A Summary of comments submitted to the NC Mining and Energy Commission on proposed rules regulating fracking

1. Hydraulic Fracturing
in
North Carolina
Executive Summary of the
Dare County Democratic Party’s
Comments on Proposed Rules and Regulations
October 2014
1

2. Hydraulic Fracturing in North Carolina
 The Dare County Democratic Party submitted comments to
the Mining and Energy Commission on September 30, 2014.
 The complete set of comments is available to anyone who
would like a copy.
 The comments are too large for most in boxes to accept.
 To ensure delivery, please provide a physical address to insure
delivery.
 Send your request to Info@DareDems.com
2

3. Hydraulic Fracturing in North Carolina
 The State Legislature has authorized the Energy and Mining Commission to begin
issuing permits for the purposes of conducting hydraulic fracturing operations
within the state.
 The State of North Carolina currently has no operating oil wells, gas wells, or oil
refineries operating within its borders.
 Therefore, the State of North Carolina has no experience in regulating these
operations
 The State Legislature has designated the Energy and Mining Commission as the
responsibility party within the state government to regulate hydraulic fracturing.
 Under Article XIV, Section 5 of the State Constitution, the state obligates itself to
“preserve and protect its lands and waters for the benefit of its citizenry”.
 We believe the proposed rules and regulations do not begin to fulfill these critical
obligations.
3

4. Hydraulic Fracturing in North Carolina
 The Commission appears prepared to adopt the
recommendations of a study group which has advocated
“compulsory pooling”.
 Under compulsory pooling, a non-consenting landowner may have
his or her mineral rights put into a pool thus enabling a driller to
complete a “drilling unit”.
 This appears to contradict Article XIV Section V of the North
Carolina State Constitution.
 The Study Group relies on legal history to justify compulsory
pooling.
 However, there is nothing in the literature that suggests aiding and
abetting a private enterprise in seizing private lands for private
profit is a legal precedent.
4

5. Hydraulic Fracturing in North Carolina
 In addition, the state would become the ultimate arbiter in
deciding the price to be paid for the gas and oil extracted
from the sub-surface of the non-consenting landowner’s
property.
 This is a clear conflict of interest for the state since it would be
negotiating against its own citizens in setting prices that benefit
a non-citizen drilling company.
 This is also a clear violation of free-market principals which
argue against government involvement in setting prices.
5

6. Hydraulic Fracturing in North Carolina
 Fracturing Issues and Proposed Regulations
 There are three key issues which face the Commission in
deciding upon the issuance of permits.
 How densely are the wells to be spaced?
 How is the water going to be obtained to drill the wells?
 How is the used water going to be dealt with?
 The current proposed regulations do not deal with any of these
issues directly.
 Instead they require the drillers seeking permits to tell the
commission how these things will be done.
6

7. Hydraulic Fracturing in North Carolina
 Unless the Commission has a clear understanding as to what
it is prepared to do and not do, the constitutional obligation
for clean water is not being protected.
 Fracturing takes large amounts of water to complete a well
 2 to 4 million gallons per well is a reasonable estimate based
upon the experience of other states.
 If one assumes wells are drilled 10 to the square mile and there
are 1,400 square miles of gas bearing deposits in the Triassic
region, then there could be 14,000 drilled.
 If each well requires 3.5 million gallons of water to complete, the
fracturing operations would require 4.9 billion gallons of water.
7

8. Hydraulic Fracturing in North Carolina
 According to the Department of Water Resources the
combined surface and ground water is believed to be 15.4
billion gallons per day.
 Of this amount, 9.1 billion gallons per day is required to
operate thermal electric plants (including nuclear) and another
5.0 billion is required to service hydro-electric facilities.
 The balance 1.3 billion gallons per day is available for human
consumption, industry and agriculture.
 Unlike the other uses of water, water used in fracturing is not
returned to the water supply .
8

9. Hydraulic Fracturing in North Carolina
 In 2001, the Division of Water Resources published a report
entitled “State Water Supply Plan”
 In the report the DWR stated:
“North Carolina is beginning to experience some problems in areas
where somewhat limited natural availability of water is coupled with
high demand or competition among water users. Some of these
emerging pressure points are the Central Coastal Plain, where the
Cretaceous aquifers have a relatively slow recharge rate; the
headwater areas of our Piedmont river basins, where stream flows are
greatly reduced during dry weather; and some areas near the coast and
on the Outer Banks, where the natural availability of fresh water is
limited.”
9

10. Hydraulic Fracturing in North Carolina
 In the most recent water plans filed by the 535 water districts
in the state, 30 reported daily usage in excess of 80% of
available supply; another 17 reported usage rates which
exceed 70% of available supply
 The issue of sourcing sufficient water to support fracturing is
the key issue facing the Mining and Energy Commission and
yet the proposed regulations are silent on the topic.
10

11. Hydraulic Fracturing in North Carolina
 Hydraulic Fracturing uses drilling fluids to enhance the flow
of gas and oil back up the drill pipe when a well is
completed.
 These fluids are known to be carcinogenic and can contaminate
groundwater; these are know as VOC’s.
 They will also generate methane gas which occurs naturally in
the environment but is also released in sizable quantities during
hydraulic fracturing.
 Methane is highly volatile and has been known to accumulate as
far as a mile from a wellhead site and combust.
11

12. Hydraulic Fracturing in North Carolina
 Although the drilling fluids comprise a small percentage of the
total water mixture used in fracturing, the amount in and of
itself is large.
 Also, a significant percentage of the fluids injected into the
subsurface during fracturing is not recovered.
 The amount that is recovered is referred to as “flowback”.
 This amounts to 60 to 80% of the total fluids injected into a well.
 The remaining 20-40% remains in the subsurface.
 Thus, if the drilling fluids account for 1% of the total volume used
in the completion of the fracturing process and the water required
is 200,000 gallons, then 2,000 gallons will be injected into the
subsurface.
12

13. Hydraulic Fracturing in North Carolina
 2,000 gallons per well times 1,400 wells equals 2.8 million gallons of
VOC’s injected into the subsurface of which .6 to 1.1 million gallons
will not be recovered.
 By way of illustration, the average home swimming pool holds
approximately 20,000 gallon of water.
 The flowback recovered from the fracturing process contains VOC’s
and some radioactive elements such as radon.
 The waters must be stored or treated to remove most of the noxious
elements.
 Some states have permitted reinjection of waste waters into deep wells.
 These states have experienced an increase in earthquakes over the past few
years.
 The Commission appears willing to allow drillers to store these waters
in open pits.
 The Commission is not specific as to where these pits are to be located
13

14. Hydraulic Fracturing in North Carolina
 It is a known fact that fracturing wells like all oil and gas
wells are exposed to leakages.
 The number of leakages will increase over time as the wells
age and the concrete used to case the wells decomposes.
 If 1,400 wells are drilled, it is reasonable to expect some
percentage to leak in the first year of operation and for those
leaks to increase every year thereafter.
 These leaks will lead to leakage of methane into the air and is
subject to combustion or the instigation of other health and
safety issues.
14

15. Hydraulic Fracturing in North Carolina
 Conclusions
 We believe the State Legislature is on the verge of violating its
constitutional obligation “to conserve and protect its lands and
waters for the benefit of all citizenry….”
 Any Republican who voted for this bill should be called out and
made to explain how the state constitution will be upheld if
fracturing is permitted to go forward.
 Any Republican who is in favor of fracturing should be made to
explain their plan for water sourcing, treatment and disposal.
15