucratic channels to obtain permits under the Clean
Water Act, according to joint comments
by the Independent Petroleum Association
of America and almost 50 other oil and
gas organizations.
IPAA, along other national, regional
and state industry groups, submitted joint
comments in November to EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy and Assistant
Secretary of the Army Jo Ellen Darcy
about the proposal to alter the definition
of WOTUS under the CWA.
Such a change will add substantial
permitting and compliance burdens, and
will generate relatively few environmental
benefits, suggests IPAA Executive Vice
President Lee Fuller. "America's independent producers and job creators will
be hit especially hard in the pocketbook
because of permitting delays and retroactive construction requirements-making
it more difficult to develop America's
natural resources, potentially affecting
prices at the pump," he warns.
IPAA asks the agencies to withdraw
their proposal and discuss reasonable
changes with states and local communities,
he says. "It is the hope of independent
producers across America that the agencies

220 THE AMERICAN OIL & GAS REPORTER

replace this proposed rule with one that
reflects those consultations and is supported by science," Fuller says.
SPCC Obligations
According to the joint comments signed
by 48 associations, the proposal expands
the regulatory definition of WOTUS beyond traditional navigable waters to include tributaries, waters adjacent to traditional navigable waters, other waters,
wet weather streams, certain ditches and
basins, depressions in the soil, series of
ponds or wetlands within a region, and
other areas.
But the proposed rule making fails to
provide a clear and simple jurisdictional
test for companies facing the complex
task of determining what constitutes WOTUS in the footprint of their operations,
the comments hold. That determination
will require additional expertise and costs
for companies attempting to show they
are not under EPA's or Corps' jurisdictional
authority, the groups assess.
Expanding the definition will negatively
impact other regulatory programs affecting
oil and natural gas exploration and production, the associations indicate, including
the Clean Water Act's Spill Prevention,
Control and Countermeasures program,
in which undiked areas must include
drainage systems that flow into ponds,
lagoons, or catchment basins to retain oil
and return runoff to the facility.
Under the proposed rule, SPCC plans
will have to be implemented or reviewed
if catchment basins within areas subject
to periodic flooding cause the facilities
to be adjacent to "other water," the joint
American Oil and Gas Reporter - January 2015

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Oil and Gas Reporter - January 2015
