Flawed Report?
The 2004 EPA study is routinely used to dismiss complaints that hydraulic fracturing fluids might be responsible for the water problems in places like Pinedale. The study concluded that hydraulic fracturing posed “no threat” to underground drinking water because fracturing fluids aren’t necessarily hazardous, can’t travel far underground, and that there is "no unequivocal evidence" of a health risk.
But documents obtained by ProPublica show that the EPA negotiated directly with the gas industry before finalizing those conclusions, and then ignored evidence that fracking might cause exactly the kinds of water problems now being recorded in drilling states.
Buried deep within the 424-page report are statements explaining that fluids migrated unpredictably -- through different rock layers, and to greater distances than previously thought -- in as many as half the cases studied in the United States. The EPA identified some of the chemicals as biocides and lubricants that “can cause kidney, liver, heart, blood, and brain damage through prolonged or repeated exposure.” It found that as much as a third of injected fluids, benzene in particular, remains in the ground after drilling and is “likely to be transported by groundwater.”
The EPA began preparing its report on hydraulic fracturing in 2000, after an Alabama court forced the agency to investigate fracturing-related water contamination there under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Political pressures were also mounting for the agency to clarify its position on fracturing. The 2001 Energy Policy, drafted in part by the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, a former Halliburton CEO, noted that “the gas flow rate may be increased as much as 20-fold by hydraulic fracturing.” While the EPA was still working on its report, legislation was being crafted to exempt hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Before that happened, however, the EPA sought an agreement with the three largest hydraulic fracturing companies, including Halliburton, to stop using diesel fuel in fracturing fluids. Diesel fuel contains benzene, and such a move would help justify the report’s conclusion that no further studies were needed.
“Our draft is pending release,” a senior EPA official wrote to Halliburton’s counsel in an August 2003 email. “It would certainly strengthen our preliminary position not to continue studying the issue… if the service companies were able to remove diesel all together, or even move in that direction.”
In a subsequent meeting, an EPA official’s handwritten notes show that a Halliburton attorney asked federal officials: “are we willing to entertain regulatory relief in other areas; eg: fewer inspections?”
“Willing…,” was the reply from Tracy Mehan, then the EPA’s assistant administrator for water.
A Halliburton spokesperson declined to comment on this exchange.
The diesel agreement was signed. But according to the EPA, it isn’t legally enforceable and the agency hasn’t checked to see if diesel is still being used. Furthermore, the agreement applies only to fluids used in a specific kind of gas drilling, not all drilling across the United States.
Mehan did not return calls for comment about his negotiations. Roy Simon, associate chief of the Drinking Water Protection Division’s Prevention Branch at EPA headquarters in Washington says the “EPA still stands by the findings outlined in the (2004) report.”
But one of the report’s three main authors, Jeffrey Jollie, an EPA hydrogeologist, now cautions that the research has been misconstrued by industry. The study focused solely on the effect hydraulic fracturing has on drinking water in coal bed methane deposits, typically shallow formations where gas is embedded in coal. It didn’t consider the impact of above-ground drilling or of drilling in geologic formations deep underground, where many of the large new gas reserves are being developed today.
"It was never intended to be a broad, sweeping study," Jollie says. "I don’t think we ever characterized it that way."
Nevertheless, a few months after the report’s release, the sweeping 2005 Energy Policy Act was passed. Almost no attention was paid to the three paragraphs that stripped the federal government of most of its authority to monitor and regulate hydraulic fracturing’s impact on the environment. By default, that responsibility would now fall to the states.
“That pretty much closed the door,” said Greg Oberley, an EPA groundwater specialist working in the western drilling states. “So we absolutely do not look at fracking... under the Safe Drinking Water Act. It’s not done.”
See what we're tweeting about
56 Comments
Add Commentwow, was the epa doing anything useful between 2000 and 2008?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd bentonite is safe for groundwater?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this:::::Off topic here:::::
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't like industry secrets, both economically because it allows businesses to play the system and milk their profits while stiffling industrial progress due to protection from competition, and environmentally for all of the reasons mentioned in this article. Obama could do us all a great service by shortening patent term limits and limiting government protection to industries. Although, by that same token, Obama should limit government regulation of business economic policies for industry too (let them set their own prices and let the people decide when there is competition according to supply and demand).
I don't like government protectionism for industry secrets!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm excitedly waiting all the changes in technology and availability of vehicles in the near future!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://carwaterguide.blogspot.com
I think the issue here is that letting companies withhold information for the sake of profit; and at the expense of the safety of human beings, is outrageous. How is it that the government could let these people ruin the wealth and heritage of our lands and resources that is America? It is so wrong!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut to respond to what quantum_flux said about "limiting government regulation of business economic policies for the industry too (let them set their own prices and let the people decide when there is competition according to supply and demand)." Who is "these people" that are going to decide competition due to supply and demand? That would create monopolies that price gouge the competition and then set the sale of natural gas at what ever ridiculous price they want. It all sounds like an opinion where you would stand everything to gain.
Thank you Sciam for reporting this. It's not like any 24 hour cable news network would.
Drilling fluids are typically benign. Bentonite is a naturally occuring clay formed from volcanic ash. It's everywhere, but only occurs in a few places where it's thick enough to be mined. Other additives are lime for pH control and possibly something like walnut shells to control leaking into rock formations. You could drink the stuff if you really wanted to. In fact some people do. They are prescribed it by their "naturopath".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo story here other than another eco-romantic lack of understanding of underlying science.
If you removed government protection of trade secrets, or at least shortened patent limits, then that would prevent monopolies and encourage competition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCapitalists say "I'm going to build a shoe factory". Marxists say: " In our workers paradise we will build a bigger shoe factory and bury you with it" . Eco-romantics say "Nobody should have shoes".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI disagree with the authors premise you simply can not project the problems with frac- ing shallow gas wells to traditional deeper wells. I have lived in Gillette and was an engineer for Halliburton. Some homes were condemned due to gas explosions and this was long before any wells were drilled in that area. I think 'newly identified' is a little off the mark. How about 'newly exploited' as a suggestion. The well water is bad now as it was in the past. The water draw down to produce these wells is a bigger problem than what frac chemicals are used.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMost natural gas formations were once oil bearing formations - correct? So when you increase the surface area of a petroleum bearing formation. you don't end up with additional petroleum products being liberated into the eater column?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is surprising is the LACK of number of comments to this very important issue. I do understand the proprietary nature of drilling fluids but if EPA regulations mean anything at all, then surely this information is available to them. I suspect the EPA oversight is inversely proportional to the profit margin. Here, deals are made in suits, not overalls.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is surprising is the LACK of number of comments to this very important issue. I do understand the proprietary nature of drilling fluids but if EPA regulations mean anything at all, then surely this information is available to them. I suspect the EPA oversight is inversely proportional to the profit margin. Here, deals are made in suits, not overalls.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThre's nothing in your response but reactionism and a lack of underlying science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDrilling fluids are obvously not benign if people are keeling over dead from incidental contact. Sure, peanut hulls and plastic beads aren't bad, but the aromatic solvents and ferocious etching agents like Hydrofluoric Acid used to open up pores are nasty.
My question is why people like you, who support drilling, don't offer to fix the situation but rather insist on lawyering up and fighting tooth and nail ANY legitimate compromise.
Your stance is just as reprehenisble and irrational as any left wing environmentalist.
"Most natural gas formations were once oil bearing formations - correct? So when you increase the surface area of a petroleum bearing formation. you don't end up with additional petroleum products being liberated into the eater column?"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, you obviously don't understand petrology well. Natural gas forms when the temperature is higher, favoring lighter molecular weight alkanes.
The gas in this case is coming out of coal seams and gas-rich shales that typically overlie the thin coal seams. The environment that transformed the kerogen into gas did not favor oil at all.
Also, if anything escaped out of the anticline (likely gas), it did so MILLIONS of years ago, far too long ago to be affecting the aquifer now.
If drilling fluids are benign then why do i sometimes get evacuated when mixing off the sumps from drilling rigs , and why does some of what they spill get hauled away to special contamination sites ? Most of the fluids they work with are cancer causing agents that are now in our ground water.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDifferent species of animals are disappearing here due to gas and oil drilling , i speak to some of the researchers, i suppose when they're all dead someone might do something about it , like raise the price of gas ! The government warns us not to hunt animals from areas near contaminated sites because the animals are contaminated too.
It kills the wildlife but yet it must be okay for people to drink it ? I've worked in the oil and gas industry for over 20 years and when it comes to cutting corners they'll do it way out in the bush where nobody knows about it. I've seen terrible things be done but can't speak about them for fear of my job and my life.
I'm not sure where some of you people get your facts from but i suggest you do some homework. There is enough free energy in this world without having to burn gas in the first place , so what this all comes down to is the rich boys on the block don't give a shit what damage they cause to the world as long as they get their money out of us . They probably own the drug companies that pump us full of meds to try and cure cancer etc. so they win both ways.
People are getting fed up with things here to the point that they're setting off bombs near gas wells . Did you read that in your morning paper ?
I have enough evidence filmed on camera to state what i'm saying is true , and i will be releasing it to the public once i have the time to finish it. Wonder what my little movie will be worth not to publish to the public ?
If drilling fluids are benign then why do i sometimes get evacuated when mixing off the sumps from drilling rigs , and why does some of what they spill get hauled away to special contamination sites ? Most of the fluids they work with are cancer causing agents that are now in our ground water.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDifferent species of animals are disappearing here due to gas and oil drilling , i speak to some of the researchers, i suppose when they're all dead someone might do something about it , like raise the price of gas ! The government warns us not to hunt animals from areas near contaminated sites because the animals are contaminated too.
It kills the wildlife but yet it must be okay for people to drink it ? I've worked in the oil and gas industry for over 20 years and when it comes to cutting corners they'll do it way out in the bush where nobody knows about it. I've seen terrible things be done but can't speak about them for fear of my job and my life.
I'm not sure where some of you people get your facts from but i suggest you do some homework. There is enough free energy in this world without having to burn gas in the first place , so what this all comes down to is the rich boys on the block don't give a shit what damage they cause to the world as long as they get their money out of us . They probably own the drug companies that pump us full of meds to try and cure cancer etc. so they win both ways.
People are getting fed up with things here to the point that they're setting off bombs near gas wells . Did you read that in your morning paper ?
I have enough evidence filmed on camera to state what i'm saying is true , and i will be releasing it to the public once i have the time to finish it. Wonder what my little movie will be worth not to publish to the public ?
I love hearing from conspiracy theorists and eco-romantics. Science be damned, they want their manifestos spread.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe oil and gas industry in Canada spent $3 billion protecting the environment last year, more than any other industry or government. The fact of the matter is that farmers create far more ecological havoc and damage through their use of chemicals, fertilizers and grazing of animals. A case in point is dust abatement. A farmer can spread used motor oil on the road in front of his his house to keep dust down and no problem. If an oil company did the same thing, it would spark a major incident, creating a massive issue and huge expenses for environmental remediation. How's that for a double standard?
BTW, there is no such thing as free energy. The laws of thermodynamics prevent it.
Another thing that people fail to understand is that all manners of hydrocarbons and nasty gases exist naturally in varying amounts in nature. Oil seeps, gas in water pipes and oily sheens on well water do not ncessarily indicate that an oil company has been up to nefarious work. The Gulf of Mexico has oil slicks that can be easily seen from the air, but these are naturally occuring, not man made.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's not just that. They use the example of Coca-Cola's trade secret, hello! You can test Coke and determine it's ingredients and any potential toxicity because it's in a handy can, widely available for human consumption. This drilling fluid is made and held-privately by Haliburton injected into the earth and dispersed widely through the ground (and potentially the water table). I mean come on, it's apples and oranges!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere ARE forms of "free energy" and they don't have to involve thermodynamics. I have been working on a little idea myself and it IS a form of free energy. I won't say what my idea is because it's MY idea and i don't intend to let just anyone run with it. Our form of energy in fossil fuels is just all we really know. A form of free energy is wind. so to say there is no such thing as free energy is just ignorant. It is just that as humans we don't understand how to utilize these forms of FREE energy as a mode of transportation. We fail to "think outside the combustion engine". Even water could be considered a form of free energy. Not a powerful one. but still a form of energy. ever heard of a watermill? How is that not free energy? the water powers the mill and returns back to the source. I am not promoting water powered cars. I just wanted to point out that thermodynamics is not everything. There are other forms of energy that do not change forms. "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms." This is the first law of thermodynamics. Water, wind, and solar heat do not change forms in order to create work. Which would according to thermodynamics- make them forms of "free" energy. Energy does not always require consumption. Energy is the capacity of a system to perform work. That is the definition of energy. And not all systems are the same. Some have a larger or smaller capacity. Some have an infinite capacity and some are very limited. So to lump all forms of energy into thermodynamics is a terrible oversight.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe following is a direct response to this comment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere ARE forms of "free energy" and they don't have to involve thermodynamics. I have been working on a little idea myself and it IS a form of free energy. I won't say what my idea is because it's MY idea and i don't intend to let just anyone run with it. Our form of energy in fossil fuels is just all we really know. A form of free energy is wind. so to say there is no such thing as free energy is just ignorant. It is just that as humans we don't understand how to utilize these forms of FREE energy as a mode of transportation. We fail to "think outside the combustion engine". Even water could be considered a form of free energy. Not a powerful one. but still a form of energy. ever heard of a watermill? How is that not free energy? the water powers the mill and returns back to the source. I am not promoting water powered cars. I just wanted to point out that thermodynamics is not everything. There are other forms of energy that do not change forms. "Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms." This is the first law of thermodynamics. Water, wind, and solar heat do not change forms in order to create work. Which would according to thermodynamics- make them forms of "free" energy. Energy does not always require consumption. Energy is the capacity of a system to perform work. That is the definition of energy. And not all systems are the same. Some have a larger or smaller capacity. Some have an infinite capacity and some are very limited. So to lump all forms of energy into thermodynamics is a terrible oversight.
Shoshin...Also.. Saying farmers create more havoc on the environment than the gas/oil industry is just plain STUPID! When is the last time a farmer had an oil spill in the middle of an ocean? or a busted or leaky pipeline. Get real. Used motor oil on the road in front of his house? how does that compare to killing the thousands of lives in the ocean from an oil spill. there is no comparison. Have you forgotten about the car you drive? how much pollution does that create in addition to the millions of other cars on the road all day every day in every place on the face of the planet. I don't know if you've seen the smog over LA but I promise you it was not from tractors and animals grazing. The biggest causes are the operation of fossil fuel-burning power plants and automobiles that combust fuel. Combined, these two sources are responsible for about 90% of all air pollution in the United States. The industry SHOULD spend $3 billion to fix their mess considering they are most of the problem. and that still isn't enough. That is just Canada. And that really isn't much considering how much they make and the damage they've done... over how many decades? You are trying to prove a dead point. Give it up. You are wrong. I am no conspiracy theorist, and eco-romantic is just a BS term created by the opposition in an effort to sling mud back at its accusers, who point their fingers in the appropriate direction. It is a FACT that the industries burning fossil fuels is the biggest polluter. Do you read the news or just skim the headlines? Do you work for the industry? Don't you give a damn about your kid's future environment or standard of living? How can you argue in the favor of pollution and greed? Where do you get your statistics? Bill O'Reilly? You should read world news. foreign news. Because it seems like you are just making it up as you type.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKhameleo:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you walk to work every day? Have you ever been in a car/bus/airplane?
Ever even use a condom? Where do you think this stuff all comes from? Stop being naive and insulting. I grew up on a farm and the things that are considered envirnomentally OK would make your head spin.
The fact of the matter is that the pursuit of profit is not an evil thing; it has led to more people enjoying longer healthier lives. Maybe too many people granted, as overpopulation is now a major issue. I fail to see any virtue in burning our synthetic rubber soled shoes and tilling a garden patch in barefeet like my grandparents used to do.
Asto my news sources, check out climatedebatedaily.com It publishes both sides of the debate, not just one sided eco-romantic hand wringing.
Khameleo:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf there were actually any free sources of energy, people would be using them and would have started using them long ago. People fundamentally aren't dumb; if something's free, they're all over it.
This is clearly just another case of liberal tampering with free enterprise. Had the tree-huggers never gotten the public all excited about this environment nonsense, then the water would never have been tested and there would be no furore. People would shut up, drink their water, die a little earlier than otherwise--big deal. The corporate profits would be intact. Seen from this perspective, the EPA was just doing what it could to advance the interests of the people who gave President Bush his mandate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCapitalist:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe point you're missing is that all these people that live in natural gas heated homes live longer lives than the hunter-gatherer/peasants that burn wodd and cow crap for heat and cooking. For some strange, possibly self-loathing reason, the eco-romantics feel everyone should take a big step backwards to an earlier, simpler time when life was slower and a lot shorter.
To SciAm.com: do you think that the last 28 posts is reason enough to higher someone to review submitted comments? This is ridiculous....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat he means by "free energy" is renewable energy such as wind or solar that "freely" gives energy as long as the infrastructure (Windmills/solar panels) are produced and maintained. So 'Capitalist,' how would you feel if I started a company that sells baby food, only i want to make a larger profit margin by substituting certain ingredients with carcinogenic substances (just speculating) and it so happens that your daughter or son eats it. So what, who cares about your child 'Capitalist' people get cancer everyday! I have families to support with paychecks. Heck, i just love money so much that i'm willing to sell human lives down the river; you know, free enterprise, run the whole economy into the ground as long as you have something to gain. You, 'Capitalist,' are an AWFUL excuse of a person.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo Shoshin, eating crap food and carbonated beverages while being exposed to trace amounts of -viagra/vicadin and all the other pharmacueticals people flush down the toilet and into our drinking water i'm sure, increases everyones life span. Nobody except the manufactured "liberal elitest eco-romantics" that fox news has drilled into your head wants to go back to the stone age! The point your missing is that I, as a patriotic American don't want to see our country become a toxic garbage dump. People who do these things are RUINING the wealth and heritage of America, and if any of you think it's acceptable, than you guys can go join bin-laden and his cronies becuase poisoning American water sheds (potentaily Human drinking water) is Terrorism all the same. But then the American government will still probably give tax breaks to you free market pansies and have to bail you all out in your POS Hummers made by crap auto-companies. Maybe you scum should for stop living off executive welfare paid by my tax dollars!
I for one just want to fish in my nearby river once in a while without worry about how many i can consume since GE illegaly dumped PCB's into it, and now parents tell thier children to not even go near it. America is not about four white washed walls. I'm tired with people treating America like trash, you corporate welfare communists!
This is the worst case of abusive posts I've seen on a SciAm article. Grow up people!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI think that more study is needed. I think that the truth is likely somewhere between the two extremes. Childish temper tantrums don't accomplish anything.
Just a couple of things related to the posts that I wanted to comment on;
There is no "free" energy. Wind turbines cost big bucks and the break even is measured in decades. Same thing with solar, hydro and tidal.
Modern agro is filthy! Just look at Iowa where all of the water is contaminated from agro run off and has to be treated before consumption. That being said, it still does not change the fact that the world is one giant system that is seriously disturbed by petro fuel extraction. It doesn't matter if it is coal mining, oil pumping or natural gas extraction. All methods cause massive disruption to the geological status quo. The challenge is to balance the benefit to damage ratio. This is something the petrochemical companies have a proven track record of not doing and openly trying to avoid, even while it kills people.
This does not mean I want to sit in the dark or burn cow chips for heat. It does mean I want my children to live.
I'm pretty sure that Capitalist was being sarcastic. Use a dictionary if you don't know what that means.
I work on the rig captioned "Dirty RIg". The rig in the photo is one of the most modern and environmentally clean rigs in the world today, barely over a year old.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo say that Mr. Lustgarten has a clear agenda in this article is an understatement. To say that Mr. Lustgarten is lazy and one sided in his pursuit of the facts is irrefutable. He tries to portray the oil industry as one shrouded in secrecy and deciet and nothing could be further from the truth. The people who work on these rigs are outdoor oriented, they love the environment and would do nothing to destroy what they consider paradise. Many make their homes and raise their families here.
I am tired of the constant attacks on Halliburton. After 25 years in this industry, I know that they are one of the premier companies in cleaning up a formerly dirty industry, making it safer and more responsible for protecting our environment. Any company in an extremely competitive industry that has invested in decades of research has the right to protect proprietary formulations from competitors who could steal and duplicate it, that is a business's responsibility to those who are willing to invest in it and share in the risks of doing business.
Let me state for the record, when we drill through ground water bearing formations, we drill with fresh water and very few natural additives to protect the wellbore. When we drill the next section of the well to the payzone, we do not use benzene, nor is it used in the completion and stimulation phases of our work. What should have been honestly reported is that benzene is a naturally occuring substance and that these areas are geologically dynamic. I do not deny that benzene has been found in water wells, but the article fails to report that there are no other markers one would expect to find if this contamination was the result of hydraulic fracturing.
I have given my brother gift subscriptions to Scientific American and to see that this is what is passed off as credible journalism is no small disappointment. I would have to say that if this is what passes for peer reviewed journalsim then it is questionable if the truth will never be known by readers of Scientific American in any topic.
So Mr. Lustgarten, write your opinion piece peppered with a few facts to shroud your true agenda. Do not write about the numerous golden eagles, ospreys, antelope, deer, coyotes and diverse wildlife that live unmolested in our workplace. It's clear to me that the truth is not what you are after.
I also want to add that in Sublette County, Wyoming we are drilling anywhere from 9,500 feet to well over 13,000 feet. The surface section where non-saline, fresh water is found is always cased and cemented and isoloated from the oil and gas producing formations that are significantly deeper, which are also cased and cemented prior to perforation of the casing in productive formations. Casing is tested by regulation with a process called bond logging to insure the integrity of the casing and cement. This is essential for the safety of the people producing the well as well as protecting the integrity of other geologic formations. In the Colorado situation described, natural gas is typicaly 8,000 feet or deeper. Few domestic wells exceed 600 feet, those drilled deeper are prone to water quality issues due to naturally occuring elements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me stress again, we do not use benzene in any process of drilling, completing or producing a well.
Its true that there are a couple dozen well-known incidents of fracturing mishaps (the 1000 cases documented appear to span decades with varying degrees of closure), but as a percentage of the total number of wells in production (now estimated at 500,000), coupled with the 20,000 or so that are being drilled each month, the incident rate is less than one tenth of one percent and falling.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, fracturing is a common methodology. And yes, 90% of wells use this technology but what is not stated clearly is that 85% of these fractured wells do NOT use chemicals. They use what is termed slick water fracs which pressurizes fresh water with a small amount of biocide to prevent scaling. Thats it. The Halliburton-type chemical solutions are used in a low percentage of wells. Gas company executives that I spoke with say they routinely avoid chemical fracs due to cost and danger to workers. Only the very deep horizon challenges are candidates for chemical fracs, and even then the depth and drilling technologies involved make ground water contamination a remote possibility.
I consider myself an environmentalist. And I know that not all natural gas drillers are perfect citizens. Unsafe methods and material usage should be sought out by the EPA and local environment groups. But I think this article is attempting to go beyond science and enters the world of environmental politics. There is no balance of findings to acceptable risk and details are omitted in order to lead the reader to an improper conclusion.
Bottom line: There are always going to be risks. Driving your car is a risk (45,000 fatal auto accidents and over 100,000 disabled each year but daily we each accept that risk). Well-to-well, the risks of drinking water being impacted by natural gas fracturing is extremely minor compared to other energy recovery methods indeed minor compared to walking across the street. The EPA was correct in excluding fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water act.
I realize that those that few that are injured do not find this risk acceptable. But there are right ways and wrong ways to regulate and police industry. I suggest as a precaution - that all frac-chemical producers, such as Halliburton, be required to put markers in their products (different for each customer). Much like the markers required in explosives, fertilizers, and such, such chemical markers could end the finger pointing and proprietary arguments as well as limit litigation costs, lower insurance rates and have a self-regulating effect on drillers.
Those markers are already present.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBentonite is a naturally occuring clay. It has been in contact with ground water since the beginning of time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately for Oil Rig Hand, he and others may not be aware that cancer-causing benzene is one of many hazardous substances to which we may be exposed without our knowledge or consent. Check out the Hazardous Materials Summary in the Final EIS for the Pinedale Anticline (the field in which he works) here on page 5: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA/pfodocs/anticline/fseis.Par.69341.File.dat/13App12.pdf and see that benzene is indeed listed as a gelling agent in fracturing fluids. It doesn't matter that we all live and work here, and do not intentionally harm our environment. What matters is that there are many ways in which contamination could have occurred and could continue to endanger our groundwater, and so far neither BLM nor the Wyoming DEQ has a preventative plan in place. What matters is that most of us in Sublette County get our water from a private well, and current studies imply that aquifers could communicate, both horizontally and vertically. We're all in danger. Rather than shooting the messenger, perhaps Rig Hand should think about how to cooperate with others in his community to create a preventative water quality plan and work to clean up the ~90 water wells already contaminated. Then he can be truthful about his love for the environment. And by the way, the eagles, pronghorn and ospreys were here for centuries before the gas patch was drilled eight short years ago. To assume they will continue to tolerate this intrusion and will remain is to ignore the scientific wildlife studies currently underway.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeveral things: 'Glass half empty first'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust how many of these 'E.P.A. Officials' - who Pass the Buck so effectively - have stepped out of a Corp. Job, and into their Gov. Reg. Job, through the imfamous 'Revolving Door'? Just how much Enviromental Damage - other than the CO2 (23% less of it or otherwise) - will we endure, before every Wy. Rancher realizes that there's enough Wind in Wy. to end this CRAP - NOW?!? These incidences just prove that 'Bad Karma' - like Hatered - begets more 'Bad Karma'. Join WE - with Al G. & ME!
Now, the glass half full part; though I HATE to sound like a Devils Advocate for Cheney, et al. (Note; The U.A.E. bought Haliburton - so they could never start an Oil War again!)
I lived on a Farm in S.E. Nebraska in the early 80's; when the level of the Ogalalla Aquifer - which our Well tapped into - was starting to drop like a rock.
Though it had once ran clear and sweet; the Taps had begun to 'spit out' chunks of Tar, and smelled exceedingly Evil; which led us to have ot import water - and even to seek other places to bathe.
There is a lot of Oil - and wells tapping into it - in that part of Ne.; so I assumed that the Well must have been tapping ionto a 'salt dome' and that there must have been a 'cap' of Oil and Gas at the top of the formation; and that, as the Level had dropped, our well had begun to tap into it.
It never exploded - or made us nausious; but only just barely!
In fact, I often thought that the run-off from the Cow Corral looked more potable than the stuff coming out of the Tap!
I believe that the Gas Industry is only partly to blame for all of this; since ALL OF US have 'sinned the sin' of complacency, reagarding renewables and the deadliness of Petroleum Derivatives (in everything!), for far too long!!!
Thanks SciAm; I LOVE YOU!!!
Several things: 'Glass half empty first'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust how many of these 'E.P.A. Officials' - who Pass the Buck so effectively - have stepped out of a Corp. Job, and into their Gov. Reg. Job, through the imfamous 'Revolving Door'? Just how much Enviromental Damage - other than the CO2 (23% less of it or otherwise) - will we endure, before every Wy. Rancher realizes that there's enough Wind in Wy. to end this CRAP - NOW?!? These incidences just prove that 'Bad Karma' - like Hatered - begets more 'Bad Karma'. Join WE - with Al G. & ME!
Now, the glass half full part; though I HATE to sound like a Devils Advocate for Cheney, et al. (Note; The U.A.E. bought Haliburton - so they could never start an Oil War again!)
I lived on a Farm in S.E. Nebraska in the early 80's; when the level of the Ogalalla Aquifer - which our Well tapped into - was starting to drop like a rock.
Though it had once ran clear and sweet; the Taps had begun to 'spit out' chunks of Tar, and smelled exceedingly Evil; which led us to have ot import water - and even to seek other places to bathe.
There is a lot of Oil - and wells tapping into it - in that part of Ne.; so I assumed that the Well must have been tapping ionto a 'salt dome' and that there must have been a 'cap' of Oil and Gas at the top of the formation; and that, as the Level had dropped, our well had begun to tap into it.
It never exploded - or made us nausious; but only just barely!
In fact, I often thought that the run-off from the Cow Corral looked more potable than the stuff coming out of the Tap!
I believe that the Gas Industry is only partly to blame for all of this; since ALL OF US have 'sinned the sin' of complacency, reagarding renewables and the deadliness of Petroleum Derivatives (in everything!), for far too long!!!
Thanks SciAm; I LOVE YOU!!!
Several things: 'Glass half empty first'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust how many of these 'E.P.A. Officials' - who Pass the Buck so effectively - have stepped out of a Corp. Job, and into their Gov. Reg. Job, through the imfamous 'Revolving Door'? Just how much Enviromental Damage - other than the CO2 (23% less of it or otherwise) - will we endure, before every Wy. Rancher realizes that there's enough Wind in Wy. to end this CRAP - NOW?!? These incidences just prove that 'Bad Karma' - like Hatered - begets more 'Bad Karma'. Join WE - with Al G. & ME!
Now, the glass half full part; though I HATE to sound like a Devils Advocate for Cheney, et al. (Note; The U.A.E. bought Haliburton - so they could never start an Oil War again!)
I lived on a Farm in S.E. Nebraska in the early 80's; when the level of the Ogalalla Aquifer - which our Well tapped into - was starting to drop like a rock.
Though it had once ran clear and sweet; the Taps had begun to 'spit out' chunks of Tar, and smelled exceedingly Evil; which led us to have ot import water - and even to seek other places to bathe.
There is a lot of Oil - and wells tapping into it - in that part of Ne.; so I assumed that the Well must have been tapping ionto a 'salt dome' and that there must have been a 'cap' of Oil and Gas at the top of the formation; and that, as the Level had dropped, our well had begun to tap into it.
It never exploded - or made us nausious; but only just barely!
In fact, I often thought that the run-off from the Cow Corral looked more potable than the stuff coming out of the Tap!
I believe that the Gas Industry is only partly to blame for all of this; since ALL OF US have 'sinned the sin' of complacency, reagarding renewables and the deadliness of Petroleum Derivatives (in everything!), for far too long!!!
Thanks SciAm; I LOVE YOU!!!
Several things: 'Glass half empty first'
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust how many of these 'E.P.A. Officials' - who Pass the Buck so effectively - have stepped out of a Corp. Job, and into their Gov. Reg. Job, through the imfamous 'Revolving Door'? Just how much Enviromental Damage - other than the CO2 (23% less of it or otherwise) - will we endure, before every Wy. Rancher realizes that there's enough Wind in Wy. to end this CRAP - NOW?!? These incidences just prove that 'Bad Karma' - like Hatered - begets more 'Bad Karma'. Join WE - with Al G. & ME!
Now, the glass half full part; though I HATE to sound like a Devils Advocate for Cheney, et al. (Note; The U.A.E. bought Haliburton - so they could never start an Oil War again!)
I lived on a Farm in S.E. Nebraska in the early 80's; when the level of the Ogalalla Aquifer - which our Well tapped into - was starting to drop like a rock.
Though it had once ran clear and sweet; the Taps had begun to 'spit out' chunks of Tar, and smelled exceedingly Evil; which led us to have ot import water - and even to seek other places to bathe.
There is a lot of Oil - and wells tapping into it - in that part of Ne.; so I assumed that the Well must have been tapping ionto a 'salt dome' and that there must have been a 'cap' of Oil and Gas at the top of the formation; and that, as the Level had dropped, our well had begun to tap into it.
It never exploded - or made us nausious; but only just barely!
In fact, I often thought that the run-off from the Cow Corral looked more potable than the stuff coming out of the Tap!
I believe that the Gas Industry is only partly to blame for all of this; since ALL OF US have 'sinned the sin' of complacency, reagarding renewables and the deadliness of Petroleum Derivatives (in everything!), for far too long!!!
Thanks SciAm; I LOVE YOU!!!
I didn't get your reference; is it that 'Bentonite' kinda sounds like 'Benzine'?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf that's the case, the GoTo; www.ask.usgs.gov., and enter Bentonite - I did, and it doesn;t have anything to do with Benzine; though, like many 'Clays', it is - assumedly - impermiable to water, etc., and is probably present in the 'capping' formations of many Aquifers - which themselves are almost always 'capped' by some amount of Oil and then Gas, in a 'layer cake' type manner.
See my Post about our well in NEs' Oily S.E.; it's a 'case in point' about why ALL OF THIS kind of activity is BAD.
Think WIND! Think Tidal! Join WE - with Al Gore, and ME!
P.S.: If your a Shoshone; don't f**k your Mother (Mother Earth, that is) for any more of the White Mans Money! They (actually, We) don't even back it up with 'Yellow Metal' anymore! I've been talking to A.I.M. (who I once worked for, at a Casino; it was 'fun' to watch Farmers paying YOU back for all those Buffalo - I just hope it wasn't their Seed Money) about compensating some of the poorer Tribes (like The Crow) with Casino Money - so that you can avoid giving in to such Evil Temptations!
By the way; my Computer and I seem to have the 'Hiccups' - so I'm sorry for the multiple 'Glass Half Empty/Glass Half Full' posts! My Bad!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWatchdog,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI must not have been clear enough. We don't use benzene for the very reason you state, it is a carcinogenic. Why use benzene when we have other safer organic compounds that are more effective? Probably the only really hazardous material used anymore is sodium hydroxide- caustic soda, but that is used in dilution to balance the pH of drilling fluids. How deep is your groundwater?
The Jonah Field was discovered in the 70's. I watched an antellope give birth on my well location this summer. June 20th to be exact. Sorry, these animals are supposedly adaptable to the activities of wolves, they are equally adaptable to the activities of men.
I'm excitedly waiting all the changes in technology and availability of vehicles in the near future!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this__________________________________________________
http://carwaterguide.blogspot.com
it's has review many sites like gas for free,run your car on water etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can truly get better mileage...... http://carwaterguide.blogspot.com
Rig Hand asks a very good question: why use carcinogenic substances for hydraulic fracturing when there may be more benign substances that are just as effective? Only Halliburton knows the answer to that one. I'm sure that Rig Hand and his crew do not intentionally use benzene for drilling, yet it is obviously associated with natural gas development, and a concern for our groundwater (some call it the next oil). That's all this article is saying. Natural gas is actually a dirty fuel, and until we begin to transition to cleaner fuels and sources of energy, benzene and other carcinogens will always be a concern for human health. Here on page 18 is a map of all water wells contaminated with hydrocarbons under the Pinedale Anticline Natural Gas Field in Western Wyoming: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/field-offices/pinedale/pawg/2008.Par.55477.File.dat/HydrogeologicConceptualModel_appa.pdf.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaliburton's hydraulic fracturing would impact millions of acres in 1/3 of New York State, 2/3 of Pennsylvania, about 1/4 of Ohio, a large portion of West Virginia, and parts of Maryland and New Jersey, as well as any waterways in the Delaware or Susquehanna watersheds. It is immense and under-reported as people have been taught to believe that natural gas is a clean fossil fuel It may burn clean, but this new process is extremely destructive. The more research I do, the greater are my concerns.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis process endangers the aquifers in the Delaware and Susquehanna watersheds, as well as the drinking water for New York City. The process would use precious water resources, while creating millions of gallons of turbid and toxic waste as well as bringing to the surface radioactive uranium and pyrite. Endocrinologists are concerned about higher rates of infertility, brain damage, and autism. We must prevent permitting wells in the Marcellus Shale. Contact the New York Department of Environmental Conservation with your comments before Dec 15. Please help. Here is an easy way to get a comment to the NYSDEC, if you dont have time to write your own letter. Just go to the following link and take action instantly:
http://www.delawareriverkeeper.org/takeaction/urgent-action.asp?ID=58&cat=Water%20Quality%20Threat&subcat=Gas%20Drilling
Endocrinologists would not agree with your theory. Try looking at evidence. Here's an article that is just one example of the seriousness of this issue:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.postindependent.com/article/20050415/VALLEYNEWS/104150012
Hi, I am an MBA student, and have been asked to reply to the following ethics question. I'd love some reactions!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"if you were a senior manager at Halliburton or another large, domestic natural gas drilling company that used hydraulic fracturing, how would you evaluate whether your company had a responsibility to disclose to the public (including government regulators) the identity and concentration of chemicals that your company uses in hydraulic fracturing activities?
I am an MBA student and have been given the following question : "if you were a senior manager at Halliburton or another large, domestic natural gas drilling company that used hydraulic fracturing, how would you evaluate whether your company had a responsibility to disclose to the public (including government regulators) the identity and concentration of chemicals that your company uses in hydraulic fracturing activities? "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny responses???
Has anyone done any research on what fracing companies do with the radioactive material that comes up as waste? I would be really interested to know as I believe that this is a critical question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven if you know what is being used, who can afford to test for fracking chemicals? Fracking chemicals are expensive to test for. Natural gas drillers should foot the bill for water tests!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee videos where fracking chemicals are shown, who has the bucks to test for what you see?
http://www.youtube.com/user/clearvilletimes
Sir, Would you like to drink a glass of water which was drilled near a horizontal well which used fracking chemicals? The foam appeared as suds in a spring fed fish pond, prewater tests showed no fracking chemicals. Let me know when you are ready to drink 8 glasses of the water which has not been tested for fracking chemicals. We know the problems with fracking chemicals, they destroyed our property so don't say it doesn't happen. Every home near horizontal hydraulic fracturing had changes in their water after drilling. Those changes did not fall out of the sky. We saw Halliburton experts at work getting to the target. Fracking chemicals cause algae in the water such as the surfactants! You are an engineer, you know the chemistry effects. Our water was not bad, it had prewater tests so make sure you remember those who know what fracking chemicals can do and have done. See Dimrock, Hickory, PA and now Clearville, PA plus all the untold fracking pollution stories.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScam artists have destroyed our environment. The creative government officials exempted fracturing chemicals and everything else which would stand in the way of their portfolio adventures. Big business is better known as big government. How do you stop the pollution when those in control made it legal? Government has been stealing natural gas resouces for years and found better ways to get more of the pie with exemptions for obstacles. Look at gas storage fields which are now federal public utilities which was masterfully planned in 2005. They take whatever they want and plan for their future such as buying the largest pure water aquifer in the world in Argentina...known as the Parguary water aquifer. Purchaser was the Bush Family. So it doesn't matter if it is republican or democrat, there is a plan to rob and destroy. The culprit is government as they destroy the environment for the future. Keep up the fight. It is unlikely one can ever obtain pure clean air, water and soil which they have already planned for themselves such as the former Bush administration. America is waking up to polluted air, water and soil. Health costs will be on the rise. Polluters legally reap their treasures, protected by those agencies who say they care but cross us off their list, place us in file 13. Thanks for your efforts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy mother and her neighbors thought it was a good idea to lease their front yards to the first company that gave them an offer to lease parts of their property to these greedy vultures. Without knowing all the facts, they signed their rights away.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow they have had other offers and can not accept an offer from anyone else and their in limbo. These companies just feed you a line to get what they wanty because of GREED!!!!!!
Just take a look at the gulf coast.
Just curious if the Oil and Gas industry is performing these operations under safe and environmentally friendly operations then why do they not want to comply with the clean water act and other environmental regulations (air emissions)? Why should this Fracturing process be exempt from regulations that help keep the air we breathe and the water we drink safe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand keeping proprietary information secret, but it should be disclosed to an oversight group that independently verifies that the chemicals and the processes are safe for the environment.
I also work in the oil and gas industry and we pride ourselves on the safe operations of our pipeline but I have heard first account stories that not all processes in the oil in gas business are concerned with the safety of the environment in which they operate. Many are only concerned with the $$$$ and without strict regulations and oversight we are just asking for irreversable environmental damage.
I don't know about you but I'd rather pay a little more for energy and ensure next generations have clean air and water than allow questionable drilling operations to go without oversight.