Interior Floats New Draft Rules to
Regulate ‘Fracking’
An Anadarko Petroleum drilling site in Colorado's Niobrara
The long-awaited draft plan requires drillers to disclose chemicals used when employing hydraulic fracturing, the method that’s enabling an oil-and-gas production boom in a number of states but bringing concerns about water pollution alongside it.
But the plan does not require disclosure ahead of the fracking process, which environmentalists call a major gap in the proposal.
The plan from Interior’s Bureau of Land Management also contains requirements on oil-and-gas well integrity to
verify that fluids from the fracking process aren’t escaping into nearby water supplies, and requirements for management of large volumes of so-called flowback water.
Fracking involves high-pressure injections of water, chemicals and sand into shale formations to open seams that enable hydrocarbons to flow.
Industry groups say state oversight is sufficient … Green groups including Earthjustice and the Natural Resources Defense Council said the rules don’t go far enough in some critical areas. Earthjustice said the disclosure requirements are inadequate, noting that the disclosure is only mandated after the fracking has occurred.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar called it a “common-sense” proposal. MORE >>
Filed Under: ARCHIVES • Feature Articles • Niobrara Shale • Oil & Gas • Policy
Tags: hydraluic fracturing • Ken Salazar • Niobrara shale play • U.S. Department of Interior
Clean Energy Collective is now based in Boulder Colorado. 
Though a small step and almost over 16 years into the die-off of our forests, this effort should be applauded ...
The best ballot initiative is one that will ban initiatives. Otherwise what is the point of electing legislators. 
Thanks for the info Fred! 
Tri-State Board Policy 117 limits member co-op generation to 5%.
LPEA has asked them to lift that for community solar gardens.
https://www.lpea.coop/pdf/board_meeting/resolutions/2012/201213_tristate_policy_117.pdf 
To see this exciting change as "scary" seems incredibly short-sited to me. Between the increasing power demands caused by ...
Comment by fred kirsch on 7 May 2012:
Can someone explain how disclosure prevents pollution? They can still release air toxins and they are still not held accountable to the safe drinking water act. How does this help? All of this debate and fighting seems pointless. The gas companies don’t want to hurt people or wildlife, so why don’t they spend a little extra money to do their job without causing any harm? I mean, they don’t want to hurt people do they?
Comment by s. bowen on 9 May 2012:
Disclosure MIGHT prevent pollution if there was a watchdog agency that ruled yes or no on particular chemicals before they were dumped into a well. Otherwise, it seems to me that disclosure is just a tool to tell you the possible causes of the health problems you and your family have years down the line. The passage of time conveniently leaves the driller free to deny all culpability.
If someone backed up to my front yard and dumped fracking chemicals on the surface of my land, I could go after the dumper from a variety of angles. But because I don’t own the mineral rights, a driller is free to dump whatever he wants into a well that was drilled horizontally beneath my land. Drillers follow the rules–somewhat–that are forced on them by various regulatory agencies, but you’ll never convince me that they spend any time or money or effort trying to protect people or animals or the environment .
Greed, individual and corporate, is the bottom line.