SURVEY RESULTS

ON

INVENTORY AND EXTENT

OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN

COALBED METHANE WELLS IN

THE PRODUCING STATES

DECEMBER I 5, 1998

CONDUCTED BY:

GROUND WATER

PROTECTION COUNCIL

GROUND WATER PROTECTION COUNCIL

827 NW 63RD, SUITE 103, OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73116

HESI302187
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

STATES RESPONDING

SURVEY QUESTIONS

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES

CONCLUSIONS

APPENDIX

HESI302188
INTRODUCTION

Over the past months, the Ground Water Protection Council (GWPC) has been engaged

in discussions related to potential additional regulation of hydraulic fracturing in coalbed methane

operations by the states. The GWPC became involved in this matter following a GWPC Board of

Directors Resolution in support of the USEPA and it’s position in a lawsuit brought by the Legal

Environmental Assistance Foundation (LEAF). In that suit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the

Eleventh Circuit determined that the definition of underground injection under the Safe Drinking

Water Act’s UIC provisions was broad enough to include hydraulic fracturing of coalbed methane

wells. The court remanded the matter back to EPA for re-examination of the UIC provisions and

the practice of hydraulic fracturing in coalbed methane operations. The GWPC filed an Amicus

Curiae Brief supporting the EPA’s argument in their request for a re-hearing that hydraulic

fracturing did not meet the definition of "underground injection". The request for re-hearing was

denied and the EPA is now gathering information to assist them in making a regulatory

determination on hydraulic fracturing in coalbed methane operations.

The GWPC has not conceded on this issue and will continue to make its position known

on a technical basis to the EPA and others as necessary. However, we concurrently took it upon

ourselves to conduct a survey of the state oil and gas regulatory agencies that we believe will be

useful to the EPA as it responds to the Court’s decision.

The survey was developed by a team of state agency representatives and sent to twentyfive oil and gas producing states. Among the twenty-five respondents were all of the major coal

producing states in which any coalbed methane gas was produced in 1997. The results of that

survey follow. Individual state surveys appear in the Appendix.

A summary of this survey can be found at the GWPC website: gwpc.site.net. Additional

hard copies can be obtained by contacting the Ground Water Protection Council at (405) 516-

4972.

HESI302189
SURVEY

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN COAL BED METHANE WELLS

States Replying

1. Alabama

2. Alaska

3. Arkansas

4. California

5. Colorado

6. Florida

7. Georgia

8. Indiana

9. Kansas

10. Kentucky

11. Louisiana

12.Mississippi

13. Missouri

14.Nebraska

15.New Mexico

16.New York

17.North Dakota

18. Ohio

19. Oklahoma

20. Pennsylvania

21. South Dakota

22.Texas

23 .Utah

24.Virginia

25.Wyoming

to Survey Number of Wells

-3500

3

1300

23

-600

3

2,398

3

250

260

1,504

525

Total Wells 10,373

HESI302190
SURVEY

HYDRAULIC FRACTURING IN COALBED METHANE WELLS

Extent of Hydraulic Fracturing

1. Is hydraulic Fracturing practiced in you stare for coal bed methane wells?

How many coal bed methane wells are there in your state, regardless of

whether they have ever been hydraulically fractured? Do not include

wells that have already been plugged and abandoned.

Using your best professional judgement, what percentages of the wells in

(2.a) have or will be hydraulically fractured? Are any of these wells likely

to be fractured more than one time?

How many hydraulic fracturing jobs were performed on your state during

1997 on coal bed methane wells?

II.

Is the number of coal bed methane hydraulic fracturing jobs in your state

likely to increase, decrease, or remain at about the same level over the

next several years? Please explain your answer.

Regulatory Issues

Do you currently regulate coal bed methane hydraulic fracturing

activities? If so, please explain your regulatory structure for these

activities.

III. Documented Cases of Contamination Attributable to Hydraulic Fracturing

Please indicate whether you have had any complaints attributable to coal

bed methane hydraulic fracturing activities in you state.

a. Was your agency able to substantiate that any of these cases

resulted in contamination of a USDW or to increased risk to

human health? If so, was your agency able to determine that coal

bed methane hydraulic fracturing activities were the cause of the

resultant damage? Were any other factors directly responsible for

or contributory to such damage?

Please provide details.

7. What response did your agency make to the complaints?

Please mail or fax your responsible to the GWPC. 405-516-4973(fax)

HESI302191
SURVEY RESULTS

Hydraulic Fracturing of Coal Bed Methane Wells

Question 1: Is hydraulic fracturing practiced in your state for coal bed methane wells?

Responses: Twelve (12) states responded yes, eleven (11) states responded no and one (1) state was

unsure.

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Question

Question 2a: How many coal bed methane wells are there in your state, regardless of whether they have

ever been hydraulically fractured? (Not including wells that have already been plugged and abandoned.)

Responses: Twelve (12) states responded that there were no wells of such nature and (4) states

reported that there were between one (1) and ten (10) wells. The remaining states answered as

follows: IN-23, OK-250, UT-260, WY-525, KS-600, CO-1300, VA-1504, NM-2398, and AL-3500.

Question 2a

[] NONE

"IB~ETWEEN 1 AND

[]MORE THAN 10

Question 2b: Using your best professional judgment, what percentage of the wells in 2a have or will be

hydraulically fractured?

Responses: Sixteen (16) states responded that no wells would be hydraulically fractured, six (6) states

reported that 50% or more have been hydraulically fractured and three (3) states responded that

100% of the wells were hydraulically fractured.

HESI302192
Question 2b

5

[] NONE

I

m50% OR MORE

L

[]/0~3%

Question 2b2: Are any of these wells likely to be fractured more than once?

Responses: For sixteen (16) states this question was not applicable, five (5) states responded no, three

(3) states responded yes, and one (1) state was unknown.

20

15

10

5

o

Question 2b2

[] N/A

DYES

[] UNI(NOWN

Question 3: How many hydraulic fracturing jobs were performed in your state during 1997 on coal bed

methane wells?

Responses: Eighteen (18) states responded there were no jobs in ’97. The remaining states

responded as follows: N~I-44, UT-60, CO-70, KS-100, OK-175, VA-238, and AL-450.

20

15

10

5

o

Question 3

DNONE

 ̄ MORE THAN 40

Question 4: Is the number of coal bed methane hydraulic fracturing jobs in your state likely to increase,

decrease, or remain at about the same level over the next several years?

HESI302193
Responses: For eleven (11) states the question was not applicable. Five (5) states responded that the

number would remain the same, eight (8) responded that it would possibly increase, and one (1)

reported that the number would decrease.

Question 4

[] N/A

 ̄ REMAIN THE

SAME

rq POSSIBLY

INCREASE

[] DECREASE

Question 5: Do you currently regulate coal bed methane hydraulic fracturing activities?

Responses: Seven (7) states responded yes, eight (8) states responded no, and seven (7) states

responded N/A. Three (3) states responded that there were other state agencies in charge of

regulation.

10

8

6

4

2

0

Question 5

[]YES

mNO

[] NA

[]ST AGENCY IN

CHARGE

Question 6: Please indicate whether you have had any complaints attributable to coal bed methane

hydraulic fracturing activities in your state.

Responses: Twenty-four (24) states responded no and one (1) state responded yes.

Question 6

HESI302194
Question 6a: Was your agency able to substantiate that any of these cases resulted in contamination of a

USDW or to increased risk to human health?

Responses: The one state responding yes to Question 6, AL, found no substantiation to the claims.

Question 7: What response did your agency make to the complaints?

Responses:

AL: Discussions have been held with landowners followed by site investigation of water

supply wells that were claimed to have been affected by coal bed methane hydraulic fracturing

activities. Water samples were collected and analyzed at the agency’s expense.

One complaint involved three (3) regulatory agencies; the State Oil & Gas Board of

Alabama: the Alabama Dept. of Environmental Management (the water pollution control agency for

the State of Alabama); and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. All three (3)

agencies conducted site investigations and collected and analyzed water samples. None of these

agencies could confirm that the quality of water had been degraded as a result of coal bed methane

hydraulic fracturing activities.

HESI302195
Conclusions

The purpose of this survey was to establish an accurate assessment (as of 1997)

of the number of active coalbed methane wells in the individual states and the extent to

which any associated hydraulic fracturing has and will continue to occur. The survey

also sought information on state-substantiated contamination that has occurred to a

USDW that could be directly related to the fracturing of a coal bed.

In order to minimize the time burden on the state agencies the survey was limited

to answering the above. Although there were other questions that might have been

added, the state workgroup that designed the survey felt the most important information

to collect would be that which helped define the geographic scope of the coalbed methane

industry and the level of activity within each state. From this information, any future

program reviews would be able to determine the relative potential for contamination and

the need, or lack there of, for additional regulation.

Of the twenty-five (25) states surveyed and responding, thirteen reported having

any coalbed methane wells. Four of the thirteen had less than ten wells while the

remaining nine showed inventories ranging from 23 to 3500 wells. Of the approximately

10,373 wells in the U.S., 10,260 of them are found in eight states: Oklahoma, Wyoming,

Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Kansas, Virginia, and Alabama. The majority of these

wells have already been hydraulically fractured to enhance or stimulate gas production.

There were approximately 1130 wells hydraulically fractured in 1997.

Of the eight major producing states, four have regulatory or oversight programs in

place specifically for coalbed methane wells. In the remaining four, the process is

regulated under the states’ general oil and gas production rules. To date a total of only

one drinking water related complaint of contamination from the hydraulic fracturing of

coalbed methane wells has been received and reviewed (Alabama). After hydrologic and

reservoir investigation and tests, including collection and analysis of water samples by

several agencies, none of the claims were substantiated.

Based upon this survey, as well as previous technical presentations and open

meeting discussions among the various member states, the GWPC continues to believe

that additional federal regulations regarding coalbed methane wells are unnecessary to

protect underground sources of drinking water. There is no evidence to support the

claims by some that public health is at risk as a result of the hydraulic fracturing of

coalbeds used for the production of methane gas.

Existing state authorities and oversight of this process have been obviously

sufficient to protect USDW’s from contamination related to these wells. If additional

federal regulations were to be imposed they would not be based on scientific observation

of associated contamination and there would be little if any increase in protection of

public health and the environment. However, new regulations could impose a significant

additional financial burden on the states.

HESI302196
The other state programs regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act have seen

their annual federal budget double and triple over the last 10 years. During that same

time, the UIC State Grants budget has remained constant at $10.5 million. This amount

must be spread among all 50 states to regulate four different types of UIC programs

(Classes I, II, Ill, V). Adding an additional regulatory burden on the states will only

dilute their ability to be responsive in each of these programs. New regulations could

also impede oil and gas development within the states and contradict the original intent of

the SDWA, Section 1425 legislation.

HESI302197