As early as Monday, the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission is likely to agree on new rules governing the disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing for oil and natural gas.
While we welcome the new regulations, here’s an important thing to understand about them: They’re not nearly as vital to our health and safety as the surrounding debate may have led you to believe.
The most important fracking regulations cover how wells are drilled and encased — including, for example, the mandatory reporting of spikes in pressure. Running a close second are rules governing the handling and disposal of waste and the collection of critical data, such as water quality.
Public reporting of fracking chemicals is a definite step forward in transparency, but it does not alter the fracking process or have any direct net effect on public safety.
However, reports Thursday that groundwater in Wyoming was contaminated by fracking activity give us pause.
As details about this incident become available, we would hope Colorado regulators will look closely at the particulars of those circumstances and determine whether future modification of Colorado’s rules are in order.
Fracking, understandably, has its critics. And if you thought the process was bad news before the revised rules, you’ll probably continue to hold that opinion after they go into effect. And the same holds true for those who tout fracking as an economic boon.
Having said that, however, we’re pleased Colorado is poised to adopt one of the most aggressive sets of regulations found anywhere in the country requiring disclosure of fracking chemicals. Indeed, the new rules mandate the disclosure not only of chemicals officially considered hazardous but other chemicals as well.
Some opponents object that the industry still will be able to exempt trade secrets from public view, and they’re right.
But that’s hardly the state oil and gas commission’s fault. Federal and state laws protect trade secrets — and similar exemptions exist in laws environmentalists hold in high regard, such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Safe Drinking Water Act.
Meanwhile, the proposed new rules would still require disclosure of the chemical family and type of additives even when trade secrets are at stake.
We think one way to strengthen the rules further — an idea mentioned at last week’s commission hearings — would be to require companies that stipulate a trade secret to explain the basis for the claim, including how the company protects the secret and how it creates value.
Environmentalists aren’t alone in lobbying for changes in the proposed rules. Industry representatives say they’d like the commission to dump a requirement that data they submit under the new regulations be searchable by chemical. But that would amount to a step backward, and we hope the commission rejects it.
No matter what the commission does, it won’t please some on either side of this issue. But from our vantage point, the new rules represent a clear improvement in this state’s drilling regulations.
