Hydraulic Fracturing

  • | | | | | | | |

    Dimock, PA Among Likely Locations for EPA Study of Hydraulic Fracturing

    A critical component in the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) plan to study hydraulic fracturing is where they will conduct case studies. Starting on page 42 of the draft proposal, we find out.

    There were 48 proposed locations suggested to the EPA, from which they will select between five and eight locations. We know five likely locations right now, and two of those are in the Marcellus Shale region—the other three are in other shale formations around the country.

    Read More “Dimock, PA Among Likely Locations for EPA Study of Hydraulic Fracturing”

  • | | | |

    Supposed “First Claim” Filed in New York Alleging Water Contamination from Hydraulic Fracturing Gas Drilling

    UPDATE: The headline and assumptions made for this article were based on lack of information and misinformation. The wells drilled by Anschutz were not hydraulically fractured, and the Trenton Black River formation is a limestone formation, not shale as stated in the law firm’s press release. Please see this article for more details: Anschutz Exploration Responds to Lawsuit Claiming Drilling Operations Contaminated Water Wells in Big Flats, NY.

    A New York City personal injury law firm has filed a claim on behalf of nine families located in the Elmira, NY area against Anschutz Exploration Corporation, alleging that Anschutz contaminated their drinking water from natural gas drilling activities. The Anschutz drilling is in the Trenton Black River shale formation, not the Marcellus. So why is this news item included in MDN? Because it involves hydraulic fracturing of horizontally drilled natural gas wells, the same method used for drilling in the Marcellus. The Trenton Black River formation is about 10,000 feet down, the Marcellus “only” 5,000 feet down. So opponents of drilling will try to use this to paint all hydraulic fracturing, for any drilling (natural gas or oil, Marcellus or otherwise) as unsafe. Their aim is to ban the practice. The aim of the law firm is to shake down a drilling company and get as much cash as they can. The aim of the families affected is to get safe drinking water. Everyone has an agenda.

    Read More “Supposed “First Claim” Filed in New York Alleging Water Contamination from Hydraulic Fracturing Gas Drilling”

  • |

    Federal EPA Releases Plan to Study Hydraulic Fracturing–Study’s Conclusions Won’t be Ready until 2014

    The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking another run at regulating natural gas drilling in the United States by the back door with its claim that hydraulic fracturing “may” endanger water supplies. To know for sure whether or not hydraulic fracturing is “safe”—even though by its own admission more than 35,000 wells are now hydraulically fractured each year in the U.S.—the EPA will conduct the mother of all studies. The first step in the process is to create a plan for how the study will be conducted. We now have that plan.

    Read More “Federal EPA Releases Plan to Study Hydraulic Fracturing–Study’s Conclusions Won’t be Ready until 2014”

  • |

    Hydraulic Fracturing Used in North Dakota Oil Fields Gives that State the Lowest Unemployment Rate in the Nation

    Horizontal hydraulic fracturing not only benefits natural gas drilling, but also oil drilling in places far outside the Marcellus, like North Dakota, where the method has revived declining oil fields.

    Read More “Hydraulic Fracturing Used in North Dakota Oil Fields Gives that State the Lowest Unemployment Rate in the Nation”

  • | | | |

    Hydraulic Fracturing Used in Ohio for More Than 40 Years, Thousands of Wells Drilled Without Incident

    Last night a crowd of more than 500 turned out in Ravenna (Portage County), Ohio to hear details about the oil and gas industry in OH, specifically about hydraulic fracturing (for “fracking”) and its current use in both oil and natural gas drilling.

    Read More “Hydraulic Fracturing Used in Ohio for More Than 40 Years, Thousands of Wells Drilled Without Incident”

  • | | | |

    Maryland Lawmaker Proposes Legislation to Ban Drilling in that State

    It appears the constant drumbeat that hydraulic fracturing is evil (coming from extremist environmental groups) is having the desired effect. At least on Democrat state politicians. Now it looks like Maryland may ban drilling in the Marcellus Shale that runs under a tiny section of that state:

    Maryland state Del. Heather Mizeur (D-Montgomery County), is preparing legislation to ban drilling in the state until it is determined that it will not taint water. “We expect robust support,” she said. “The fuel source isn’t bad, we’re just concerned about the extraction method.”*

    *The Washington Post (Feb 6) – Maryland county caught up in fight over energy extraction method

  • | |

    Federal EPA Finally Starting Their Study on Hydraulic Fracturing, But Don’t Hold Your Breath on How Long it Will Take to Complete

    Lisa JacksonThe federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finally close to launching their much ballyhooed study on hydraulic fracturing, according the EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson. Jackson spoke before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee today.

    Read More “Federal EPA Finally Starting Their Study on Hydraulic Fracturing, But Don’t Hold Your Breath on How Long it Will Take to Complete”

  • |

    Update: State Regulators Dispute “Findings” of Congressional Democrats Concerning Diesel Fuel Used in Hydraulic Fracturing

    The Platts energy news service has already unearthed some problems with the statements made yesterday by Congressional Democrats Henry Waxman, Edward Markey and Diana DeGette that claim some energy services companies are injecting “millions of gallons” of diesel fuel into hydraulically fractured wells, violating the Safe Drinking Water Act. It seems (surprise!) some of the so-called facts they shared with the EPA are not quite accurate according to the agencies which actually regulate drilling in their states:
    Read More “Update: State Regulators Dispute “Findings” of Congressional Democrats Concerning Diesel Fuel Used in Hydraulic Fracturing”

  • | | | | | | | | | |

    Group of Investment Managers Target Drilling Companies Who Use Hydraulic Fracturing

    godfatherA group of investment managers who belong to an organization called The Investor Environmental Health Network have banded together (some might call it collusion) to put pressure on energy companies who engage in natural gas drilling by using hydraulic fracturing. Their aim? To stop fracking of course, but that’s not what they say in their press statement. They’re just little ‘ole investors encouraging companies to “do the right thing” …
    Read More “Group of Investment Managers Target Drilling Companies Who Use Hydraulic Fracturing”

  • | | | | |

    PA DEP Tests for Air Pollution at Gas Drilling Sites – Finds None

    The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) conducted air quality testing from August to October of 2010 at a number of natural gas drilling sites that use hydraulic fracturing in Susquehanna and Sullivan counties, including a Cabot Oil drilling site in Dimock, PA. The DEP looked for compounds associated with petroleum-based products that may have become airborne. They also looked for other compounds, like elevated levels of carbon monoxide and nitrogen dioxide.

    Read More “PA DEP Tests for Air Pollution at Gas Drilling Sites – Finds None”

  • | |

    Democrats Allege Halliburton and Others are Using Diesel Fuel in Hydraulic Fracturing, Asks EPA to “Do Something”

    Henry WaxmanPrepare for the deafening noise now being generated by the mainstream press echo-chamber against the decades-old method of natural gas drilling called hydraulic fracturing. The latest attack comes courtesy of three Congressional Democrats. Reps. Henry A. Waxman, Edward J. Markey, and Diana DeGette sent a letter today to Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson regarding the results of an investigation into the use of diesel fuel in hydraulic fracturing fluids.
    Read More “Democrats Allege Halliburton and Others are Using Diesel Fuel in Hydraulic Fracturing, Asks EPA to “Do Something””

  • | | | |

    The Burden of Proof that Hydraulic Fracturing Pollutes Water Supplies is with Those Who Oppose Drilling

    Those who oppose drilling for gas in the Marcellus Shale most often use the argument that harmful chemicals are pumped into the ground and therefore will find their way into surface water supplies. In meeting after meeting concerns about water are voiced most often. Those of us who support safe drilling have to patiently, methodically point out that of all the tens of thousands of gas wells that have been drilled in this country using hydraulic fracturing, there are no reported cases of chemicals finding their way from the well into ground water supplies. (Please! If you know of such a case, post the details in the comments.)

    Read More “The Burden of Proof that Hydraulic Fracturing Pollutes Water Supplies is with Those Who Oppose Drilling”

  • | | | | | | |

    List of 78 Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing Fluid in Pennsylvania

    UPDATE (July 6): It seems the list below is not completely accurate, as admitted by the PA DEP. The list below includes chemicals and substances stored on site (like diesel fuel and oil) that are not injected into the ground. MDN will furnish an updated list when it becomes available from the DEP.

    An earlier version of the list, provided by DEP to the Associated Press and published in newspapers throughout the state this week, purportedly included all of the chemicals used in Pennsylvania during the gas extraction process called hydraulic fracturing. Instead, it included not just the chemicals pumped deep underground but also those stored or used on a well site, including fuel for vehicles and brake fluid.

    “You can blame it on me,” Scott Perry, the director of DEP’s Bureau of Oil and Gas Management, said on Wednesday.

    The original list was a compilation of the chemicals identified on safety documents called material safety data sheets that hydraulic fracturing contractors must submit to the department, but he did not realize that it included substances the contractors use both above and below ground on a well site, he said. The second list was winnowed by a DEP chemist, who recognized that some of the chemicals on the initial list are not among those injected underground during the fracturing process.

    Of the 83 chemicals on the list published by the AP and the 78 on the list posted by the DEP, only 37 items are in common.

    Three compounds specifically addressed in the AP article because of the risks they can pose to human health – naphthalene, toluene and xylene – are not on the list of hydraulic fracturing chemicals DEP posted on its website on Wednesday.

    Scranton Times Tribune (July 1) – DEP shale chemical lists at odds over inclusion of above ground substances

    Original post from June 30…

    Using Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) from drillers, along with analysis of fracking fluid, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has released an updated list of 78 chemicals they say are found in fluids used by gas drillers in PA (called “fracking fluids”). MDN has obtained the list of 78 chemicals and reproduced it below. There is also a downloadable version at the end of this posting.

    There are many nasty chemicals in this list, no one disputes that. But here’s a few things to keep in mind:

    1. No one knows how much of these chemicals are being used by any given driller. We do know that fracking fluid is composed of less than one percent of the chemicals in this list, with water and sand making up the other 99 percent.
    2. When fracking fluid is pumped into the ground, the vertical hole down which it’s pumped is lined with concrete to protect surface water supplies from chemicals. The fracking fluid goes down some 5,000 feet to where it’s used to help break rock apart releasing the natural gas, and then most of the fluid is pumped back out again and carted away where it’s treated at a regulated and approved facility. For the fluid that stays behind, it’s down some 5,000 feet. That’s almost a mile of solid rock between where it sits and surface water supplies (which are located at about 300 feet). There’s no way any of that fluid will “seep up” into water supplies. And remember that most fluid is pumped back out again. So less than one percent of the fluid are chemicals from this list, and most of that comes out again, leaving behind a very very small amount of chemicals a mile below the surface and heavily diluted by water and sand.
    3. Compare the list below with the labels on the containers under your kitchen and bathroom sinks. You’ll find some of the same names on the labels.
    4. One last thing to keep in mind: No driller uses all of these chemicals. In fact, Range Resources has openly discussed what they use in their fracking fluid:

    Range Resources, which uses contractor Frac Tech for its fracing work, says its frac fluid additives are chosen from a list of only nine compounds — hydrochloric acid, methanol propargyl, polyacrylamide, glutaraldehyde, ethanol, ethylene glycol, alcohol and sodium hydroxide.*

    Chemicals Used in the Hydraulic Fracturing Process in Pennsylvania
    Prepared by the Department of Environmental Protection
    Bureau of Oil and Gas Management
    Compiled from Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) obtained from Inustry

    Updated June 10, 2010

    Chemical Product Name
    2,2-Dibromo-3-Nitrilopropionamide Bio Clear 1000/Bio Clear 2000/ Bio-Clear 200/BioRid20L/ EC6116A
    2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one X-Cide 207
    5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one X-Cide 207
    Acetic Acid Fe-1A Acidizing Composition/ Packer Inhibitor
    Acetic Anhydride Fe-1A Acidizing Composition
    Acetylene GT&S Inc./ Airco
    Alcohol Ethoxylated C12-16 NE-200
    Alkyl benzene sulfonic acid Tetrolite AW0007/ FR-46
    Ammonia (aqueous) FAW-5
    Ammonium Bifluoride ABF 37%
    Ammonium Persulfate AP Break
    Ammonium Bisulfite Techni-Hib 604/ Fe OXCLEAR/ Packer Inhibitor
    Ammonium chloride Salt Inhibitor
    Ammonium Salt (alkylpolyether sulfate) Tetrolite AW0007
    Amorphous silica TerraProp Plus/ Bituminous Coal Fly Ash ASTM C618
    Benzoic Acid Benzoic Acid
    Boric Acid BC-140/ Unilink 8.5
    Boric Oxide XLW-32
    Calcium Chloride Dowflake
    Calcium Oxide Bituminous Coal Fly Ash ASTM C618
    carboxymethylhydroxypropyl guar blend Unigel CMPHG
    Choline Chloride Clay Treat-2C
    Cinnamaldehyde ENVIROHIB 2001
    Citric Acid Ferrotrol 300L/ IC-100L
    Complex polyamine salt Clay Master-5C
    Crystalline Silica: Cristobalite  
    Crystalline Silica: Quartz Silica Sand/ / Atlas PRC/ Best Sand/ Bituminous Coal Fly Ash ASTM C618
    Cupric chloride dihydrate Ferrotrol 280L
    Cured resin LiteProp 125
    Cyclohexanes CS-2
    Dazomet ICI-3240
    Diethylene Glycol Scaletrol 720/ Scaletrol 7208

    d-Limonene

    MA-844W
    Enzyme GBL-8X
    EO-C7-9-iso-, C8 rich-alcohols NE-940/ NE-90
    EO-C9-11-iso-, C10-rich alcohols NE-940/ NE-90
    Ethoxylated Alcohol FRW-14/ SAS-2/ Flomax 50/ WFR-3B
    Ethyl Acetate Castle Thrust
    Ethyl Alcohol FAW-5/ Castle Shop Solv/ Dallas Morris
    Ethylbenzene NDL-100/ PARANOX/ Uniflo II
    Ethylbenzene NDL-100/ PARANOX/ Uniflo II
    Ethylene Glycol ENVIROHIB 2001/ ICA-2/ LEB 10X/ Scaletrol
    720/ Sceletrol 7208/ CC 300/ Clachek A/ Clachek
    LP/ Ironsta II B/ NCL-100/ BC 140/ NCL-100/
    Flomax 50/ NCL/ Scalehib 100/ Unihib O/ Unilink 8.5
    Formic Acid ENVIROHIB 2001
    Gluconic Acid Interstate ICA-2
    Glutaraldehyde Alpha 114/Alpha 125/ ICI-150
    Glycerol Bio Sealers
    Glycol Ethers ENVIROHIB 2001/AMPHOAM 75/ PARANOX/ Uniflo II/ Unifoam/ WNE-342LN
    Guar Gum PROGUM 19 GUAR PRODUCT/ Unigel 19XL/ Benchmark Polymer 3400/ WGA-15/ Unigel 5F
    Hydrochloric Acid Hydrochloric Acid (HCL)/ TETRAClean 542/ Muriatic Acid
    Hydrochloric Acid 3% – 35% Hydrochloric Acid 3% – 35%
    Isopropanol AFS 30 Blend/ FAC-1W/ FAC-3W/ MA-844W/ NE-23/ NE-940/ Flomax 50/ Tetrolite AW0007/
    FMW25 Foamer/ CS-2
    Isopropyl Alcohol NFS-102/ WFT-9511/ LT-32/ AR-1/ Flomax 50/ NDL-100/ Unibac/ Uniflo II/ Uniflo/ Unihib O/
    WNE-342LN
    Methanol

    AFS 30 Blend/ NE-200/ Activator Superset-W/ CI-14/ FAW-5/ GasFlo/ Inflo-250W/ LT-32/ NE-940/
    XLW-32/ Tetrolite AW0007/ FMW25 Foamer/ 40 HTL Corrosion Inhibitor/ NE 100/ HAI-OS Acid
    Inhibitor/ Unibac/ NE-90/ Packer Inhibitor

    Methyl Alcohol Clearbreak 400/ Super Surf/ Castle Shop Solv
    Methyl Salicylate Bio Sealers
    n-butanol AirFoam 311
    Nitrilotriacetamide Salt Inhibitor
    Phenolic Resin Atlas PRC
    Polyethylene Glycol NE-940/ EC6116A/ NE-90
    Polyethylene Glycol Mixture Bio Clear 2000/ Bio-Clear 200
    Polyoxylalkylene sulfate FMW25 Foamer
    Polysaccharide Blend GW-3LDF
    Potassium Carbonate BF-7L
    Potassium Chloride Dowflake
    Potassium Hydroxide B-9, pH Increase Buffer/ BXL-2
    Propargyl Alcohol CI-14/ HAI-OS Acid Inhibitor
    Propylene Glycol SAS-2/ WFR-3B
    Silica S-8C, Sand, 100 mesh/ Montmorillnonite clay
    Sodium Bicarbonate K-34
    Sodium Bromide BioRid 20L
    Sodium Hydroxide Caustic Soda/ ICI-3240/ BioRid B-71
    Sodium Persulphate High Perm SW-LB
    Sodium Xylene Sulfonate FAC-2/ FAC-3W
    Sulfuric Acid Sulfuric Acid
    Surfactants AFS-30/ GasFlo/ Inflo-250W
    Talc Adomite Aqua
    Tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)phosphonium sulfate Magnacide 575 Microbiocide
    Tetramethyl ammonium Chloride Clay Treat-3C
    Trimethyloctadecylammonium chloride FAC-1W/ FAC-3W

     

    Download Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing in PA list

    *Pittsburgh Business Times (June 30) – DEP releases new list of frac chemicals; used in Marcellus, other Pa. operations

  • | | | |

    New York Landowners Call to Action – Another Sneak Attack Bill in NY Legislature Attempts to Stop Drilling

    MDN received the following email from the Central New York Landowner’s Coalition encouraging New Yorkers who want to see gas drilling to get on the phone and call to express your opposition to (yet another) bill that would kill drilling in New York. MDN encourages those of like mind to call.

    LAST-MINUTE BILL NEEDS YOUR CALL
    SNEAKY “ANTI-GAS” BILL MUST BE STOPPED

    OPPOSITION’S ATTEMPT TO SNEAK A BILL THROUGH: NYS Senator Antoine Thompson has just introduced a bill to the NYS Encon Committee, which he chairs, that would ban any hydraulic fracturing activity in NYS for one year – which is certain to be followed up by subsequent moratoriums in future years. THIS BILL HAS THE SAME LONG-TERM AGENDA AS THE OTHERS AND IS NOT A COMPROMISE!!! If this passes, we can forget about leasing for years to come and we can be certain that any gas company who might be waiting for the DEC to release the SGEIS will give up & head elsewhere.

    WE HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL SO FAR: Our rally, emails and phone calls have derailed the bills that would all-out ban or impose a 2-3 year moratorium on gas drilling in NY. We can defeat this bill if we all work together! And with one full week left before the Albany Politicians go to summer recess, this week requires our biggest push ever.

    WE NEED 125 CALLERS FIRST THING MONDAY MORNING:
    Because it’s too late to email or write letters, your coalition committee will be calling and we need 125 additional callers after 9am on Monday to voice your opposition to this moratorium with us. The Encon committee meets Monday afternoon, so it is best if your call reaches them by then. WHEN YOU HAVE CALLED, EMAIL US AT chenangogas@gmail.com and let us know. We’ll keep the website updated with our tally for the day.

    HERE ARE THE NAMES WITH THE “TALKING POINTS” BELOW.

    Name
    Albany Phone

    Thompson, Antoine M.
    Ph: 518-455-3371

    Oppenheimer, Suzi
    Ph: 518-455-2031

    Schneiderman, Eric T.
    Ph: 518-455-2041

    Parker, Kevin S.
    Ph: 518-455-2580

    Serrano, Jose M.
    Ph: 518-455-2795

    Perkins, Bill
    Ph:518-455-2441

    Stewart-Cousins, Andrea
    Ph: 518-455-2585

    Foley, Brian X.
    Ph: 518-455-2303

    Marcellino, Carl L.
    Ph: 518-455-2390

    Leibell, Vincent L.
    Ph: 518-455-3111

    Johnson, Owen H.
    Ph: 518-455-3411

    Little, Elizabeth O’C.
    Ph: 518-455-2811

    Young, Catharine M.
    Ph: 518-455-3563

    Padavan, Frank
    Ph: 518-455-3381

    TALKING POINTS:

    POSSIBLE CONVERSATION: (Not everything below needs to be mentioned. The main thing is the first sentence!)
    “Good Morning (afternoon); I am calling to express my full opposition to the bill being presented by Senator Thompson to the Encon Committee further delaying safe Natural Gas Drilling in NY. Our New York State DEC has successfully monitored, studied and regulated hydraulic fracturing in our state for nearly 2 decades. In additional to this, they have put thousands of man hours into their current SGEIS which will make New York the safest state in our nation for natural gas development. Also, the federal EPA has already studied hydraulic fracturing on numerous occasions and has never found a single instance of underground water contamination by this drilling process. And with the current EPA study, there was never a federal consideration of a ban. This bill appears to be a mere political ploy to create an additional, needless moratorium before the DEC’s latest regulations are even being released. I am asking that you trust the scientists of the DEC who have already created a safe track record for drilling in NY. We have already been forced to wait 2 years so I respectfully ask that this committee not create needless long-term delays to this essential economic push for upstate NY.”

    Many additional talking points are posted on the website of the Joint Landowner’s Coalition (www.jlcny.org). Don’t worry about being eloquent – JUST CALL EVERYONE ON THAT LIST!! We can’t count on anyone else to call for us – you need to pick up the phone and do this for yourself, your family, your community and your state.

    Counting on YOU!

    Brian Conover