Sound Decisions Squelches Plan To Unveil Chemicals In Hydraulic Fracturing

May 27, 2010

Waxman Squelches Plan To Unveil Chemicals In Hydraulic Fracturing

In a rare instance where he sided with drillers over environmentalists, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman Wednesday squelched an amendment to proposed water safety legislation that would have imposed chemical disclosure requirements on hydraulic fracturing, saying he wanted to wait until a federal study is completed in 2012 on the groundwater impacts of the controversial procedure, which is vital to the booming shale gas industry.

Waxman’s action comes amid growing indications that the congressional Democrats and the Obama administration are counting on plentiful and cheap shale gas to provide a low-cost means for utilities to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by switching to cleaner gas-fired generation.

However, his move to quash the hydraulic fracturing amendment is somewhat surprising because it is sure to anger some environmentalists who say communities near shale gas fields are entitled to know what kind of chemicals drillers are injecting into the ground.

Indeed, Waxman himself has questioned what substances are used in hydraulic fracturing, and recently released information obtained from a few drillers showing they injected diesel fuel underground.

Waxman (D-Calif.) sidelined the hydraulic fracturing legislation during an Energy and Commerce Committee markup of the so-called “Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act” (H.R. 5320), a bill he introduced to reauthorize and boost funding for various Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) programs.

The amendment to the bill proposed by Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) would have required companies employing hydraulic fracturing to disclose to states—or to the Environmental Protection Agency in some cases—the chemical constituents used in the so-called “fracking” process.

Hydraulic fracturing involves injecting chemicals, water and sand into subsoil rock formations to open up cracks and seams, making it easier to suck out gas and oil.

DeGette’s amendment is similar to legislation she introduced with Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.)—whose district is near the red-hot Marcellus Shale—dubbed the Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals (FRAC) Act.

The industry says hydraulic fracturing, currently regulated at the state level through a patchwork of varying rules and regulations, is absolutely essential to developing the nation’s burgeoning shale gas resources and has been used safely for decades.

However, environmentalists charge that injecting additive-laced water underground has been shown to despoil groundwater and harm nearby crops and water bodies.

DeGette said her proposal was “reasonable” in that it would protect the proprietary formula of fracking fluids that each drilling services company uses and allow reporting to the states, which the industry says it prefers to federal regulation.

DeGette also said her amendment was critical in that hydraulic fracturing is currently only regulated in three states: Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. However, industry officials dispute that, citing at least 18 states that require various levels of reporting.

However, Waxman told DeGette her amendment was premature because EPA has just begun a two-year study of hydraulic fracturing that is far from complete. He noted that the committee’s subcommittee on oversight and investigations also has a study underway.

Waxman asked DeGette to drop her proposal, saying: “We need to learn more.

“I understand what the gentlelady is proposing,” he added. “Hydraulic fracturing is a technique that merits our attention. EPA is studying the technique’s effect on drinking water and, as you well know, this committee is conducting its own investigation.

“This is an issue that merits further consideration and now is not the right time for this change,” said Waxman.

However, Waxman recently released troubling information uncovered during the initial phase of a probe he launched into hydraulic fracturing.

Waxman in February said he received information from Halliburton Co., Schlumberger Ltd. and BJ Services Co. that shows that at least Halliburton and BJ Services continued to use diesel fuel in their fluids between 2005 and 2007 as well as xylene, benzene and other chemicals regulated under the SDWA because of their toxicity.

Waxman fired off letters to the companies as well as five smaller gas services firms seeking updated data on the types and volumes of chemicals the companies use in unconventional oil and gas production and information on how they dispose of their chemical-laden waste water.

While noting the key role of hydraulic fracturing in the development of massive U.S. shale gas resources, Waxman said in a statement at the time that the gas industry “must ensure we are not creating new environmental and public health problems.

“This investigation will help us better understand the potential risks the technology poses to drinking water supplies and the environment, and whether Congress needs to act to minimize those risks,” Waxman said.

DeGette agreed to drop her amendment, but said she plans to attach “compromise language” to H.R. 5320 before it reaches the House floor for a vote. DeGette said she did not see how her amendment would stand in the way of the studies.

“We have been contacted… in the last few days by several representatives of the oil and gas industry, which believes that there is compromise language that we can reach,” said DeGette.

“But based on the chairman’s request and these ongoing negotiations… I will be happy to withdraw my amendment at this time,” said DeGette.

Waxman said he was willing to work with DeGette and the committee’s ranking Republican, Rep. Joe Barton (Texas), on the compromise language in the coming days.

However, several GOP lawmakers on the committee hotly contested DeGette’s amendment, saying such a proposal is unnecessary. They expressed doubt about claims by green groups and some congressional Democrats that fracking fluids have been shown to leach into groundwater.

Barton said increasing federal oversight of hydraulic fracturing would be “detrimental” to the industry and that “states have done an outstanding job of regulating” the practice.


Views: 233

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Gene Water Recycler aka.PPC on May 27, 2010 at 7:43am
Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” refers to the process of injecting a mixture of materials (including water, sand, chemicals, and gases) into the ground at high pressures to extract oil and natural gas. The industry typically shortens the word to "fracing" but regardless the shale has need of additional items, which I address in http://www.gomarcellusshale.com/profiles/blogs/the-opportunity-of-m....

In a shallow well, “pre-Marcellus” a single fracking operation can require several thousands of gallons of water. This defers in comparison to slickwater fracs, which can each require injecting up to 1 million to 6 million gallons of water into shale gas formations. I have not heard of any 500 million gallon fracs that opponents often use as water used.

Your question about Texas, the Austin Chalk or in the slickwater fracs used in the Barnett shale, additives may include: friction reducers, biocides, surfactants and scale inhibitors. Hydrochloric acid is also used as part of the fracturing process.

Various health organizations have researched some of the chemicals used in oil and gas development in western states. While it is not known if the same chemicals are used in the shale fracs, the TEDX information can provide some background on the types of chemicals and claims anti-drilling groups associate with “typical” friction reducers, biocides, surfactants and scale inhibitors.

Thank you for your comment, I hope this addresses your thought.
Permalink Reply by Mike Kaschak on July 1, 2010 at 9:00pm
The chemicals used in the "fracing process" are well known and on the internet. I have a
copy at home on my desk. What is not known is the actual mixture, ie how much of each
chemical is used, as each company has its own propriatary mix and claims it works the best.
Drilling the cheapest way possible by Halliburton and Cabot did not help the situation. Nor would
dumping frac fluids on the ground. The drillers will have to be held accountable, not just fines,
and the landowner/public will have to keep a wary eye out.

Mike
Permalink Reply by Gene Water Recycler aka.PPC on July 7, 2010 at 9:30am
Thank you for reading and your reply.

I too have lists of items used and lists from laboratories, which have conducted tests. The industry doesn't dump anything on the ground. As a matter of fact, technologies for casing has advanced and installed or cemented properly so that pressure can reach the oil bearing formation, allowing for max enclosure of all fluids.

Did you happen to see the latest update on lists in Pennsylvania? State environmental regulators said Thursday they misfired in a bid to catalog chemicals used by the drilling industry to extract natural gas from the rich Marcellus Shale reserve.

Department of Environmental Protection spokesman Tom Rathbun said a list of chemicals provided to The Associated Press shortly after a blowout at a natural-gas well inadvertently included all chemicals used at well sites, not just those injected into wells.

"It was an effort to be transparent and give complete public disclosure, and unfortunately it didn't work out that way," Rathbun said.

A blowout at a well in a remote area about 90 miles northeast of Pittsburgh on June 3 shot explosive gas and polluted water as high as 75 feet into the air before crews were able to tame it more than half a day later. The gas never caught fire, and no injuries were reported, but state officials had worried about an explosion before the well could be controlled.

The AP wrote about the list of chemicals earlier this week.

Rathbun said the list includes chemicals that have other purposes, such as cleaning drilling equipment. Some are considered harmful to human health in large enough quantities, even though many are present in consumer products.

The department will continue to try to assemble a list of chemicals that are being injected underground, based on information the drilling companies are required to provide, Rathbun said.

Chemicals used in a drilling process called hydraulic fracturing are injected underground at high pressure to break up the shale some 5,000 to 8,000 feet down and prop open the cracks to allow the gas trapped inside to flow up the well to the surface.

Environmental advocates worry the chemicals are poisoning underground drinking water sources. However, department officials say they know of no examples in Pennsylvania or elsewhere.

Industry officials say the chemicals are heavily diluted by water, accounting for less than 1 percent of the fluid that is blasted underground.

The chemicals are used to reduce friction, kill microorganisms and break down mineral deposits in the wells. Various well services firms make different proprietary blends of the solutions and supply them to drilling companies, which blend them with water at the well sites before pumping them underground.

The companies typically keep the recipes of those solutions secret, but Rathbun said the department is seeking the approval of a new regulation it says would force the companies to disclose those recipes to the agency.

Among the chemicals on the list are naphthalene, toluene and xylene — although various industry representatives said this week that they are not aware of the chemicals' use in drilling.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classifies naphthalene as a possible human carcinogen. Toluene and xylene are linked by the federal government to central nervous system depression.

A list of 260 hydraulic fracturing chemicals compiled by the New York state Department of Environmental Conservation and included in the agency's proposed permitting requirements for drilling in the Marcellus Shale includes all three. The New York list was made public last September.

Some geologists believe the Marcellus Shale reserve, a hotly pursued gas formation primarily under Pennsylvania, West Virginia, New York and Ohio, could become the nation's most productive natural-gas field. There are more than 1,000 Marcellus Shale wells in Pennsylvania alone, some of them within view of homes, farmhouses and public roads.

The point is Natural Gas business is an environmental business, so called environmental advocates worry the chemicals are poisoning underground drinking water sources. However, department officials say they know of no examples in Pennsylvania or elsewhere.
Permalink Reply by Brian Oram, PG on September 18, 2010 at 7:26am
This is always a strange discussion. The chemicals are listed in the permit application and MSDS sheets are on-site, but there is a problem with making a list available. I can see having a problem with the "recipe", the specific ordering in the usage of the chemicals, but the list of chemicals.

Please
Oversight - oversight is going to come - it is best to be at the table, deal with problems that arise, and be proactive.
Permalink Reply by Gene Water Recycler aka.PPC on September 18, 2010 at 3:28pm
Brian, Thank you for your keen field insight. Oversight and being proactive are certainly jelling for the industry.
"Being at the table and deal with situations that arise", I find that key for all the parties.

Please check back.

RSS

© 2024   Created by Keith Mauck (Site Publisher).   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service