American Oil and Gas Reporter - February 2016 - 24

the former East Consuming region was
split into the new East and Midwest
regions, while the previous West
Consuming region was split into the
new Pacific and Mountain Regions. The
new South-Central Region consists
mainly of the states that comprised the
old Producing Region.
According to EIA, gas storage in the
new East region was 695 Bcf on Jan.
22, 12.1 percent above the five-year
average, but 181 Bcf less than Dec. 25,
when storage stood at 876 Bcf, 10.7
percent above the five-year average.
East Region gas storage on Jan. 22 was
95 Bcf more than a year ago.
Gas storage in the new Midwest
Region stood at 811 Bcf on Jan. 22, 16.0
percent above the five-year average and
214 Bcf less than the 1.025 Tcf in
storage on Dec. 25, which was 12.9
percent above the five year average. Jan.
22 gas storage in the Midwest Region
was 129 Bcf more than a year ago.
In the new Mountain Region, EIA
says, gas storage was 164 Bcf on Jan.
22, which was 4.5 percent above the
five-year average and 31 Bcf less than
the 195 stored on Dec. 25, which was
4.3 percent above the five year average.
Gas storage in the Mountain Region
was up 30 Bcf from a year ago.
Gas storage in the new Pacific region
was 273 Bcf on Jan. 22, 6.6 percent above
the five-year average and 65 Bcf less than
the 338 Bcf stored on Dec. 25, which was
8.0 percent above the five-year average.
Pacific Region gas storage on Jan. 22 was
down 3 Bcf from a year ago.
In the South-Central region, gas
storage levels on Jan. 22 were 1.143
Tcf, 24.0 percent above the five-year
average and down 179 Bcf from the
1.322 Tcf in storage on Dec. 25, which
was 19.3 percent above the five-year
average. The Jan. 22 gas storage level
for the South-Central Region was up
279 Bcf from a year ago. ❒

SAB Urges EPA To
Reconsider Frac Study
'Impact' Conclusion
WASHINGTON-A consultative
body that advises the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency about scientific
and engineering matters has questioned
the way in which EPA depicted the
findings of its analysis about possible
risks hydraulic fracturing poses to
drinking water. That draft study, which
EPA released in June, found no evidence of widespread, systemic impacts
on U.S. drinking water sources (AOGR,
July 2015, pg. 40).
Although it commends EPA's draft
assessment report as appropriate and
comprehensive, a letter EPA's Science
Advisory Aboard sent EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy in early January offers several suggestions. They include:
* Adjusting the language in which
EPA presents its conclusions;
* Discussing concerns in various localities, including Dimock, Pa.; Pavillion, Wy.; and Parker County, Tx.;
where the SAB points to perceived links
between water quality and fracturing;
* Devoting more attention to fracturing's impact on drinking water supplies in arid areas;
* Clearly describing the probability
and risk associated with various phases
of the fracturing process, as well as additional details about spilled liquids and releases of flowback and produced water;
* Compiling broad toxicological information on fracturing chemicals;
* Expanding the breadth of the report's analysis regarding the likeliest
fracturing exposure scenarios and associated hazards;
* Distinguishing injected fracturing
chemicals from compounds in flowback
and produced water;
* Describing the industry's best

management practices for each stage of
the fracturing process; and
* Clarifying the fundamentals of
certain wastewater fracturing treatment
processes.
SAB's first suggestion expresses
concern about "the clarity and adequacy
of support for several major findings" in
the analysis that "seek to draw nationallevel conclusions" about fracturing's
drinking water impacts.
"The SAB is concerned that these
major findings are presented ambiguously within the executive summary and
are inconsistent with the observations,
data and levels of uncertainty presented
and discussed in the body of the draft
assessment report," the letter states. "Of
particular concern in this regard is the
high-level conclusion statement . . . that
'We did not find evidence that hydraulic
fracturing mechanisms have led to
widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United
States.' The SAB finds that this statement does not clearly describe the system(s) of interest (e.g. groundwater, surface water) nor the definitions of 'systemic,' 'widespread,' or 'impacts.'"
Although SAB calls on EPA to revise the executive summary's major
findings to be more precise, Energy in
Depth's Katie Brown suggests the executive statement is clear. "EPA's use of
the terms 'systemic,' 'widespread,' and
'impacts' are not ambiguous: EPA's language accurately reflects the data in the
report, which did not show a pervasive
or inherent threat of water contamination from fracturing," she writes. "EPA
is appropriately describing a process
that, while not risk free, is not an inherent or pervasive risk to water resources."
In a post on EID's blog, Brown finds
fault with some of SAB's other recomSEE SAB PAGE 97

QDME
Quick Data Management Evaluation

Achieve Better Business Decisions with Clean, Quality Data
Evaluating: Data Sources * Data Quality * Completeness * Correctness * Confidence
Delivering: Prioritization * Business Benefits * Observations * Conclusions * Recommendations

www.istore.com * info@istore.com * +1.713.787.6798
24 THE AMERICAN OIL & GAS REPORTER

American Oil and Gas Reporter - February 2016

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of American Oil and Gas Reporter - February 2016