User:Aimrux/sandbox

Economic Effects
(Addition to the end of third paragraph of existing Economic Effects section) In addition to these issues, there have been recent concerns with the accuracy of predictions about the economic potential of shale formations that would employ hydraulic fracturing as a method of extraction. A joint report by the INTEK Inc. and U.S. Energy Information Agency in 2011 stated that there are 15.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Monterey Shale formation, information used by a University of Southern California economic analysis that concluded that this amount of recoverable oil would add $24.6 billion a year and 2.8 million jobs to the California economy by 2020. However, according to a joint report by the Post Carbon Institute (PCI) and the Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers for Healthy Energy (PSE), comprehensive technical and scientific analyses show that the recoverable sources of the Monterey Shale site are considerably less than 15.4 billion barrels. Moreover, the 2.8 million jobs the EIA/INTEK and USC report stated are unlikely due to the local landscape, geology, and historical characteristics of the site (thicker, tighter, and more complex structures, and in decline since its peak in 1980). The potential implications of such reports are of great consequence: many proponents of hydraulic fracturing at the state and federal level look to economic reports and analyses by trusted organizations and associations to make big decisions about their communities.

Historical energy boomtowns (for example from the days of coal and uranium plants) show rapid increases and decreases of a local population and economy where drilling sites create jobs for the present, inevitably decline, and leave numbers of citizens jobless, lack of goods, services, and housing, and leave local businesses downtrodden when demand falls short of supply, all facing socio-economic stressors. Additionally, reports that fail to include the uneven distribution of impacts (both positive and negative) in its estimates leave out important issues that should be addressed for optimal assessment of the values of the entire system. Studies, and in many cases personal experience, have revealed that certain workers, businesses, and communities will have more benefit more than others, sometimes at their expense. For example, landowners, drilling companies, and tourist businesses (hotels, restaurants, and shopping arenas) will be more likely to benefit than those who are subject to the noise of drilling sites, increased traffic, and “possible degradation of waterways, forests, and open space, and strains of local labor supply. ” The accuracy and veracity of public reports responding to these complex issues are crucial to the future of the hydraulic fracturing and cannot be overstated.

Environmental Impacts
(Addition to the existing Environmental Impact section)

Injected Fluid
Well casing or cement bond failure in injection wells, which can be caused by high-pressure fracturing activities, or can simply weaken over time, have the potential to leak methane into groundwater aquifers. Wellbores used in fracturing operations to reach oil deposits also have the potential to cause oil and gas to rise and mix into freshwater aquifers, causing most immediate harm to those communities that rely on nearby local water sources.

Flowback Water
Flowback water can be recycled, but is an expensive and time- and chemical- consuming process, and can only be recycled up until it reaches a certain Total dissolved solids (TDS) concentration level. Some facilities that treat produced water cannot remove large amounts of dissolved solids, and the contents of fracking fluids (salt, organic compounds, and metal concentrations) can have adverse affects on the treatment.

Water sources from flowback or reinjection fluid can be treated (in varying degrees of standards) and reused in oil development, for water/stream flooding, or, it has been reported, for human/animal consumption. While reinjection and treatment of fracking fluids and flowback may be safely regulated and reused, this requires strong policy frameworks and enforcement, transparency, and oversight at the state, local, and regional level.

Federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing (when it comes to water resources) has its limits. The EPA has a limited capacity in creating and enforcing laws, their power is limited to writing regulations based on laws passed by Congress, and they rely on partnerships with other federal, state, and private organizations to enforce them. This, of course, has its difficulties. In California, Virginia, and Ohio there have been instances of illegal dumping of toxic wastewater, a precursor to possible contamination of local ground and surface water reservoirs. Additionally, potential issues include accidental spills, inadequate treatment and storage, lax enforcement of disposal management regulations, lags in disclosure and transparency, as well as small penalties for not following through on regulations. Because of these issues, the safety of hydraulic fracturing on the contamination water resources is a highly contested and widely discussed topic.

Difference between state and federal jurisdictions
The EPA has the power to issue permits for drilling and underground injection as well as regulations for the treatment of waste at the federal level. States are required to comply with federal law and regulations set by the EPA. States, however, have the power to regulate the activities of certain companies and industries within their borders - they can create safety plans and standards, management and disposal regulations, and public notice and disclosure requirements. Additionally, states can allocate or withdraw power from local governments in decision-making. Land-use ordinances, production standards, and safety regulations can be set by local governments, however state law “determines the extent of authority that municipalities may exercise, including the extent to which they may enact ordinances or regulations regarding gas drilling. ”

Installation of fracking facilities
There has been increasing numbers of fracking facilities not only in North America, but across the world, amassing huge amounts of revenue and creating adverse environmental hazards to nearby communities. Water pollution from contaminants used in fracking fluids, ecological destruction from disruptions in plant and animal biodiversity, and even traffic and noise pollution from local facilities make fracking a topic of debate in terms of environmental hazards. However, shale formations in California, Texas, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and New York have enticed gas and oil companies like Shell Oil Company and Exxon Mobil to invest billions of dollars into U.S. oil production. In the United States, the EPA partners with state governments to oversee their regulations at the state level. The EPA has limited powers in both creating and regulating fracking laws and policies, and so fracking facilities (as well as the oil companies that own them) and state legislators have a considerable amount of power, including the power to sue the EPA over regulation infractions, to halt or allow drilling, and to decide what permits or notifications are necessary. Additionally, trade secret provisions and other exemptions exist that preclude companies from disclosing the exact chemical content of their fluids. State regulations can regulate industries in their state, and local governments can even have the power to authorize their activities. However, state law trumps local regulation; Pennsylvania’s Act 13 is an example of how state law can prohibit local regulations of fracking industries. Additionally the presence of abandoned or undocumented wells and fracking sites, regulatory loopholes in EPA and state policies, and inevitable limitations to the enforcement of these laws can pose big challenges. The regulation and implementation process of fracking is a complex process involving many groups, stakeholders, and impacts.

Existing Regulations
-France (Paul’s Section) -The US Federal and State (Paul)

Local

Local regulations can be a dominant force in enacting drilling ordinances, creating safety standards and production regulations, and enforcing their particular standards. However, in many cases state law can intervene and dominate local law. In Texas, the Railroad Commission of Texas has the authority to regulate certain industries and the specifics of their safety standards and production regulations. In this case, the state determines the zoning and permitting.

In New York, local land use laws are considered in state regulations, and in Pennsylvania, the state’s Oil and Gas Act superseded all local ordinances purporting to regulate gas well operations .” Additionally, Los Angeles has recently become the largest city in the US to pass a Fracking Moratorium.[155]

Debates Surrounding Regulatory Exemptions
There have many debates surrounding the regulatory exemptions for hydraulic fracturing. It has been noted that if not for the exemption for hydraulic fracturing in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 or the RCRA exemption that exempts oil and gas waste from being designated as a hazardous waste, underground injection would have included fracking operations, and the EPA would have had the power to further regulate it as well as enforcing disclosure requirements. Some say that these exemptions not only create inadequate regulations but also provide incentives for gas and oil companies to use chemicals that may increase the risks of exposure to local communities.

On the other side of this, the oil and gas industry, Congress, and some environmental groups support the idea that states, with greater knowledge about the local economic and ecological landscape, should control the regulatory specificities of fracking. Some contend that these exemptions are carefully analyzed, for example, an EPA study revealed that fracking injection “posed little or no threat to drinking water, " and some still contend that there is a lack of scientific evidence to prove otherwise. Many industry leaders contend that the regulations currently in place are sufficient, and as demonstrated by the current regulatory framework, the majority of members in Congress believe that these regulations, and their exemptions, are sufficient to ensure the safety and protect the health of the public and the environment.