Fracking in Minnesota

in Minnesota

Fiscal Budgets Minnesota state budget and finances Tax policy in Minnesota Finance Financial regulation in Minnesota Pensions Public pensions in Minnesota Pension health in Minnesota Civil liberties Affirmative action in Minnesota Campaign finance requirements in Minnesota Campaign finance requirements for Minnesota ballot measures Nonprofit regulation in Minnesota Education Charter schools in Minnesota Higher education in Minnesota Public education in Minnesota School choice in Minnesota Elections Ballot access Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Minnesota Ballot access requirements for political parties in Minnesota Political parties in Minnesota Ballot access requirements for presidential candidates in Minnesota Redistricting in Minnesota Voting in Minnesota Energy and Environment Energy policy in Minnesota Fracking in Minnesota Oil and gas extraction on federal land in Minnesota Endangered species in Minnesota Environmental policy in Minnesota Healthcare Healthcare policy in Minnesota Medicaid spending in Minnesota Effect of the Affordable Care Act in Minnesota Immigration Immigration in Minnesota

This article does not contain the most recently published data on this subject. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia.

Fracking in the U.S.
Energy policy in the U.S.
State fracking policy
State energy policy
Glossary of energy terms

Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, is a method of oil and natural gas extraction that involves injecting fluid into subterranean rock formations at high pressure. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), there were approximately 23,000 hydraulically fractured wells in the United States in 2000. In 2015, the United States contained approximately 300,000 hydraulically fractured wells, which accounted for 67 percent of U.S. natural gas production and 51 percent of U.S. crude oil production.^[1][2][3]

This article focuses on fracking in Minnesota and state-specific, rather than federal, regulation of the process. The article begins with general information about fracking and applicable federal laws and regulations covering fracking. As of May 2017, Minnesota did not have oil or natural gas reserves. Thus, no fracking occurred in the state.^[4]

See the sections below for further information on the following topics:

1. Background: This section provides general information about the fracking process, how it is regulated at the state level, and how federal laws apply to oil and gas operations.
2. Areas of activity: This section provides information (if available) on where fracking occurs in the state.
3. Economic impact: This section outlines the nationwide economic impacts of fracking throughout the United States.
4. Environmental impact: This section outlines a discussion of the nationwide environmental impacts of fracking throughout the United States.

Fracking background[edit]

An overview of the fracking process (click to enlarge)

See also: Fracking

Hydraulic fracturing, also known as fracking, is a method of oil and natural gas extraction. The process involves injecting fluid into subterranean rock formations at high pressure. The high pressure fluid produces a fracture network that allows crude oil and natural gas inside dense rocks to flow into a wellbore and be extracted at the surface. The fluid (known as frac fluid) contains between 98 percent and 99.5 percent water and sand; between 0.5 percent and 2 percent of the fluid is composed of chemical additives, which are used to stop the growth of microorganisms, prevent well casing corrosion, increase the rate at which the fluid is injected, and reduce pressure, among other uses.^[5]

As of 2015, thirty-one states produced crude oil and 33 states produced natural gas. States have primary regulatory authority over fracking and regulate the location and spacing of wells, drilling methods, lining of wells, the process of fracking itself, plugging wells, waste disposal, and site reclamation. In some states, environmental regulatory agencies regulate fracking; in others, fracking is regulated by oil and gas commissions.^[6][7][8]

While states have primary regulatory authority over fracking, oil and gas operators must meet requirements in the following federal environmental and public health laws, among others:^[9]

• The Clean Air Act, which regulates air pollutants emitted during oil and gas production
• The Clean Water Act, which regulates all pollution discharges into surface waters and requires oil and gas operators to obtain permits to discharge produced water—fluids used during fracking as well as water that occurs naturally in oil or gas-bearing formations—into surface water.
• The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, which requires oil and gas operators to report the release of hazardous substances during oil and operations and allows the EPA to investigate hazardous substance releases and require operators to restore areas affected by hazardous spills.

Areas of activity[edit]

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Minnesota had no oil or natural gas reserves as of May 2017; thus, no fracking occurred in the state.^[4]

Economic impact[edit]

An aerial view of a fracking site (click to enlarge)

The section below includes a discussion of the nationwide, rather than state-specific, economic impact of fracking. The information below summarizes studies and other reports on the economic impact of fracking throughout in the United States, and links to the studies are provided below.

Brookings Institution study (2015)[edit]

A March 2015 study by the Brookings Institution, whose stated mission is "to conduct in-depth research that leads to new ideas for solving problems facing society at the local, national and global level," estimated that natural gas prices were 47 percent lower in 2013 than they would have been without an increase in fracking operations. Specifically, the study found that an increased natural gas supply attributed mainly to fracking had reduced gas prices by $3.45 per 1,000 cubic feet of gas. Further, the study's authors, Catherine Hausman and Ryan Kellog, argued that residential consumer gas bills decreased $13 billion per year between 2007 to 2013 due to fracking. Additionally, Hausman and Ryan argued that increased fracking operations outpaced data collection on the environmental impacts of fracking. The authors found that state regulators face uncertainty about how to focus on mitigating specific environmental concerns as a result. The complete study can be accessed here.

Congressional Budget Office study (2014)[edit]

In December 2014, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), a federal office that provides budgetary information to Congress, published a study on the economic and budgetary effects of increased oil and natural gas production, including increased fracking use. The study's authors argued that natural gas costs in the year 2040 would be 70 percent higher without increased development of natural gas through fracking. The authors also found that gross domestic product (GDP) in the year 2020 would be 0.7 percent higher than it would have been without increased natural gas production and that GDP would be 0.9 percent higher by 2040. The study's authors concluded that federal tax revenues would be $35 billion higher in the year 2020 due to increased natural gas production. According to the CBO's report, the Marcellus Shale (which includes Pennsylvania, New York, and West Virginia) accounted for 25 percent of total recoverable shale gas followed by the Haynesville-Bossier Shale in Texas and Louisiana at 15 percent, the Eagle Ford Shale in Texas at 10 percent, and the Barnett Shale in Texas at 10 percent (as of December 2014). The CBO report also found that the Eagle Ford and Austin Chalk Shales (both in Texas) accounted for 40 percent of recoverable shale oil (crude oil found in shale formations) followed by the Bakken Shale in North Dakota and Montana at 20 percent (as of December 2014).^[10][11]

American Enterprise Institute study (2013)[edit]

A February 2013 study by Aparna Mathur and Kevin A. Hassett at the American Enterprise Institute, which describes itself as "a community of scholars and supporters committed to expanding liberty, increasing individual opportunity and strengthening free enterprise," found that direct economic benefits from increased gas production by fracking generated approximately $36 billion in economic activity in 2011 (multiplying total U.S. natural gas production of 8.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas in 2011 by an average price of $4.24 per thousand cubic feet). The authors argued that this economic value could lead to higher employment in the gas production and delivery sectors. The complete study can be accessed here.

IHS study (2013)[edit]

A September 2013 study published by IHS, which describes itself as dedicated to "next-generation information, analytics and solutions to customers in business, finance and government," concluded that an increase in unconventional oil and natural gas production (production that uses technology such as fracking to force petroleum or gas from the ground and up through a well) increased disposable income per U.S. household by an average of $1,200 in the year 2012. The study's authors argued that this increased income came in the form of lower energy bills and lower costs for goods and services. Additionally, the study's authors said that up to 250,000 jobs could be created by the year 2020 due to fracking. The full study can be accessed here.^[12]

Environmental impact[edit]

Hydraulic fracturing operations in progress (click to enlarge)

The section below includes a discussion of the nationwide, rather than state-specific, environmental impacts (air, water, and seismic) of fracking. The information below summarizes studies and other reports on the environmental impact of fracking throughout in the United States, and links to the studies are provided below.

Air impacts[edit]

Given frequent changes in U.S. oil and gas operations nationwide, the types of energy extracted, the number of wells drilled during a given period, and varying regional factors, estimates on the nationwide impact of fracking on air quality are difficult to calculate. As with any type of energy production, steps during the process (extraction, transportation, and transportation) can produce air pollutants at varying levels depending on the level of operations in a particular area. Air pollution sources during fracking can include road and pipeline construction, well drilling and completion, and natural gas processing, transportation, and storage. The main pollutants released during the fracking process include volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and particulate matter. VOCs react with nitrogen oxides to produce ground-level ozone, also known as smog. These pollutants are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state agencies under the Clean Air Act.^[13][14][15]

Water impacts[edit]

A September 2015 study from researchers at Duke University found that fracking operators used approximately 250 billion gallons of water from 2005 to 2014 to extract oil and natural gas from hydraulically fracked wells. This accounted for less than 1 percent of total industrial water use in the United States. The study's authors argued, "While fracking an unconventional shale gas or oil well takes much more water than drilling a conventional oil or gas well, the study finds that compared to other energy extraction methods, fracking is less water-intensive in the long run." Further, the study's authors found that fracking operations produced approximately 210 billion gallons of wastewater. Specifically, the authors noted that hydraulically fracked oil wells produced half a barrel of wastewater for each barrel of oil produced. This is compared to a conventional oil well, which produced more than approximately three barrels of wastewater for each barrel of oil produced.^[16][17][18]

In December 2016, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released a final report requested by Congress in 2010 on the impact of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) on drinking water resources. The EPA report stated that there was "scientific evidence that hydraulic fracturing activities can impact drinking water resources in the United States under some circumstances." Specifically, the EPA concluded that, in some circumstances, poorly constructed drilling wells and incorrect wastewater management affected drinking water resources, particularly near drilling sites. According to the report, effects on drinking water "ranged in severity, from temporary changes in water quality to contamination that made private drinking wells unusable." An earlier draft version of the report, released in June 2015, concluded that fracking had not resulted in any widespread or systemic impact on drinking water quality. That conclusion was deleted in the report's final version. The EPA concluded that its findings were limited in scope, reporting that "uncertainties and data gaps limited the EPA's ability to fully assess impacts to drinking water resources both locally and nationally."^[19][20][21]

For more information on the December 2016 study, see this article. The complete December 2016 study can be accessed here.

Seismic events[edit]

See also: Seismicity

The term induced seismicity (or induced seismology) refers to seismic events that occur at higher than normal rates due to human activity. Induced seismic events (e.g., smaller earthquakes and tremors) can be the result of mining, damming rivers, or injecting fluids into underground wells during fracking.^{[22][23][24][25][26]}

In 2014, the U.S. Geological Survey concluded the following:^[23][27][28]

In 2016, the U.S. Geological Survey found that wastewater disposal, rather than fracking, was the main cause of an increase in earthquakes throughout the central United States from 2009 to 2013. According to the agency, wastewater disposal wells raise pressure levels more than fracked wells. Larger amounts of fluid are used in wastewater disposal wells than in fracked wells; thus, wastewater disposal wells are more likely to produce induced seismic events than fracked wells.^[30][31]

A 2015 study by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) identified three factors needed for a disposal well to induce seismic activities: sufficient pressure buildup due to the disposing of fluids, a fault of concern (a fault that is significantly stressed), and a path allowing increased pressure to move from a well to a fault. According to the EPA, as of 2015 few disposals wells had produced earthquakes with a magnitude above 4 on the Richter scale (for comparison, an earthquake with a magnitude of 3 is similar to the passage of a nearby truck).^[32]

For more information on fracking and seismic activity, see this article.

Recent news[edit]

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Minnesota fracking. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

See also[edit]

• 

  Energy policy in Minnesota

• 

  Fracking in the United States

• 

  Environmental policy in Minnesota

Footnotes[edit]