REGULATION OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN CALIFORNIA: A WASTEWATER AND WATER QUALITY PERSPECTIVE - BERKELEY LAW
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
APRIL 2013 Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in California: A Wastewater and Water Quality Perspective Michael Kiparsky and Jayni Foley Hein
Wheeler Institute for Water Law & Policy Center for Law, Energy and the Environment UC Berkeley School of Law 2850 Telegraph Avenue, Suite 500 Berkeley, CA 94705-7220 Email: CLEE@law.berkeley.edu wheeler.berkeley.edu clee.berkeley.edu © Copyright 2013 All rights reserved 2 | Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in California Berkeley Law | Wheeler Institute for Water Law & Policy at CLEE
The Wheeler Institute for Water Law & Policy at Berkeley Law’s Center for Law, Energy & the Environment The Wheeler Institute for Water Law & Policy develops innovative law and policy solutions to critical water issues through interdisciplinary research, analysis, and engagement. Established in 2012 as a new initiative at the Center for Law, Energy & the Environment at Berkeley Law, the institute is dedicated to advancing freshwater quality and conservation in California through developing solutions at the intersection of law, policy and science. The Center for Law, Energy & the Environment (CLEE) at Berkeley Law develops policy solutions to the most pressing environmental and energy issues at the state, local, and national levels. The Center works with government, business, and the nonprofit sector to help solve urgent environmental and energy problems. Drawing on the combined expertise of faculty and students across UC Berkeley, CLEE conducts research and provides public access to reliable data on such complex issues as climate change, conversion to clean energy, and water scarcity. The Center’s law and policy experts are helping California transition to clean and renewable energy sources, introduce reforms that will prepare the water sector for climate change impacts, and revise transportation and land use policies to reduce reliance on fossil fuels. About the Authors: Michael Kiparsky is Associate Director of the Wheeler Institute for Water Law and Policy at Berkeley Law. Dr. Kiparsky has worked on both technical and policy aspects of water resources management, and his overarching professional interest lies at the intersection between the two. As a researcher, he has published on governance and policy of complex water systems, as well as on risk analysis, impacts of climate change on hydrology, and adaptation to climate change. As a practitioner, he has water-related experience in consulting, non-profit, and agency settings, and he was previously on the faculty at the University of Idaho. Dr. Kiparsky earned a Ph.D. and M.S. at U.C. Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group, and an A.B. in Biology from Brown University. Jayni Foley Hein is the Executive Director of the Center for Law, Energy & the Environment at Berkeley Law. She builds collaborations among academics, policymakers, the private sector and non-profits. Her current research includes climate change law and policy, water resources, renewable energy, and public lands. Prior to returning to Berkeley Law, she practiced environmental law at Latham & Watkins in San Francisco, focusing on the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, CERCLA and climate change policy. She received her J.D. from Berkeley Law and her B.A. from the University of Virginia. Berkeley Law | Wheeler Institute for Water Law & Policy AT CLEE Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in California | 3
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
Michael Kiparsky and Jayni Foley Hein
I. Executive Summary................................................................................................................................................. 5
II. Introduction........................................................................................................................................................... 10
A. This report assesses risks to water resources from hydraulic fracturing in California.......................... 10
B. The report is structured to synthesize both scientific and regulatory information............................... 10
C. The issues addressed in this report are timely .............................................................................................. 11
D. Hydraulic fracturing could impact California water resources ................................................................11
E. There is fracking in California, and there may be more in future ............................................................. 11
III. The technical context for fracking matters for effective regulation ............................................................. 14
A. Fracking uses toxic chemicals and produces waste fluids.......................................................................... 14
B. Geology and geography influence fracking activity................................................................................... 17
C. A variety of management options exist for produced water..................................................................... 19
D. Surface storage and illegal dumping present dangers................................................................................ 21
E. Inadequate notice, disclosure and information gaps hinder effective regulation.................................. 22
IV. The current regulatory landscape does not ensure safe hydraulic fracturing ............................................... 23
A. Several state and federal agencies share responsibility ................................................................................ 23
B. CEQA offers one possible framework for assessing fracking impacts ..................................................... 25
C. Federal and state law applies to underground injection disposal ............................................................. 25
D. California water recycling policy does not specifically consider produced water ................................. 27
E. State regulations apply to treatment of produced water.............................................................................27
V. Possible near-term changes may alter California’s regulatory landscape......................................................28
A. DOGGR’s proposed new regulations would increase protections, but leave gaps................................28
B. New BLM rules would require increased notice and disclosure...............................................................31
C. Several recent state bills would increase transparency or impose a moratorium...................................31
D. Recent lawsuits charge that DOGGR and BLM failed to appropriately consider risks......................32
VI. Moving forward: recommendations for near-term actions ........................................................................... 32
A. Improving notice and disclosure will help protect local communities ...................................................33
B. Better oversight can improve management and disposal of oil and gas wastewater............................. 36
C. There is potential for greater reuse and minimization in California....................................................... 39
D. Treatment regulations can safeguard POTWs............................................................................................ 41
E. Surface storage and dumping pose risks ...................................................................................................... 42
F. Diatomite fracking deserves regulatory attention .......................................................................................43
G. Additional technical research and synthesis are necessary to fill information gaps ............................ 43
H. Fracking activity could generate resources to enable more effective oversight......................................44
VII. Next steps and open issues ................................................................................................................................ 45
VIII.Conclusion........................................................................................................................................................... 46
IX. Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................ 46
X. Endnotes ................................................................................................................................................................. 47
4 | Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in California Berkeley Law | Wheeler Institute for Water Law & Policy at CLEEI. Executive Summary
Oil and gas producers have used hydraulic fracturing water quality from fracking activities, and fewer still
(“fracking”) in California for many years. What is focused on California.
new, and potentially alarming, are projections of
In recent years, many states, including Pennsylvania,
dramatically increased fracking activity in California
Ohio, North Dakota, Wyoming and Texas, have
brought on by the availability of new techniques.
experienced a boom in fracking activity. Many of these
Such developments may have outstripped the ability
states have developed new regulations that can inform
of responsible agencies to effectively oversee fracking
California’s efforts to address similar challenges.
activity. The challenges faced by other states that have
experienced fracking booms have not been lost on In California, the Department of Conservation’s
California’s leaders and concerned citizens – fracking Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources
is currently the subject of intense scrutiny, and the (DOGGR) is the primary agency with regulatory
need has never been greater for clear information and authority over hydraulic fracturing in the state. The
analysis on the topic. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and
Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs)
Hydraulic fracturing is the process of injecting fluids
are responsible for the State’s groundwater and surface
under high pressure to crack underground rocks and
water resources, including impacts associated with oil
release tightly held oil or gas. Hydraulic fracturing,
and gas operations. However, up to now, there has been
along with the other aspects of unconventional oil and
little interagency coordination in addressing fracking
gas production, presents risks to environmental quality
and its attendant impacts.
and public health. The hydraulic fracturing process also
yields byproducts, including wastewater, which must be Despite increasing attention to the issue, there is
properly managed in order to reduce any risk to human a stark lack of clarity among regulators and the
health and the environment. In this report, we focus concerned public about what fracking is in California,
on the set of risks related to wastewater from fracking how it differs from fracking in other states, the risks
and its attendant activities, and its potential impacts on that it presents, and how to best manage and regulate
groundwater and surface water resources in California. the process.
Fracturing “flowback” (fracturing fluid injected Purpose and structure of this report
into wells that returns to the surface after pressure
is released) and “produced water” (all wastewater This report focuses on water-related issues surrounding
that emerges from the well after production begins) hydraulic fracturing and attendant unconventional
contain potentially harmful chemicals, some of which oil and gas production processes in California. The
are known carcinogens. Produced water is also highly report highlights the overarching need for more
saline and potentially harmful to humans, aquatic life unbiased information on fracking and its potential
and ecosystems. impacts, greater public notice and transparency, and
increased accountability across all hydraulic fracturing
Risks to water quality stem primarily from: operations and attendant activities.
improper storage and handling of fluids at the well
site, including spills and improper lining of pits; The report incorporates both the technical and
injection of wastewater into disposal wells, which can regulatory perspectives that are necessary to design
trigger earthquakes; and potential for groundwater effective regulations. First, in order to present the
contamination due to failure of well integrity. necessary technical background, the report: (1)
However, uncertainty is high. There are few peer- reviews technical issues, including how fracking in
reviewed scientific studies on the potential risks to California may differ from fracking in other states;
Berkeley Law | Wheeler Institute for Water Law & Policy AT CLEE Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in California | 5(2) identifies technical elements of the production Management options and recommendations
process that impact how fracking should be regulated;
(3) identifies management options for oil and gas There are three main options for management of oil
wastewater; and (4) identifies potential risks to and gas wastewater in California: injection in disposal
environmental and human health from the practice wells, reuse and recycling for oil and gas production,
of fracking. and treatment to acceptable standards for discharge
or reuse. In addition, hydraulic fracturing events
Second, from a regulatory perspective, the report themselves present risks to the environment if not
reviews and synthesizes the relevant federal and conducted safely. Best practices, ranging from well
state regulatory landscape and identifies current construction to testing to monitoring, are essential
legislative and regulatory actions. Finally, the report for safety.
provides recommendations for better management
and regulation and identifies key uncertainties and Based on our review of existing scientific and
knowledge needs. legal information, and experiences in other
states, we provide recommendations for each
Near term regulatory, legislative and management option in California. We also set forth
legal action recommendations for increased notice and disclosure
before hydraulic fracturing events.
This report comes during a time of intense activity in
California on the topic. DOGGR, the state agency Several themes emerge from our analysis and inform
with primary responsibility for regulating oil and gas our recommendations:
activity, is in the midst of a pre-rulemaking process to
gather input on “discussion draft” regulations specific • Increased transparency and accountability
to hydraulic fracturing. DOGGR’s discussion draft will improve safety and empower citizens and
rulemaking addresses some key elements of hydraulic stakeholders. Providing adequate advance notice
fracturing: well construction; testing and monitoring on where, when, and how fracking will take place
requirements; public and agency notice and disclosure; allows communities to evaluate and respond to
and storage and handling of fracking fluids. potential risks before they are realized. It also
enables regulators and emergency responders to
At the time of this report, nine bills on hydraulic be prepared for potential spills or contamination
fracturing have been introduced to the State legislature events. Increased disclosure will also help assess
for the current session, addressing topics such as responsibility and liability for any potential
advance notice, trade secrets, and baseline water contamination of water sources.
testing. Other bills would require new scientific
studies on the risks presented by fracking or impose • Better technical regulations for production
a moratorium on fracking altogether until further and disposal wells will improve safety and
studies are conducted. accountability. Because well casing and cementing
failure is a primary risk for underground
Further, several environmental organizations have contamination, stringent testing and monitoring
filed lawsuits against DOGGR seeking to change their of well integrity is critical.
process of permitting hydraulic fracturing wells, and
myriad interest groups are intensely engaged with • Baseline water testing and comprehensive
the process. information on the contents of fracking fluid
are necessary to determine whether a potential
It is against this backdrop that we offer a synthesis of contamination event has occurred and what party
the issues and recommendations for moving forward. is responsible. In addition, new techniques such as
labeling injected fluids with unique tracers could
enable tracing contamination back to individual
wells and operators with more precision.
6 | Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in California Berkeley Law | Wheeler Institute for Water Law & Policy at CLEE• Scientific uncertainty drives the need for more • DOGGR should also provide 30 days advanced
research on a suite of topics, including but not notice before any fracturing or injection event on a
limited to induced seismicity and the risk of publicly-accessible website that meets accessibility
ground or surface water contamination. criteria outlined in the main text.
• Available and applied technology is rapidly • DOGGR should convene stakeholders to
evolving – specifically, the use of multi-stage, develop a formal process by which concerned
directionally drilled, high-volume hydraulic citizens can respond to planned fracking events in
fracturing has increased throughout the country, their communities.
as well as new techniques such as acid matrix
Trade secret provisions
fracturing. This changing technical landscape is
difficult to regulate effectively without greater • Operators and service providers should be
knowledge of such evolving technologies and their required to disclose even trade secret-protected
attendant risks. chemicals in fracking fluid to DOGGR.
• The legislature and DOGGR should not shy away • Medical professionals should have broader access
from finding that there is not enough scientific to full lists of fracking fluid composition in case of
knowledge or institutional capacity to effectively emergency, and regulations should protect their
manage a sharp increase in the expansion of right to discuss cases and the chemicals involved
hydraulic fracturing in California. If it makes with affected patients and communities. Further, the
this determination, it may choose to slow its definition of “medical professional” in DOGGR’s
growth until more knowledge and capacity can discussion draft regulations should be expanded
be developed. We recognize the political and to include public health professionals such as
economic costs of a moratorium on fracking may epidemiologists and environmental toxicologists.
be significant, so we offer the following analysis
and recommendations to guide alternate pathways Tracking waste and disposal
to manage its growth.
As detailed in this report, DOGGR should require
Our recommendations are detailed in the main text. more extensive recordkeeping and reporting on
Some key elements include: disposal of wastewater.
Advance notice and disclosure • Inserting unique chemical tracers to fracturing
fluids could increase accountability. DOGGR and
• Operators should be required to provide the State Water Resources Control Board should
DOGGR, SWRCB, and the appropriate Regional research such methods, and, if tracer efficacy
Water Quality Control Board at least 30 days can be validated, require use of tracers in both
advance notice of any hydraulic fracturing event. production and injection well disposal events.
Such notice should include complete contact
details, information on well construction and Protecting underground sources of
testing, reasonably anticipated fracturing fluid drinking water
chemical composition, and planned disposition of
• DOGGR should strengthen its definition of
waste products. Physical copies of this advanced
underground sources of drinking water to match
notice should be mailed to residents in potentially
or exceed that of U.S. EPA.
affected areas, as well as to water purveyors
with water sources in these areas, at least 30 • SWRCB and the Regional Boards should
days in advance. conduct long-term, coordinated monitoring of
groundwater quality in various regions throughout
the state to establish a scientific baseline for
groundwater quality.
Berkeley Law | Wheeler Institute for Water Law & Policy AT CLEE Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in California | 7• DOGGR, SWRCB and the Regional Boards • DOGGR should collaborate with SWRCB and
should explore the possibility for using idle wells, oil and gas industry groups to provide information
sealed above the production zone, to augment to operators on reuse and minimization of
existing water wells as groundwater quality fracking fluids and encourage increased such
monitoring wells. practices. DOGGR and SWRCB should also
engage with other potentially affected stakeholder
Well casing
groups, such as water recycling interest groups.
• DOGGR should adopt more stringent
• DOGGR should require fracking operators to
requirements for pre-testing well integrity
develop a source reduction strategy that identifies
and monitoring pressure during injection and
methods and procedures to maximize recycling
fracturing events.
and reuse of flowback and produced water.
• DOGGR should adopt a formal, risk-based
• The California legislature should consider
approach to prioritize witnessing of injection and
incentivizing wastewater recycling through tax
fracturing events by DOGGR staff.
exemptions for items used specifically to process,
• DOGGR should require monitoring annulus reuse, and recycle wastewater used in hydraulic
pressure, and the use of automatic shut-off fracturing at oil or gas wells.
devices that terminate injection if the permitted
Treatment
maximum allowable injection pressure is exceeded.
• SWRCB should fund a scientific review of the
Well abandonment
risks to California water bodies from fracking
• DOGGR should develop and implement a wastewater.
well closure and post operational monitoring
• DOGGR regulations should explicitly prohibit
program, which should include EPA’s recent
direct discharge of flowback or produced water
recommendations for injection wells, and should
from oil and gas operations to publicly-owned
adapt those recommendations for production
treatment works (POTWs) until EPA issues
wells as applicable.
pretreatment guidelines.
• DOGGR should increase the bonds required of
Storage and handling of produced water
well operators to levels that incentivize proper
decommissioning and long-term stewardship. • DOGGR should require closed tanks with
secondary impoundments for storage of fracking
Seismic risk
fluids and wastewater.
• DOGGR should fund studies to develop
• DOGGR should regularly inspect all processing
guidelines to define and map faults with risk for
and storage areas.
induced seismicity and develop safety factors for
required setbacks from fault lines based on this • DOGGR and SWRCB should deter illegal
risk analysis. Injection should be prohibited near dumping by deploying additional staff to inspect
risky faults based on this analysis. well sites and enforce penalties.
Reuse and minimization Knowledge gaps and need for more research
• DOGGR, in collaboration with SWRCB, should • Using proceeds from increased assessment
develop a public information database that fees, DOGGR should fund and carry out
provides the location, quantity and quality of peer-reviewed research on the environmental
produced water sources. implications of fracking in California.
8 | Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in California Berkeley Law | Wheeler Institute for Water Law & Policy at CLEE• The Department of Conservation should conduct Overarching themes: more transparency,
an analysis of environmental justice implications information, collaboration and oversight
to evaluate the distribution of impacts from
projected fracking activity, and evaluate options Hydraulic fracturing presents risks to our environment
to mitigate disproportionate impacts. and human health, and must be properly regulated and
controlled. This report identifies several areas where
• To support greater understanding of the State’s knowledge base and existing regulatory
California’s complex geology, data about scheme are deficient. California policymakers and
geological strata revealed from well drilling agencies should work to address the gaps in oversight
records could be incorporated into public described throughout this report.
databases, with an appropriate delay to
protect investment in exploration. The need for increased transparency in the
fracturing process is paramount, and drives many
Issues beyond the scope of this report of our recommendations for more disclosure,
advanced notice and reporting requirements. Better
Because this report focuses on hydraulic fracturing
oversight and enforcement is also necessary as the
wastewater and potential water quality impacts, we
State witnesses potentially increasing fracking activity,
do not address in detail other issues highly relevant to
as experienced in other areas of the country. In
fracking in California. These important issues include,
addition, more peer-reviewed studies on the potential
but are not limited to:
impacts on hydraulic fracturing in California will aid
• Water resource impacts resulting from increased refinement of regulations. Finally, more collaboration
demand for water used in fracking fluid and between state agencies with overlapping regulatory
fracking processes; authority would provide more clarity and better
regulate this practice, which cuts across physical
• The greenhouse gas intensity of oil and natural gas
and bureaucratic boundaries.
production, which could have global implications
and is relevant to California’s efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions;
• Air emissions from all stages of the fracking
process, including methane, volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), and particulate matter from
increased trucking and diesel emissions;
• Land use impacts from individual wells and
clusters of wells, which can be substantial. For
example, it is unknown how well-pad scarring may
impact California if exploration intensifies;
• Other potential human health impacts to workers
and the general public.
Berkeley Law | Wheeler Institute for Water Law & Policy AT CLEE Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in California | 9II. Introduction
A. This report assesses risks to water B. The report is structured to synthesize
resources from hydraulic fracturing both scientific and regulatory information
in California
This report presents a California-specific review of
Hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) is a hot button the scientific and regulatory landscape surrounding
environmental issue nationally and in California. The hydraulic fracturing in oil and gas production. It
increase in fracking and oil and gas extraction has been assesses current legislative and regulatory activity,
driven by new technology that has enabled exploration identifies knowledge needs, and recommends specific
of previously inaccessible shale rock formations, as well actions. The analysis highlights risks, management
as demand for less expensive domestic energy. options, regulatory gaps, and potential actions
for better regulation of oil and gas wastewater in
At the same time, the health and environmental
the state. The goal is to lay out relevant issues for
communities have rallied around fracking as a unifying
policymakers, regulators, and interested members
issue that demands increased transparency, regulation,
of the public, and to contribute to a constructive
and safety. One potential impact to human health
dialogue on how California’s regulators and
and the environment from fracking is contamination
legislators can best meet human and environmental
of groundwater or surface water by injected fluids or
interests in the face of potentially increasing oil and
improper handling and disposal of fracking wastewater.
gas production. This report provides a review specific
Fracking involves high-pressure underground to California, while drawing on a broader knowledge
injection of chemical mixtures that can include base; for overviews of national fracking activity
toxic constituents, and carries potential risk of and regulation, see reports by the Groundwater
contamination of surface and groundwater. The Protection Council (GWPC),1 Natural Resources
general practice of fracking is not new – oil and gas Defense Council (NRDC),2 Pacific Institute3
producers have employed fracking in California for and others. 4
many decades. What is new, and potentially alarming,
The report is organized into the following sections:
are projections of dramatically increased fracking
The remainder of Section II provides background on
activity in California brought on by the availability of
hydraulic fracturing in California. Section III reviews
new techniques. Such developments have outstripped
technical information about hydraulic fracturing in
the ability of responsible agencies to effectively oversee
California, as well as information gaps. Section IV
fracking activity.
describes the current regulatory landscape: although
This topic is important in part because fracking no unified statute controls hydraulic fracturing
has long-term implications: once fracking has been activity in California, state and federal laws apply
conducted, its effects may be impossible to reverse. and several agencies share regulatory responsibility.
In addition, there is an immediate opportunity to Section V describes specific pending legislative
respond to current legislative, regulatory, and legal proposals, a pending rulemaking, and recent lawsuits.
activity. Responding to this need and opportunity, Section VI reviews relevant experiences from other
this report focuses on the issue of properly regulating states and offers recommendations for actions by
fracking wastewater in order to reduce risks to our California’s legislature and regulatory agencies to
state’s water resources. reduce risks to human health and the environment
from hydraulic fracking.
10 | Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in California Berkeley Law | Wheeler Institute for Water Law & Policy at CLEEC. The issues addressed in this report occur in the production lifecycle of wells that
are timely are fractured.
Wells used in oil and gas production generate
This report is timely. In December 2012, the California
wastewater at the wellhead. This “produced water”
Department of Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas, and
may contain salts, sediment, naturally occurring
Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) released a discussion
radioactive material. 8 It may also be mixed with
draft of new regulations governing hydraulic fracturing.5
a broad suite of substances from fracking fluids,
We applaud the agency’s attention to this issue. In
including toxic and hazardous chemicals such as
addition, several new bills have been introduced in the
benzene, lead, and methanol.9
California legislature in 2013 that address hydraulic
fracturing. Throughout this report, we discuss the Contamination by oil and gas wastewater may
proposed new regulations and legislation, as well as our pose risks to human health and environmental
own recommendations. quality. The primary avenues for contamination
most likely stem from activities at the drilling
Oil and gas production is a multi-faceted process with
site10 such as mismanagement of produced water
numerous interrelated impacts, including impacts
by dumping, leakage from storage areas, or spills.
to water, air, and land use. This report addresses one
Contamination may also result from failure of well
important aspect of this process: the wastewater
casing or cementing.11
produced from fracking and associated activities, its
treatment and regulation in California, and opportunities E. There is fracking in California, and there
to reduce potential risks to our water supply. As such, this may be more in future
report encompasses a somewhat broader set of issues than
are addressed in DOGGR’s discussion draft regulations. While national attention to fracking has only recently
The agency’s process presents an important opportunity increased, hydraulic fracturing has been used to
to consider additional regulations that will address produce oil from vertical wells in California for
myriad risks to water quality and increase information over 50 years. California has a long history of oil
and transparency. production; the majority of fracking in California has
been in pursuit of oil rather than natural gas.12
D. Hydraulic fracturing could impact Currently, operators use fracking extensively in
California water resources operations in California – much of the oil and gas
resources in California are inaccessible without well
Hydraulic fracturing is the injection of fluids under
stimulation. Comprehensive information on the scope
pressure to release tightly bound oil or gas by creating
and prevalence of fracking in the state is lacking,13 in
cracks within an underground formation, usually
part because although oil and gas operators report
of shale rock. From the perspective of its potential
drilling activity to state agencies, they have not been
impacts, it is conceptually difficult to separate
required to report hydraulic fracturing events. A
hydraulic fracturing itself from the entire production
recent Western States Petroleum Association member
process of unconventional oil and gas resources,
survey reported 628 fracturing events in California in
including drilling, completion, oil or gas production,
2011, representing about one-third of the total wells
storage and disposal of waste, and decommissioning
drilled in the state that year.14
of the well.6 From a regulatory perspective, a more
inclusive discussion is more appropriate, because California may soon experience more fracking activity.
fracking is interrelated with elements beyond the Recent estimates by the U.S. Energy Information
fracturing event itself. A myopic focus would fail to Administration15 project sharp increases in crude oil
capture the full range of potential impacts, some of and natural gas production in the U.S. over the next
which are impossible to disassociate.7 In this report, decade, particularly from tight formations that can be
such related issues are addressed where they commonly
Berkeley Law | Wheeler Institute for Water Law & Policy AT CLEE Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in California | 11Nutshell descriptions
Hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) is the injection of fluids under pressure to release tightly bound oil or gas by creat-
ing cracks within an underground formation. Fracturing is a well completion and stimulation technique that
is meant to prepare a well for production.
Unconventional resources including shale oil and gas are tightly bound to underground rocks and must be extracted
using more complex methods than conventional wells that require drilling and pumping alone.
Water flooding is a technique where water is injected to increase pressure in a formation and drive oil towards pro-
duction wells. Steam flooding injects steam into shallow wells to raise the temperature of the oil underground, thereby
thinning the oil and making it easier to pump. These techniques are geared to increase productivity in an active well.
Injection disposal in Class II wells is a disposal method in which waste fluids from oil and gas production are injected
into deep formations.
Whereas a vertical drilling operation consists of a single hole bored in one direction down from the surface, direc-
tional drilling (sometimes called horizontal drilling) involves turning the drill at an angle to curve the well bore and
follow a productive formation. Directional drilling, and the multi-stage fracturing that often accompanies it, can
access larger areas from a single well pad, and can involve higher volumes of fracking fluid and flowback.
Oil wells often produce natural gas as a byproduct. The gas can be flared, released to the atmosphere, used to meet
onsite energy needs, or sold if produced in sufficient quantities. Unassociated gas, or dry gas, is natural gas that is
present in a formation without oil.
accessed with hydraulic fracturing. Indeed, exploratory Accordingly, California should prepare for potential
activity and land transactions suggest by companies increased oil and gas production in the future.
including Occidental Petroleum and Venoco indicate
The legislature and DOGGR should not shy away from
that a sharp increase in activity has begun in the state.16
finding that there is not enough scientific knowledge
The San Joaquin Basin and coastal southern California or institutional capacity to effectively manage a sharp
are home to several large oil and gas producing increase in the expansion of hydraulic fracturing in
formations, including the Monterey Formation, which California. If it makes this determination, it may
holds an estimated 64% of discovered national deep choose to slow its growth until more knowledge and
rock resources17 (Figure 1). The Energy Information capacity can be developed For example, a moratorium
Administration has stated that “[t]he largest shale oil on high volume hydraulic fracturing has been in place
formation is the Monterey/Santos play in southern in New York State since 2008, and the state is currently
California, which is estimated to hold 15.4 billion barrels preparing an Environmental Impact Statement to
. . . of . . . total shale oil resources.”18 In addition, geologists assess risks from high volume hydraulic fracturing.21
reported to the Society of Petroleum Engineers that We recognize that the political and economic costs of
“hydraulic fracturing has a significant potential in many a moratorium may be great, so we offer the following
Northern California gas reservoirs,” suggesting that future analysis and recommendations to guide alternate
expansion is possible in the state19 especially if natural gas pathways to manage its growth.
prices rise in the future.20
12 | Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in California Berkeley Law | Wheeler Institute for Water Law & Policy at CLEESTATE OF CALIFORNIA RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION
GRAY DAVIS, Governor MARY D. NICHOLS, Secretary DARRYL YOUNG, Director
o o o
42 124 123 o
122 o o
19 121 120 o
18
48
48 42
47 Goose
Lake 47
47
OIL, GAS, AND GEOTHERMAL FIELDS
DEL 17
46
1W NORTE 12 11 10 9 8 7 6
46 46
5 4 15 16 17
1E 2 16 3 2 1W 1E
Crescent City 3 4 5 6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
7 8
45 SISKIYOU 14
15
45
MODOC 45
44
Lake City 44
IN CALIFORNIA
14 44
43 395
43 43
13
42
MERIDIAN
42 Alturas 42
12
41 5
41 299 41
2001
11
40
HUMBOLDT 10
40 40
DIABLO
39
39 39
9
38
SHASTA 38 38
LASSEN
MOUNT
o 8
37
41 OIL AND GAS DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND OFFICES
37 37
Scale 1:1,500,000
TRINITY
7
36 41 o
36 36 Headquarters÷ 801 K Street, 20th Floor, MS 20, Sacramento, CA 95814-3530
÷ ÷ Phone: (916) 445-9686, TDD (916) 324-2555
6 35
÷ ÷ Telefax: (916) 323-0424 0 30 60
MERIDIAN
35
Eureka 35
5
34 Shasta Lake 34 GEOTHERMAL DISTRICT 1 34
District No. 1÷
÷
÷
÷
5816 Corporate Avenue, Suite 200, Cypress, CA 90630-4731
Phone: (714) 816-6847
Miles
299 ÷ ÷ Telefax: (714) 816-6853
Table Bluff 4
33
(Abd.) 299 33
33 District No. 2÷
÷ 1000 S. Hill Rd., Suite 116, Ventura, CA 93003-4458
Tompkins ÷ ÷ Phone: (805) 654-4761
EEL Hill
3 32
Eagle Lake
32
32
÷ ÷ Telefax: (805) 654-4765 The State of California and the Department of Conservation/Division of Oil, Gas, and
RIVER Redding
2 31 District No. 3 ÷ 5075 S. Bradley Rd., Suite 221, Santa Maria, CA 93455
Geothermal Resources make no representation or warranties regarding the accuracy of
BASIN 12 11 10 9 8 6
31 31 ÷ ÷ Phone: (805) 937-7246 the data from which this map was derived. Neither the State nor the Department
7 5 4 3 2 1W 5
1E 6 7 8
3 2 1W 1E 2 3 4 5
1N
2 3 4 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ÷ ÷ Telefax: (805) 937-0673 shall be liable under any circumstances for any direct, indirect, special, incidental, or
6 7 8 30
Petrolia (Abd.) HUMBOLDT BASE LINE
30
Susanville 30 District No. 4÷
÷ 4800 Stockdale Hwy., Suite 417, Bakersfield, CA 93309
consequential damages with respect to any claim by any user or any third party on
Susanville
1S 29 Litchfield ÷ ÷ Phone: (661) 322-4031 account of or arising from the use of this map.
29 29 ÷ ÷ Telefax: (661) 861-0279
HUMBOLDT
5 Wendel
2 28 Amedee District No. 5 ÷ 466 N. Fifth St., Coalinga, CA 93210
TEHAMA
28 ÷ ÷ Phone: (559) 935-2941
28
3 ÷ ÷ Telefax: (559) 935-5154
27 Lake
Red Bluff 27 Almanor PLUMAS 27 District No. 6÷
÷ 801 K Street, 20th Floor, MS 22, Sacramento, CA 95814-3530
101 Red Bank
4 26 ÷ ÷ Phone: (916) 322-1110
Creek (Abd.)
o 26
26 ÷ ÷ Telefax: (916) 323-0424
40 5 25
395
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 25 o
19 18 17 16
40
SAC
15 14 13 25
Corning (Abd.)
Division oil and gas district boundaries
24
Corning, S. (Abd.) 24 BUTTE
24
RAM
23 Kirkwood Rice Creek
23
Rice Creek, E.
23
22 GLENN Malton-Black Butte Rancho Capay
GEOTHERMAL 22
GEOTHERMAL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES AND OFFICES
LEGEND
ENT
Orland (Abd.) 22
Greenwood Ord Bend
21
DISTRICT 3
Chico
Greenwood, S. (Abd.) 21
(Abd.) SIERRA 21
Lake
O
20
Artois (Abd.) Durham Oroville Headquarters &÷ 801 K Street, 20th Floor, MS 21, Sacramento, CA 95814-3530
Perkins Lake District No. G1÷ Phone: (916) 323-1788 Oil field
Wilson Creek (Abd.)
Llano Seco 20 ÷ ÷ Telefax: (916) 323-0424
19 Little Butte Creek
Willows-Beehive Bend
Larkin, W.
19 District No. G2÷ 1699 West Main Street, Suite E, El Centro, CA 92243-2235
Afton 19
÷ ÷ Phone: (760) 353-9900
18 LAKE Bounde Creek Afton, S. (Abd.)
YUBA ÷ ÷ Telefax: (760) 353-9594
18
Princeton
Schohr Ranch (Abd.)
Angel Slough (Abd.)
NEVADA 18
MENDOCINO 17
COLUSA Stegeman
Compton Landing District No. G3÷ 50 D Street, Room 300, Santa Rosa, CA 95404 Gas field
Compton Landing, S. (Abd.) Wild Goose (Abd.) ÷ ÷ Phone: (707) 576-2385
17
Peace Valley (Abd.) 80 17 ÷ ÷ Telefax: (707) 576-2611
17 16 15 14 13
16
12 11
Butte Sink
Williams
West Butte
16 Butte Slough 99
PLACER
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1W 16
4 8 9 10
Ukiah Moon Bend
1E 2 3
Sutter Buttes
5 6 7 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 ÷ Division geothermal district boundaries
15 Lone Star
15
Clear
Sycamore Sutter City 15 Geothermal field
Lake
o 14
Lakeport
Lake Grimes Tahoe
o
39 Arbuckle
14 Pierce Road
119
Grimes, Tisdale 14 o
13 W.
Kirk
Buckeye 13 SUTTER 39
BA
Robbins 13
12
The Geysers Y O L O Sycamore Slough Bullock Bend South Sedimentary basin with oil, gas, or geothermal production
Howells Point
12 EL DORADO Lake
SI
Zamora, N. (Abd.) Zamora (Abd.) Catlett (Abd.)
12
11 Eldorado Bend (Abd.) Karnak Nicolaus Tahoe
Middletown 11
N
Verona
Knights Landing Fremont Landing (Abd.) 11
Dunnigan Hills Dufour Rio Jesus (Abd.)
10 (Abd.) Cache
50
Crossroads (Abd.)
10
Woodland
Creek Sacramento Airport
SACRAMENTO 10 ALPINE
S
SONOMA NAPA Madison (Abd.)
DISTRICT 6
Conway Ranch
B
O
Calistoga Harlan Ranch (Abd.) Merritt
9 Fairfield Knolls 9 Willow Slough
A
Calistoga 9
N
Lake Sacramento By-Pass (Abd.)
Berryessa Dry Slough (Abd.) Sacramento
S
8 Dixon
O
Pleasant Creek Todhunters Lake
(Abd.)
IN
Greens Lake (Abd.)
M
Winters 8
8 Putah Sink Florin (Abd.)
A
Santa Rosa
Davis, SE. (Abd.)
Tremont (Abd.) 7
Winchester Lake
Freeport (Abd.) AMADOR
Clarksburg 7
Dixon, E. (Abd.) Millar
Saxon
Cotati (Abd.) Poppy Ridge (Abd.)
80
6
Bunker
Stone Lake (Abd.) CALAVERAS MONO
Merritt Island 6
Maine Prairie Elkhorn Slough Grand Island (Abd.)
Liberty Cut (Abd.) Snodgrass Slough
Liberty Island (Abd.)
Denverton (Abd.) 5 W. Thornton-Walnut Grove
Petaluma 5
Denverton Creek Thornton (Abd.) Bridgeport
CALIFORNIA COUNTIES WITH OIL, GAS, OR GEOTHERMAL PRODUCTION
Cache Slough
Potrero Hills (Abd.) Galt (Abd.)
Kirby Hill, N. (Abd.) Lindsey River Island
Kirby Hill 4 Slough Lodi (Abd.) 4
Suisun Bay
5 99 SAN
SOLANO Rio Vista J OLodi,
A SE.
QUIN o Oil and Gas Gas Production Electrical Generation from Commercial Low-temperature
MARIN Honker3(Abd.) East Islands
38
o San Pablo Bay
Ryer Island
Dutch Slough
King Island
Lodi Airport (Abd.)
3
TUOLUMNE o 117 o Production Only Geothermal Energy Geothermal Use
Van Sickle Island
Sherman Island Sand Mound Slough Harte (Abd.) 118 38
124 o
Willow Pass (Abd.)
101 Los Medanos
2 (Abd.) McDonald Island 2
Mono
Lake
Pinole Point Concord (Abd.)
(Abd.) Mulligan Hill (Abd.)
River Break
Oakley Stockton (Abd.) 2 Alameda Butte Imperial Alpine
Brentwood Stockton
1N Oakley, S. Knightsen (Abd.) French Camp 1N 1N Contra Costa Colusa Inyo Colusa
7 6 4 2 Brentwood, E. 30 31 32
680
3 2 1W 1E 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Fresno Glenn Lake Fresno
CONTRA COSTA Roberts Island Collegeville, E. MOUNT DIABLO BASE LINE
Oakland 1S Union Island
Lathrop
1W
1S Kern Humboldt Lassen Imperial
Lone Tree Creek
San Francisco
Lathrop, SE. (Abd.)
Kings Madera Mono Inyo
SAN FRANCISCO 2
A
Tracy McMullin Ranch 2 Los Angeles Merced Sonoma Kern
M ED 2
Monterey Sacramento Lake
580 ALA
Sa
Livermore Vernalis
n Fr
3 MARIPOSA 3 Orange San Joaquin Lassen
an
3 Casa Diablo
Hospital Nose (Abd.) Modesto
cis
San Benito Solano Mendocino
co
Vernalis, SW. (Abd.)
Ba
SAN MADERA 4
San Bernardino Stanislaus Modoc
y
4
4
99
MATEO San Luis Obispo Sutter Mono
5
5 DISTRICT 5 5
San Mateo Tehama Monterey
Half Moon Bay INYO Santa Barbara Yolo Napa
101 6 STANISLAUS 6
6
Santa Clara Plumas
H
Bishop
Tulare Riverside
A
San Jose
7
L
La Honda 7
Ventura San Bernardino
S
7
F
A
SANTA CLARA
B
Oil Creek
MERCED San Diego
N
8
A
8
San Luis Obispo
M N
8
S
O
I
Moody Gulch (Abd.)
Santa Barbara
J
9
O
9 395 o
O
9 Shasta
N
116
A
Chowchilla o Sierra
37
Q
10
37 o
10
SANTA CRUZ 10 Sonoma
PA
U
Mint Road Ash Slough
123 o
IN
11 Ventura
Sargent 5 11 99 FRESNO 11
Merrill Ave
Moffat Ranch
12
B
Hollister 12
A
Gill Ranch 13
S
101 SAN BENITO 13
CI
IN
13
14
Fresno 30
Salinas 14 14
15 29
Cheney Ranch (Abd.)
Raisin City
TULARE
S
Monterey Lone Pine
A
San Joaquin, NW. (Abd.) 15 15
San Joaquin 16 28
L
45 46
FI
IN
Vallecitos
16 Burrel Burrel, SE. 16 39 40 41 42 43 44
1W 1E 2 3 Van Ness Slough 36 37 38
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 21 22 24 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
13 19 23 25 27
A
14 15 16 17 18 20 26 Owens 17 27
Camden Lake
B
S
Cantua Nueva (Abd.) (dry)
17 Helm Riverdale 17
Cantua Creek (Abd.)
A
Bitterwater
Turk Anticline 18 26
MONTEREY
S
Five Points (Abd.)
IN
18 18
C
Hanford (Abd.)
Coalinga, E., Extension 19 25
Monroe Swell Coalinga 19
Pleasant Valley
KINGS 19
24
King City 20
20
Westhaven (Abd.) 20 o
115
Coalinga
DISTRICT 4
King City Guijarral Hills
23
o
Quinado Canyon (Abd.)
101 Jacalitos Kettleman City 21
21
36
21
Deer Creek, N.
o 22 22
36 Paris Valley McCool Ranch
Kettleman North Dome
22
Tulare Lake
Deer Creek 22
Coso
Lynch Canyon (Abd.) Kreyenhagen Kettleman City Terra Bella (Abd.)
23 21
San Ardo - Main Area Harvester (Abd.)
23
23 Dudley Ridge (Abd.) Trico, NW. (Abd.) 99
Kettleman Middle Dome 24
Trico 20
24
24 Pyramid Hills
Jasmin 25
19
OC
25 Devils Den Lost Hills, NW.
25
5 Jasmin, W. (Abd.)
26
Welcome Valley Semitropic, NW. (Abd.)
Blackwells Corner
26 Beer Nose Lost Hills Shafter (Abd.) Poso Creek
Dyer Creek (Abd.)
26
KERN 18
Shale Point Wasco Rosedale Ranch
Paso Robles
Shale Flats (Abd.)
46 SAN BERNARDINO 27
17
DISTRICT 3
Seventh Standard Mount Poso
Semitropic 27
27 Antelope Hills, N. Shafter, N.
Antelope Plains (Abd.) Belridge, N. Shafter, SE. (Abd.) Kern Front
Round Mountain 28 14 15 16
Antelope Hills Buttonwillow Shafter, SE.
16 11 12 13
Rosedale 6 7 8 9 10
Jerry Slough (Abd.) English Colony (Abd.) 28 4 5
SAN LUIS OBISPO 28 McDonald Anticline Belridge,S. Garrison City (Abd.) 1E 2 3
15
EA
Carneros Creek Rio Bravo Kern River
Bowerbank Kern Bluff 29
Chico-Martinez Cal Canal Greeley 15
Cymric Fruitvale Ant Hill 29
Monument Junction
Bakersfield
Temblor, E. (Abd.) 14
29 McKittrick Goosloo Union Edison, NE.
Temblor Ranch Calders Corner 30 14
Railroad Gap
Canal
Bellevue
Kernsumner
Ave. Edison 15
Elk Hills (Abd.) 30
30 Belgian Anticline
13
San Luis Obispo Temblor Hills Stockdale
Bellevue, W. Mountain View 31
Lopez Canyon (Abd.) Asphalto 13
McClung (Abd.)
31 Buena
Vista
Canfield Ranch 31 58 12
N
Arroyo Grande Strand
32
Paloma Lakeside (Abd.) 12 o
35
Taylor Canyon (Abd.) Midway-Sunset Ten Section 47
Huasna Coles Levee, S. Lakeside, S. (Abd.) 32 43 44 45 46
32 38 39 40 41 42
Gonyer Anticline (Abd.) Coles Levee, N. Rio Viejo Valpredo 32 33 34 35 36 37 11
13 14 15 16 17 18 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 5 4 3 2 1W
19 20 21 22 Comanche Point 10 9 8 7 6
15 14 13 12 11 11
35 29 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 20 19 18 17 16
34 33
o 32 31 30 Morales Canyon Yowlumne San Emidio Nose Tejon, N. Tejon Hills 10
35 101 Russell Ranch Capitola Park
Cienaga Canyon
11
o Guadalupe Los Lobos
10
122 Santa Maria Cuyama, Central (Abd.) Pioneer
San Emigdio (Abd.)
Pleito Tejon
Tejon Flats (Abd.)
10 58 9 Needles
Santa Maria Valley Eagle Rest White Wolf Wheeler Ridge Barstow
Cuyama, S. 9
Landslide
Casmalia
Orcutt Cat Canyon
Sisquoc Ranch (Abd.)
CUYAMA
San Emigdio Creek (Abd.) 9 8
MERIDIAN
Jesus Maria BASIN 395
8
40
LOS ANGELES
DISTRICT 2
Harris Canyon, NW. (Abd.) 8 7
Four Deer (Abd.)
Lompoc
Careaga Canyon SANTA BARBARA 5
7
Zaca Del Valle
Oak Canyon 6
DISTRICT 1
Los Alamos Barham Ranch 7
SANTA MARIA V E N T U R A Canton Creek
Ramona, N.
(Abd.) Hasley Canyon
Ramona Castaic Hills 15 6
Point Pedernales Offshore (Fed.)
BASIN Elizabeth Canyon (Abd.)
Holser
Temescal
Charlie Canyon (Abd.)
6 5
Refugio Cove (Abd.)
Piru Creek (Abd.)
Tapia
Molino Offshore (Abd.) Naples Offshore (Abd.)
IN
Piru (Abd.)
Wayside Canyon 5
Gaviota Offshore
AS
Las Varas Canyon (Abd.)
BERNARDINO
GEOTHERMAL DISTRICT 2
Caliente Offshore (Abd.) Honor Rancho
Hopper Canyon 4
Elwood
VENTURA B
5 Castaic Junction (Abd.)
Alegria (Abd.) Goleta (Abd.) Sespe Saugus (Abd.)
Point Arguello Offshore (Fed.) Elwood, Offshore Area Timber Canyon
Glen Annie (Abd.) ~ Santa Paula Bouquet Canyon (Abd.) 4
Point Conception Santa Summerland Canada Larga Ojai Eureka Canyon
4
Newhall-Portrero
Lyon Canyon (Abd.)
3
Capitan Elwood,S. La Goleta Barbara Rincon Creek (Abd.) Fillmore Tapo, N.
Conception Offshore (Abd.) Oakview (Abd.) Chaffee Canyon Tapo Placerita
Offshore Mesa Newhall
Cuarta Offshore (Abd.) Bardsdale Ridge 3
(Abd.) Long Canyon (Abd.) Cascade 2
Alegria Offshore (Abd.) Summerland Shiells Canyon
Hondo Offshore (Fed.) Rincon Saticoy South Mountain 3 Aliso Canyon
Sacate Offshore (Fed.) Offshore (Abd.) Mission (Abd.)
Pescado Offshore (Fed.) San Miguelito Ventura West
Simi Horse Meadows (Abd.) 2 25
Dos Cuadras Offshore (Fed.) Ventura Mountain 15 1N 24
SAN
Tapo Oat Mountain 22 23
Somis 2 Las Llajas Pacoima 20 21
El Rio (Abd.) (Abd.) Canyon, S. 17 18 19
Pitas Point Offshore (Fed.) Santa Susana 14 15 16
Las Posas Oakridge 11 12 13
Carpinteria Offshore West Montalvo Sherman (Abd.) 1N 7 8 9 10
Torrey Canyon Los Angeles City 6
Conejo (Abd.) 1E 2 3 4 5
BASE LINE 1S o
Santa Clara Offshore (Fed.)
Hueneme Offshore (Fed.)
Oxnard
Santa Clara Avenue
21 20 19
Big Mountain
18 17
1N
16
San Vicente
15 14 13
Los Angeles Downtown
12 11
Union Station
10 9
Lapworth (Abd.)
8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1W
SAN BERNARDINO 34
Sockeye Offshore (Fed.) Oak Park Salt Lake, S. Salt Lake 1S
Boyle Heights (Abd.) Whittier Heights, N. (Abd.)
Santa Cruz Is. Moorpark 1S
Beverly Hills
Sawtelle
Turnbull (Abd.) 10 2
Moorpark, W. Montebello Walnut
RIVERSIDE
San Miguel Is.
Anacapa Is.
Cheviot Hills Rowland (Abd.)
Las Cienegas Los Angeles
o 2 Desert Hot Springs
34 o
Venice Beach (Abd.)
Bandini
Los Angeles, E. Whittier Sansinena Chino-Soquel 3
121 Inglewood
Playa Del Rey
Hyperion
Potrero Howard Townsite
Rosecrans
Rosecrans, E. Newgate
Brea-Olinda
Yorba
Mahala
Prado-Corona 3
Desert Hot Springs
Santa Rosa Is. Rosecrans, S. Linda 4
El Segundo Dominguez
Santa Fe Esperanza
Lawndale
Alondra Springs Olive
Kraemer, NE. (Abd.)
Long Beach Kraemer (Abd.) 4 Palm Springs
Airport Long Beach Coyote, E. Kraemer, W. (Abd.)
Coyote, W. 5
Torrance
Gaffey (Abd.)
Cypress Anaheim (Abd.) Richfield
Seal Beach Leffingwell (Abd.)
Long Beach Buena Park, E. (Abd.) 5
Wilmington
Buena Park, W. (Abd.) 10 6
La Mirada (Abd.)
Belmont Offshore
Sunset Beach (Abd.) Talbert (Abd.)
6
Huntington Beach Newport
Newport, W. LOS ANGELES 7
Beta Offshore (Fed.)
BASIN 7
ORANGE 8
San Clemente (Abd.) 9
8
Santa Barbara Is. Sa
IM IMPERIAL
P
lto
Cristianitos Creek (Abd.) SAN DIEGO n
Se
a E
Santa Catalina Is. 9
R 10
IA
10
L 11
San Nicolas Is. 5 Salton V
15
11 Sea A
L 12
L 18 19 20 21
13 14 15 16 E17 o
12
1E 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Brawley (Abd.) Y 33
4 3 2 1W 13
B
13 A
o S
14 IN
33 14
Mesquite (Abd.)
o San Clemente Is.
120 15 East Mesa
15 El Centro
16
Heber
16 8
17
San Diego 17
Department of Conservation
18
Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources o
801 K Street, MS 20-20 115
MAP S-1 Sacramento, CA 95814-3530 o 116 o
o o 117 DIVISION OF OIL, GAS, AND GEOTHERMAL RESOURCES
(916) 445-9686
119 118 WILLIAM F. GUERARD, JR., State Oil and Gas Supervisor
Alfred J. Zucca, Cartographer www.consrv.ca.gov
Figure 1: Oil and gas fields in California.315
Berkeley Law | Wheeler Institute for Water Law & Policy AT CLEE Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in California | 13III. The technical context for fracking
matters for effective regulation
This section reviews technical aspects of hydraulic a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act.
fracturing and unconventional oil and gas production in Hydraulic fracturing companies reported injecting
California. An overarching caveat and caution applies 11.4 million gallons of products containing at
to this section: many of the attendant risks have not least one BTEX chemical over a five-year period. 31
been adequately studied, pointing to an acute need for Additional additives range from generally harmless to
further research. However, enough is known to justify extremely toxic.32
specific precautionary action by regulators.
It is important to note that some information is lacking
A. Fracking uses toxic chemicals and about the fracturing fluids that have been used. Because
produces waste fluids of trade secret provisions, companies that voluntarily
report fracking fluid ingredients have excluded some
Hydraulic fracturing injects fluid under high pressure,
items, and further, not all injections have been
releasing gas and oil that would otherwise be tightly
reported. The picture we have is illustrative, but far
contained,22 thereby increasing well productivity.
from complete.
Fracking fluid typically contains water and a ‘proppant’
such as sand or ceramic beads, and chemicals. The After well drilling and injection, some of the fracking
proppant lodges in cracks created by the high-pressure fluid returns to the surface at the wellhead. This
injection, creating fissures so that gas or oil can flow to initial portion is called “flowback,” and contains
the wellhead. Chemicals can include friction reducing chemicals from the fracking fluid, as well as additional
additives,23 biocides,24 oxygen scavengers,25 acids,26 and components released during contact with the shale
other constituents – including some known to be toxic that are potential water quality hazards, such as salts,
or hazardous.27 Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material (“NORM”),
organic compounds, and others.33 (Table 2) A second
Fracking fluid often contains chemicals listed as
portion of wastewater, referred to as “produced water,”
hazardous pollutants under the Clean Air Act
continues to emerge after oil or gas production begins
(CWA) or regulated under the federal Safe Drinking
at a well.34 Produced water tends to have chemical
Water Act (SDWA) for risks to human health,
characteristics derived more from the shale formation
such as benzene, lead, and methanol. Further, some
than from the fracking fluid itself. If there are toxic
ingredients are known or possible human carcinogens
elements in the formation, there are likely to be toxic
(Table 1).28 Between 2005 and 2009, oil and gas
elements in the produced water. Produced water is
service companies used hydraulic fracturing products
often highly saline, and may have mixed underground
containing 29 chemicals that are (1) known or possible
with the fracking fluid injected into the formation. In
human carcinogens, (2) regulated under the Safe
2010, California onshore oil and gas wells produced
Drinking Water Act for their risks to human health, or
about 2.39 billion barrels of produced water as a
(3) listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean
byproduct— about 9 barrels of water for every 1 barrel
Air Act. 29 These 29 chemicals were components of
of oil in wells.35
more than 650 different products used in hydraulic
fracturing. The “BTEX compounds” – benzene, Potential water contamination can take several
toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene – appeared in 60 of forms. Unintentional spills, improper storage,
the hydraulic fracturing products used between 2005 improper treatment, or illegal dumping present risks
and 2009. 30 Each BTEX compound is a regulated to surface water and land. Underground migration
contaminant under the Safe Drinking Water Act and of fracking fluid or produced water that uses well
14 | Regulation of Hydraulic Fracturing in California Berkeley Law | Wheeler Institute for Water Law & Policy at CLEEYou can also read
