Posted on 04/17/2011 6:24:30 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Oil and gas companies injected hundreds of millions of gallons of hazardous or carcinogenic chemicals into wells in more than 13 states from 2005 to 2009, according to an investigation by Congressional Democrats.
The chemicals were used by companies during a drilling process known as hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, which involves the high-pressure injection of a mixture of water, sand and chemical additives into rock formations deep underground. The process, which is being used to tap into large reserves of natural gas around the country, opens fissures in the rock to stimulate the release of oil and gas.
Hydrofracking has attracted increased scrutiny from lawmakers and environmentalists in part because of fears that the chemicals used during the process can contaminate underground sources of drinking water.
“Questions about the safety of hydraulic fracturing persist, which are compounded by the secrecy surrounding the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids,” said the report, which was written by Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California, Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Diana DeGette of Colorado.
The report, released late Saturday, also faulted companies for at times “injecting fluids containing chemicals that they themselves cannot identify.”
The inquiry over hydrofracking, which was initiated by the House Energy and Commerce Committee when Mr. Waxman led it last year, also found that 14 of the nation’s most active hydraulic fracturing companies used 866 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products — not including water. More than 650 of these products contained chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or are listed as hazardous air pollutants, the report said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
There was another thread on this last night. I pointed out then that this was a pure propaganda piece by the AP. Now a propaganda piece by the AP and gladly given legs by the New York Times.
Read the story carefully. The AP wrote it in such a way that makes one THINK they are talking about evil energy producers have leaked/injected the fluid mixture used in fracking into WATER wells. This assumption would be incorrect. In referring to WELLS, the AP actually means this fluid mixture is injected into the natural gas or oil WELL itself. They just wrote it to make you think it was water wells being affected
Some people think DHMO is a big joke. Check out the official Material Safety Data Sheet for DHMO:
http://www.dhmo.org/msdsdhmo.html
Visit the DHMO website: http://www.dhmo.org/ for the complete story.
Can you provide me the contact information for a single professional geologist or hydrogeologist who believes this statement? I suppose there are some who have never installed or dealt with wells before, but to assume that casings and groutings are 100% is someone with little experience, IMO.
You have never had a casing or grouting failure in a well? How many wells have you installed?
And they have to go through a permitting process that frac wells skirt.
If shale-gas fracking is so safe, why the fear of it getting the same scrutiny as other operations?
try this article, pretty much sums up my points
http://www.wyomingnews.com/articles/2011/04/10/news/19local_04-10-11.txt
The Environmental Protection Agency may conduct a study in Laramie County on the potential dangers to groundwater of hydraulic fracturing.
“Fracking” involves the pressurized injection of water and chemicals into geologic formations to increase the volume of natural gas and/or oil that can be extracted.
“To help ensure that energy production does not come at the expense of public health, EPA scientists are undertaking a study of this practice to better understand any potential impacts it may have on drinking water resources,” an EPA statement says.
EPA has not made a final decision on whether the study will be conducted in Laramie County, which is poised to see significant oil development from the Niobrara shale formation.
Laramie County resident Barry Bruns said he thinks hydraulic fracturing is safe as long as it is done properly.
Bruns, who owns the surface rights on his property but not the mineral rights, said his property values would be devastated if his well became contaminated.
He added that it is “worthwhile” for EPA to conduct the study.
John Wagner, head of the water quality division at the state Department of Environmental Quality, said fracking should not pose a danger to water wells if the process follows DEQ, health department and Wyoming Oil and Gas Commission standards.
Generally, water wells are a few hundred feet deep; fracking occurs at about 7,000 feet. This provides about a mile of separation between the wells and the fracking.
Wagner said he would be more concerned about a septic tank contaminating a water well than fracking.
The issue of Hyrdaulic Fracturing has been going on and on in New York State for YEARS.
The New York City watershed includes a large area of the Marcellus shale formation.
The NYC Dept. of Environmental Protection’s position: “While DEP is mindful of the potential economic opportunity that this represents for the State, hydraulic fracturing poses an unacceptable threat to the unfiltered water supply of nine million New Yorkers and cannot safely be permitted with the New York City watershed.”
The New York State assembly voted 93 to 43, Nov. 30, 2010, to place a moratorium or freeze on hydraulic fracturing to give the state more time to undertake safety and environmental concerns.
Had it been allowed, they estimated at least 6,000 jobs created in NY State.
Sorry, but it generally has less than 1% by volume, but certainly less than 5%. IIRC, the initial limit your article mentions is 1.3% and then 0.6% later.
And some concerns about benzene in water is that the ingestion of contaminated water takes in more than the inhalation pathway, plus the intrusion of benzene vapor into occupied structures, where the exposures are concentrated because of low air-exchange.
State agencies have released this information. For example, in New York State, it was a scientific and economic development agency (NYSERDA), not the regulatory agency, that commissioned reports from various sources to support the Generic Environmental Impact Statement. For water-related issues, URS Corporation provided the research (PDF). Note that URS Corporation is a consultant to drilling companies, so any bias would be pro-drilling. The draft GEIS is here.
Other states (e.g., Pennsylvania) have looked at MSDSs used by the drilling sites, although this list had to be pared down because non-downhole chemicals still have MSDSs. Still, many are carcinogens...and no matter how many "food" ingredients you put into it, it doesn't mean that the carcinogens in it will suddenly be "overruled" by all the gummi bears you included.
I know that the Democrats of these states are hoping that shale gas will get them out of their irresponsible budget messes, but even conservative geologists are starting to reverse their support as more information comes out.
Remember, Halliburton even admitted only a couple of years ago that they were still using diesel fuel to frack, despite promises given years earlier that they wouldn't do that anymore. Fortunately, they seem to be developing improvements, such as the CleanStim system (h/t epithermal).
Note: I have personal and professional interests that would be promoted by the increased exploitation of shale gas. But I am also a man of integrity.
(Extracted from http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/materials_minerals_pdf/ogdsgeischap5.pdf)
| CAS Number | Chemical Constituent |
|---|---|
| 2634-33-5 | 1,2 Benzisothiazolin-2-one / 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one |
| 95-63-6 | 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene |
| 123-91-1 | 1,4-Dioxane |
| 3452-07-1 | 1-eicosene |
| 629-73-2 | 1-hexadecene |
| 112-88-9 | 1-octadecene |
| 1120-36-1 | 1-tetradecene |
| 10222-01-2 | 2,2 Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide, a biocide |
| 27776-21-2 | 2,2'-azobis-{2-(imidazlin-2-yl)propane}-dihydrochloride |
| 73003-80-2 | 2,2-Dobromomalonamide |
| 15214-89-8 | 2-Acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulphonic acid sodium salt polymer |
| 46830-22-2 | 2-acryloyloxyethyl(benzyl)dimethylammonium chloride |
| 52-51-7 | 2-Bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol |
| 111-76-2 | 2-Butoxy ethanol |
| 1113-55-9 | 2-Dibromo-3-Nitriloprionamide (2-Monobromo-3-nitriilopropionamide) |
| 104-76-7 | 2-Ethyl Hexanol |
| 67-63-0 | 2-Propanol / Isopropyl Alcohol / Isopropanol / Propan-2-ol |
| 26062-79-3 | 2-Propen-1-aminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-2-propenyl-chloride, homopolymer |
| 9003-03-6 | 2-propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt |
| 25987-30-8 | 2-Propenoic acid, polymer with 2 p-propenamide, sodium salt / Copolymer of acrylamide and sodium acrylate |
| 71050-62-9 | 2-Propenoic acid, polymer with sodium phosphinate (1:1) |
| 66019-18-9 | 2-propenoic acid, telomer with sodium hydrogen sulfite |
| 107-19-7 | 2-Propyn-1-ol / Propargyl alcohol |
| 51229-78-8 | 3,5,7-Triaza-1-azoniatricyclo[3.3.1.13,7]decane, 1-(3-chloro-2-propenyl)-chloride, |
| 115-19-5 | 3-methyl-1-butyn-3-ol |
| 127087-87-0 | 4-Nonylphenol Polyethylene Glycol Ether Branched / Nonylphenol ethoxylated / Oxyalkylated Phenol |
| 64-19-7 | Acetic acid |
| 68442-62-6 | Acetic acid, hydroxy-, reaction products with triethanolamine |
| 108-24-7 | Acetic Anhydride |
| 67-64-1 | Acetone |
| 79-06-1 | Acrylamide |
I have an old friend that is a hazmat guy @ the chemical plant level. I need to contact him on this subject and see how bad some of these are... Thanks again!
BWHAHAHA! I believe your numbers are closer, but I didn’t take the time to find any better data. It has been many years since I did any LUST work, but I always remember the people that complained about cleaning up their leaks because they were breathing benzene every time they filled their car up. I did a little better research and found this:
“overall average reported benzene levels are expected to decrease from 1.05 volume percent (vol%) in 2007 to 0.59 vol% in 2015”
http://www.epa.gov/oms/regs/toxics/420r08022.pdf
As for the toxicology of benzene, I agree I would much rather breath a little than drink a little. I did notice when I Googled that there were a few studies of service station attendants versus benzene exposure.
There is no good reason for the natural gas industry in Pennsylvania -- or anywhere else -- taking any sort of a hit.
Fracking has been a common oil patch practice in Texas during the fifties.
And, aside from a surface spill, the number of times a potable water source has been contaminated is: never!
Even surface spills don't happen any longer, since the industry has taken steps to contain such spills at the wellhead.
Fracking chemicals are injected into strata that are usually around 10,000 feet underground. Hydrocarbons have never bfound in association with potable water. And hydrocarbons and fracking chemicals don't migrate thousands of feet uphill to where potable water may be found.
This report is politically-motivated and without any scientific merit whatsoever. It is simply a ploy to discredit the industry and make hydrocarbon fuels even more expensive and in shorter supply in the USA.
Or, in a word, it's bullshit.
The fresh water table is 8-12,000 feet of impermeable rock, shale and chalk away from where the fracking is taking place.
In over fifty years of fracking history, no potable water source has ever been contaminated by the process.
Most telling statement on the board.
Looks like Waxman/Markey sense the "drill Baby drill" mantra is going to gain much steam in coming years and they're frantically trying to head it off whichever lying way they can.
That’s fantastic . Again there are trillions of cubic feet of methane off shore in middle of nowhere the ocean desert.
They are using Fresh water to pump down .
according to an investigation by Congressional Democrats
Whoops! Thanks Robert A. Cook, PE!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.