Factual causation: The missing link in hydraulic fracture-groundwater contamination litigation

Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 341-360

  King, Jeffrey C ^a   Bryan, Jamie Lavergne ^a   Clark, Meredith ^a  

^a Fort Worth office ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GROUNDWATER POLLUTION; HYDRAULIC FRACTURE;

EID: 84862312187     PISSN: 10643958     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (157)

1. Alfred R. Jennings, Fracturing Fluids-Then and Now, 48 PETROLEUM TECH. 604, 604-610 (1996).
2. Noting the introduction of hydraulic fracturing for well stimulation in 1948.
3. ENERGY INST., THE UNIV. OF TEX. AT AUSTIN, FACT-BASED REGULATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN SHALE GAS DEVELOPMENT 7 (2012) [hereinafter FACTBASED REGULATION], available at http://energy.utexas.edu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=151&Itemid=160.
4. Infra Part III.
5. PHILIPPE A. CHARLEZ, ROCK MECHANICS: PETROLEUM APPLICATIONS 239 (1997)
6. Noting the first hydraulic fracturing job was completed in 1947.
7. GEORGE E. KING, HYDRAULIC FRACTURING 101: WHAT EVERY REPRESENTATIVE, ENVIRONMENTALIST, REGULATOR, REPORTER, INVESTOR, UNIVERSITY RESEARCHER, NEIGHBOR AND ENGINEER SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ESTIMATING FRAC RISK AND IMPROVING FRAC PERFORMANCE IN UNCONVENTIONAL GAS AND OIL WELLS, SPE 152,596, 7-9 (2012), available at http://www.kgs.ku.edu/PRS/Fracturing/Frac_Paper_SPE_152596.pdf
8. Discussing common components of fracturing fluids, including water, sand, and various chemicals.
9. AM. PETROLEUM INST., HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: UNLOCKING AMERICA'S NATURAL GAS RESOURCES (2010) [hereinafter API, UNLOCKING AMERICA'S NATURAL GAS RESOURCES], available at http://www.api.org/policy/exploration/hydraulicfracturing/upload/HYDRAULIC_FRACTURING_PRIMER.pdf.
10. Id.
11. AM. PETROLEUM INST., HYDRAULIC FRACTURING OPERATIONS-WELL CONSTRUCTION AND INTEGRITY GUIDELINES: API GUIDANCE DOCUMENT HF 1 15 (2009) [hereinafter API GUIDANCE DOCUMENT HF1], available at http://www.api.org/policy/exploration/hydraulicfracturing/upload/API_HF1.pdf.
12. API, UNLOCKING AMERICA'S NATURAL GAS RESOURCES, supra note 6.
13. Fracturing Ingredients, HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FACTS, http://www.hydraulicfracturing.com/Fracturing-Ingredients/Pages/information.aspx (last visited Apr. 3, 2012).
14. Some of the compounds, which comprise a small percentage of the total mixture, can be toxic.
15. TH CONG., CHEMICALS USED IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING (2011), available at http://democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Hydraulic%20Fracturing%20Report%204.18.11.pdf.
16. AM. PETROLEUM INST., HYDRAULIC FRACTURING AT A GLANCE (2008) [hereinafter API, AT A GLANCE], available at http://www.api.org/policy/exploration/upload/Hydraulic_Fracturing_at_a_Glance.pdf.
17. API GUIDANCE DOCUMENT HF 1, supra note 8, at 18-22.
18. AM. PETROLEUM INST., PRACTICES FOR MITIGATING SURFACE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH HYDRAULIC FRACTURING: API GUIDANCE DOCUMENT HF3 4-5 (2011) [hereinafter API GUIDANCE DOCUMENT HF3], available at http://www.api.org/policy/exploration/hydraulicfracturing/upload/HF3_e7.pdf.
19. API, AT A GLANCE, supra note 11.
20. API, UNLOCKING AMERICA'S NATURAL GAS RESOURCES, supra note 6.
21. API GUIDANCE DOCUMENT HF3, supra note 13, at 4-5.
22. Infra Part III.
23. Harris v. Devon Energy Prod. Co., No. 4:10-CV-00708-MHS-ALM (E.D. Tex. dismissed Jan. 25, 2012); Scoma v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., No. 3:10-CV-01385-N (N.D. Tex. dismissed Dec. 9, 2011); Mitchell v. Encana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc., No. 3:10-CV-02555-N (N.D. Tex. dismissed Nov. 14, 2011); Armstrong v. Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., No.10-CV-2453 (M.D. Pa. July 29, 2011) (order granting motion to remand); Smith v. Devon Energy Prod. Co., No. 4:11-CV-00104 (E.D. Tex. filed Mar. 7, 2011); Berish v. Sw. Energy Prod. Co., 763 F. Supp. 2d 702 (M.D. Pa. 2011).
24. Order granting motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part); Fiorentino v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., No. 3:09-CV-02284 (M.D. Pa. filed Nov. 19, 2009); Strudley v. Antero Res. Corp., No. 2011-CV-2218 (Dist. Ct. Colo. filed March 24, 2011); Zimmermann v. Atlas Am., L.L.C., No. 2009-7564 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl. filed Aug. 23, 2010); Lipsky v. Range Prod. Co., No. CV11-0798 (Dist. Ct. Tex. filed June 20, 2011); Heinkel-Wolfe v. Williams Prod. Co., No. 2010-40355-362 (Dist. Ct. Tex. filed Nov. 3, 2010); Sizelove v. Williams Prod. Co., No. 2010-50355-367 (Dist. Ct. Tex. filed Nov. 3, 2010); Knoll v. Gulftex Operating, Inc., No. 2010-10345-16 (Dist. Ct. Tex. filed Oct. 22, 2010).
25. Id.
26. Harris, No. 4:10-CV-00708-MHS-ALM; Smith, No. 4:11-CV-00104.
27. Supra note 17.
28. Texas has expressly rejected the theory of strict liability for ultrahazardous activities for injuries related to oil and gas operations. Turner v. Big Lake Oil Co., 96 S.W.2d 221, 221-22 (Tex. 1936). Consequently, that claim was dismissed in Harris, No. 4:10-CV-00708-MHS-ALM (E.D. Tex. dismissed Jan. 25, 2012), in response to a motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
29. Randall Noe Chrysler Dodge, L.L.P. v. Oakley Tire Co., 308 S.W.3d 542, 548-49 (Tex. App. 2010) (noting that causation is an essential element of trespass); Valley Forge Gardens, Inc. v. James D. Morrissey, Inc., 123 A.2d 888, 891 (Pa. 1956) (same); IHS Cedars Treatment Ctr. of Desoto, Texas, Inc. v. Mason, 143 S.W.3d 794, 798 (Tex. 2004) (noting that causation is an essential element of negligence); Cooper v. Frankford Health Care Sys., Inc., 960 A.2d 134, 140 n.2 (Pa. Super. 2008), appeal denied, 970 A.2d 431 (Pa. 2009) (same); Ehler v. LVDVD, L.C., 319 S.W.3d 817, 823 (Tex. Ct. App. 2010).
30. Noting that causation is an essential element of nuisance); O'Neal v. Dep't of Army, 852 F. Supp. 327, 337 (M.D. Pa. 1994) (quoting Smith v. Alderson, 396 A.2d 808, 810 (1979)) (same). It should be noted that gas well drilling has not been found to be an ultra-hazardous activity in Pennsylvania as of the date of this article. Two courts have, however, deferred ruling on the issue until more facts can be presented. Berish, 763 F. Supp. 2d at 706; Fiorentino v. Cabot Oil & Gas Corp., 750 F. Supp. 2d 506, 512 (M.D. Pa. 2010).
31. 284 F.3d 578 (5th Cir. 2002).
32. Id, at 581-582.
33. Id, at 586.
34. Id, at 586.
35. Id, at 586.
36. Id, at 586-587.
37. Id, at 586-587.
38. Id, at 586-587.
39. Id, at 587.
40. Stating that, "this alone, however, is not enough to present a question of fact to the jury".
41. Id, at 587.
42. Id, at 587.
43. Lipsky v. Range Prod. Co., No. CV11-0798 (Dist. Ct. Tex. filed Feb. 16, 2012) (order denying plaintiffs' motion to dismiss counter claims); Scoma v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., No. 3:10-cv-01385-N (N.D. Tex. filed Aug. 11, 2010); Mitchell v. Encana Oil & Gas (USA), Inc., No. 3:10-cv-02555-N (N.D. Tex. filed Dec. 15, 2010); Harris v. Devon Energy Prod. Co., No. 4:10-cv-00708-MHS-ALM (E.D. Tex. filed April 8, 2011); Smith v. Devon Energy Prod. Co., No. 4:11-cv-00104-RAS-DDB (E.D. Tex. filed March 21, 2011); Heinkel-Wolfe v. Williams Prod. Co., L.L.C., No. 2010-40355-362 (Dist. Ct. Tex. filed Feb. 13, 2012); Sizelove v. Williams Prod. Co., L.L.C., No. 2010-50355-367 (Dist. Ct. Tex. filed July 7, 2011); Knoll v. XTO Energy, Inc., No. 2010-10345-16 (Dist. Ct. Tex. filed June 27, 2011).
44. Lipsky, No. CV11-0798 (fracture stimulation claim jettisoned and remaining allegations dismissed); Scoma, No. 3:10-cv-01385-N (dismissed pursuant to nuisance settlement); Mitchell, No. 3:10-cv-02555-N (dismissed pursuant to nuisance settlement); Harris, No. 4:10-cv 00708-MHS-ALM (plaintiff voluntarily dismissed); Smith, No. 4:11-cv-00104-RAS-DDB (plaintiff voluntarily dismissed); Heinkel-Wolfe, No. 2010-40355-362, (fracture stimulation allegation jettisoned); Sizelove, No. 2010-50355-367 (fracture stimulation allegation jettisoned); Knoll, No. 2010-10345-16 (fracture stimulation allegation jettisoned).
45. Harris, No. 4:10-cv-00708-MHS-ALM.
46. Id. at Doc. Entry 55, filed Nov. 22, 2011.
47. Id. at Doc. Entry 59, p.2, filed Dec. 14, 2011.
48. Ana Campoy & Daniel Gilbert, Battle Over Gas-Tainted Well Water, WALL ST. J. (Dec. 17, 2010), http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704098304576021852120669280.html.
49. Jay Gormley, North Texas Residents Claim Gas Drilling Contaminated Water, CBS 11 NEWS (Dec. 15, 2010, 9:27 PM), http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2010/12/15/north-texas-residentslawsuits-claim-gas-drilling-contaminated-water.
50. No. CV11-0798 (Dist. Ct. Tex. filed Feb. 16, 2012).
51. Mike Soraghan, EPA Action on Texas Natural Gas Driller Escalated Fight Over State Regulation, N.Y. TIMES (Dec. 8, 2010), http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/12/08/08greenwireepa-action-on-texas-natural-gas-driller-escala-55869.html.
52. Ryan Dezember & Angel Gonzalez, EPA Says Range Resources Contaminated Texas Wells, WALL ST. J. (Dec. 7, 2010), http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703921204576006143738482306.html.
53. Range Resources Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Order, Parker County, TX, U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency (EPA), http://www.epa.gov/region6/region-6/tx/tx005.html (last visited Apr. 5, 2012).
54. MARIO LOYOLA, TEX. PUB. POL'Y FOUND., THE CASE OF RANGE RESOURCES (2011), available at http://www.texaspolicy.com/pdf/2011-09-PP15-TheCaseofRangeResources-CTAS-MarioLoyola.pdf.
55. Loyola, supra note 42, at 1.
56. Id.
57. TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. § 81.051 (West 2011).
58. R.R. Comm'n of Tex. Doc. No. 7B-0268629 (Mar. 7, 2011), available at http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/meetings/ogpfd/RangePFD.PDF.
59. Loyola, supra note 42, at 2.
60. United States v. Range Prod. Co., 973 F. Supp. 2d 814 (N.D. Tex. 2011), Doc. Entry 12, May 9, 2011; Doc Entry 23, March 30, 2012.
61. Barry Shlachter, EPA Drops Action Against Range Resources over Parker County Water Wells, FT. WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM (Mar. 30, 2012), http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/03/30/3849362/epa-drops-action-against-range.html.
62. Lipsky, No. CV11-0798.
63. Jack Z. Smith, Judge: Parker County Not the Place for Couple's Lawsuit Against Range Resources, FT. WORTH STAR-TELEGRAM (Jan. 28, 2012), http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/01/28/3694982/judge-parker-county-not-the-place.html.
64. Id.
65. Chris Hawes, EPA Acts After Water Contaminated by Drilling, WFAA-TV DALLASFT. WORTH (Dec. 7, 2010, 11:25 PM), http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/EPA-orders-111474704.html.
66. Lipsky, No. CV11-0798.
67. Id.
68. Strudley v. Antero Res. Corp., No. 2011-CV-2218 (Dist. Ct. Colo. filed Nov. 10, 2011).
69. Id.
70. 1986 WL 637507 (N.J. Sup.Ct. 1986).
71. Strudley, No. 2011 CV 2218.
72. API GUIDANCE DOCUMENT HF1, supra note 8, at 18-22.
73. Review of Hydraulic Fracturing Technology and Practices: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on Sci., Space, and Tech., 112th Cong. (2011) (statement of Elizabeth Ames Jones, Chairperson, R.R. Comm'n of Tex.).
74. Elizabeth Ames Jones, R.R. Comm'n of Tex., No Water Contamination Ever Due to Homegrown Technology-Hydraulic Fracturing (May 12, 2011) (on file with author).
75. API GUIDANCE DOCUMENT HF1, supra note 8, at 15-18.
76. Id. at 16.
77. Natural Gas Shale Horizontal Drilling Video, AM. PETROLEUM INST., http://www.api.org/policy-and-issues/policy-items/hf/drilling_video.aspx (last visited Mar. 23, 2012).
78. API GUIDANCE DOCUMENT HF1, supra note 8, at 11.
79. Despite what some people may envision, an aquifer is not an underground river or cavern of water. An aquifer is a body of shallow saturated rock through which water can move. Aquifers are permeable and porous and are comprised of sandstone, conglomerate, fractured limestone and unconsolidated sand and gravel. Groundwater squeezes through pore spaces in the rock and sediment in order to move through an aquifer. Because it takes pressure to force water through the tiny rock or sand pores, groundwater loses energy as it flows.
80. What is an Aquifer?, IDAHO MUSEUM NAT. HIST., http://imnh.isu.edu/digitalatlas/hydr/concepts/gwater/aquifer.htm (last visited Mar. 21, 2012).
81. For example, in Texas this requirement is mandated by its oil and gas regulatory body, the Texas Railroad Commission. TEX. NAT. RES. CODE ANN. § 91.1015 (West 2011).
82. Natural Gas Shale Horizontal Drilling Video, supra note 65.
83. API GUIDANCE DOCUMENT HF1, supra note 8.
84. The standard for oil and gas casing was established by the API in Spec. 5CT.
85. Id § 7.1.
86. The standards for cement types were established by the API in Spec. 10A.
87. API GUIDANCE DOCUMENT HF1, supra note 8, at § 7.
88. Id. §§ 7.4-7.5.
89. Id. § 7.5.
90. Id. § 3.
91. George E. King, Estimating Frac Risk and Improving Frac Performance in Unconventional Gas and Oil Wells (Jan. 23, 2012), http://gekengineering.com/Downloads/Free_Downloads/Estimating_and_Explaining_Fracture_Risk_and_Improving_Fracture_Performance_in_Unconventional_Gas_and_Oil_Wells.pdf.
92. This article should not be interpreted to mean that a water well that contains water laced with thermogenic gas was contaminated as a result of faulty surface casing. Thermogenic gas can naturally migrate into aquifers irrespective of oil and gas operations in the area.
93. EPA, EVALUATION OF IMPACTS TO UNDERGROUND SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER BY HYDRAULIC FRACTURING OF COALBED METHANE RESERVOIRS ES-1 (2004), available at http://nepis.epa.gov/Adobe/PDF/P100A99N.PDF.
94. Id. at 7-5.
95. 'Based on the information collected and reviewed, EPA has concluded that the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into coal bed methane wells poses little or no threat to USDWs and does not justify additional study at this time.'.
96. Id. at ES-1.
97. EPA, HYDRAULIC FRACTURING RESEARCH STUDY (2010) [Hereinafter HYDRAULIC FRACTURING STUDY], available at http://www.epa.gov/owindian/tribal/pdf/hydraulic-fracturingfact-sheet.pdf.
98. EPA, PLAN TO STUDY THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF HYDRAULIC FRACTURING ON DRINKING WATER RESOURCES (2011), available at http://water.epa.gov/type/groundwater/uic/class2/hydraulicfracturing/upload/hf_study_plan_110211_final_508.pdf.
99. Pierre Bertrand, EPA Asks for dolr14 M for Fracking Studies, INT'L BUS. TIMES (Feb. 28, 2012), http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/306216/20120228/epa-hydraulic-fracturing-study-2013-natural-gas.htm.
100. EPA, HYDRAULIC FRACTURING STUDY, supra note 81. One of the study areas to be addressed in the 2012 EPA report is Pavillion, Wyoming. In December 2011, the EPA released a draft report stating that, based on its testing of water wells near Pavillion, it found compounds in Pavillion's local aquifer likely associated with gas production practices, including hydraulic fracturing.
101. Press Release, EPA, EPA Releases Draft Findings of Pavillion, Wyoming Ground Water Investigation For Public Comment and Independent Scientific Review (Dec. 8, 2011), available at http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/EF35BD26A80D6CE3852579600065C94E.
102. This report drew heavy criticism due to its reliance on test results that were not conducted in accordance with EPA testing standards or accepted protocols. Nore.
103. Jeremy Fugleberg, EPA Improperly Tested Pavillion Water Samples, BILLINGS GAZETTE (Dec. 27, 2011), http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/epaimproperly-tested-pavillion-water-samples/article_7f7f1bf4-553e-52c9-85eb-ce7fd06628ef.html.
104. As a result of the complaints about the testing methods, the EPA and the state of Wyoming agreed to conduct additional testing on the wells before a final report is issued. Nore.
105. Mark Drajem, Wyoming Joins EPA to Test Water in Pavillion Fracking Area, BLOOMBERG NEWS (March 8, 2012), http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-08/wyoming-joins-epa-to-test-water-inpavillion-fracking-area-1-.html.
106. Stephen G. Osborn et al., Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gaswell Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing, 108 PROC. NAT'L ACAD. SCI. 8172 (2011), available at http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/cgc/pnas2011.pdf.
107. Bryan Walsh, Another Fracking Mess for the Shale-Gas Industry, TIME (May 9, 2011), http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2070533,00.html.
108. Osborn et al., supra note 84, at 8175.
109. Id. at 8173.
110. Id. at 8173-8175.
111. Study Links Methane in Water to Gas Extraction (NPR radio broadcast May 13, 2011), available at http://www.npr.org/2011/05/13/136280456/study-links-methane-in-water-to-gasextraction (interviewing Dr. Rob Jackson, co-author of the Duke Study).
112. F Osborn et al., supra note 84, at 1872.
113. CTR. FOR RURAL PA., THE IMPACT OF MARCELLUS GAS DRILLING ON RURAL DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES (2011) [hereinafter IMPACT OF MARCELLUS GAS DRILLING], available at http://www.rural.palegislature.us/documents/reports/Marcellus_and_drinking_water_2011_rev.pdf.
114. THE CENTER FOR RURAL PENNSYLVANIA, http://www.rural.palegislature.us (last visited Mar. 23, 2012).
115. IMPACT OF MARCELLUS GAS DRILLING, supra note 91, at 4.
116. In this study, statistical analyses of post-drilling versus pre-drilling water chemistry did not suggest major influences from gas well drilling or fracking on nearby water wells, when considering changes in potential pollutants that are most prominent in drilling waste fluids. When comparing dissolved methane concentrations in the forty-eight water wells that were sampled both before and after drilling from Phase One, the research found no statistically significant increases in methane levels after drilling and no significant correlation to distance from drilling.
117. Id. at 6.
118. Id. at 8-9.
119. Id. at 4.
120. Id. at 4.
121. Id. at i. ERROR NOTICE.
122. Id.
123. FACT-BASED REGULATION, supra note 2.
124. Id. at 4.
125. Id.
126. The Energy Institute utilized energy experts in geosciences, economic geology, law, communications, and from the Institute itself.
127. Id. at 5.
128. Id. at 18.
129. Id. at 19.
130. Rather, the energy (vibrations and pressure pulses) from the shale drilling mobilized contaminants that were already present.
131. Id.
132. While the hydraulic fracturing did not necessarily introduce contaminants such as iron and manganese oxides, the fracturing disturbed the accumulated particles causing them to change color, increase turbidity, and release odors.
133. Id.
134. Noting that drilling fluids could leak into the aquifer by flowing up the well bore or by radiating out of the well into the formation, and that well leaks can lead to house explosions.
135. Id. at 18.
136. Separating the issue of drilling fluid flow from the risk of house explosions, methane contamination of water wells, well integrity, and leakage.
137. Id.
138. Distinguishing cases in Wyoming where fracturing was performed at depths "shallower than normal".
139. Osborn et al., supra note 84, at 8175.
140. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 590 (1993) (' '[K]nowledge' connotes more than subjective belief or unsupported speculation.'); Moore v. Ashland Chem., Inc., 151 F.3d 269, 278 (5th Cir. 1998) ('[A] district judge asked to admit scientific evidence must determine whether the evidence is genuinely scientific, as distinct from being unscientific speculation offered by a genuine scientist.'); Watkins v. Telsmith, Inc., 121 F.3d 984, 988-89 (5th Cir. 1997).
141. Noting that the 'trial judge must perform a screening function to ensure that the expert's opinion is reliable and relevant to the facts at issue in the case'); see also FED. R. EVID. 702 cmt. 10 (explaining that testimony must be 'properly grounded, well reasoned, and not speculative before it can be admitted' and the 'expert's testimony must be grounded in an accepted body of learning or experience in the expert's field, and the expert must explain how the conclusion is so grounded').
142. Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemical Act of 2009, H.R. 2766, 111th Cong. (2009). The 'FRAC Act,' which was originally introduced in both houses of Congress in June 2009, was reintroduced in the House of Representatives and the Senate in March 2011. The bill, if passed, would have eliminated the hydraulic fracturing exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act and required public disclosure of the chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process.
143. Jacquelyn Pless, Fracking Update: What States Are Doing to Ensure Safe Natural Gas Extraction, NAT'L CONF. STATE LEGISLATURES (2011), http://www.ncsl.org/issuesresearch/energyhome/fracking-update-what-states-are-doing.aspx.
144. Wyo. Oil & Gas Comm'n Operational Rules, Drilling Rules, 3 §§ 8(c)(ix), 12, 45, available at http://soswy.state.wy.us/Rules/RULES/7928.pdf.
145. Requiring operators to disclose chemical additives and proposed concentrations in the Application for Permit to Drill or Deepen.
146. Id. § 45(f).
147. Ark. Oil & Gas Comm'n, General Rules and Regulations, Rule B-19, available at http://www.aogc.state.ar.us/OnlineData/Forms/RulesandRegulations.pdf.
148. The rule also requires drillers to disclose the exact concentration of each compound in the hydraulic fracturing mixture.
149. 25 PA. CODE § 78.55 (2011).
150. 16 TEX. ADMIN. CODE, § 3.29 (2011).
151. Press Release, R.R. Comm'n of Tex., Railroad Commissioners Adopt One of Nation's Most Comprehensive Hydraulic Fracturing Chemical Disclosure Requirements (Dec. 13, 2011), available at http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/pressreleases/2011/121311.php.
152. Final Modified Staff Proposal, Before the Oil and Gas Conservation Commission of the \State of Colo., available at http://cogcc.state.co.us/RR_HF2011/FinalModifiedStaffProposal12_13_11V4.pdf.
153. Id.
154. Commissions Adopt Fluid Disclosure Rules, FRACFOCUS.ORG, http://fracfocus.org/node/327 (last visited Mar. 25, 2012).
155. Adam Orford, Hydraulic Fracturing: Legislative and Regulatory Trends, MARTENLAW.COM (Oct. 4, 2011), http://www.martenlaw.com/newsletter/20111004-frackingroundup.
156. For example, Michigan requires as part of the permitting process that drillers submit extensive documentation of their expected water use. Michigan also requires drillers to install monitor wells, used to ensure active freshwater wells' safety, when fracking operations are near more than one freshwater well.
157. Id.