Hydraulic Fracturing

  • | |

    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

  • | |

    The Rank Hypocrisy of ‘American Rivers’ on the Marcellus Shale Drilling Issue

    You would have to be blind to have missed the recent announcement from American Rivers, a so-called conservation organization, that the Delaware River is this year’s #1 most threatened river from sea to shining sea in the good ole US of A. The announcement was picked up, according to Google, by no less than 349 news outlets and repeated, almost verbatim, from the American Rivers press release. Here’s how their press release of June 2 beings:

    The Upper Delaware River, the drinking water source for 17 million people across New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania is at risk from shale fracking for natural gas, a process that poisons groundwater and creates toxic pollution. This threat landed the Upper Delaware in the number one spot in America’s Most Endangered Rivers: 2010 edition.

    “Unless we stop the threat of rampant shale fracking, the drinking water for 17 million people across the Northeast will be threatened by toxic pollution,” said Rebecca Wodder, president of American Rivers. “We can’t let natural gas companies fatten their profits by putting our precious clean water at risk.”*

    Frankly, the press release is shot full of lies and the same tired scare tactics that anti-drillers find so effective: Drilling will poison your drinking water. Problem is, it doesn’t. But let’s not let the truth get in the way of a good press release! There is not one documented case of chemicals used in drilling a gas well poisoning ground water supplies across hundreds of thousands of hydraulically fractured wells. What is so mind-boggling is that one organization can create a press release airing nothing more than an opinion, and it gets picked up and run as “news” of an imminent threat across the entire country by the likes of Associated Press and CNN, repeated and amplified, until the general population believes the headline. The headline says the Delaware River is threatened—indeed the “most threatened” river in the entire country for 2010. Why? Because American Rivers doesn’t like gas drilling. It’s all manufactured news. In fact, it’s not really news at all.

    American Rivers is utterly hypocritical in identifying the Delaware River as “threatened.” To wit, in 2005, American Rivers named the Susquehanna River as the #1 most endangered river in the USA. This year? The mighty Susquehanna isn’t on the list at all. Here’s the thing—Marcellus gas drilling hasn’t even happened yet in the Delaware River basin. The Delaware River Basin Commission has not approved a single drilling permit anywhere in the watershed, even though plenty have been submitted. But there’s lots of Marcellus gas drilling going on in the Susquehanna River basin right now! So if gas drilling would be so dreadfully disastrous for the Delaware basin and the millions who get their drinking water from it, why isn’t it equally disastrous for the Susquehanna basin and the millions who get their drinking water from it? I’ll tell you why: Because gas drilling doesn’t pollute groundwater supplies of any kind—including rivers—and if American Rivers mentioned the Susquehanna (where drilling already exists) on this year’s list alongside the Delaware, it might raise some uncomfortable questions for them.

    So what’s really going on here? The people at the top of these so-called “environmental” organizations are trying to manipulate public opinion and stop drilling dead in its tracks. Also from the American Rivers press release:

    American Rivers called on the Delaware River Basin Commission to ban any shale fracking in the Upper Delaware watershed until a thorough study of impacts is completed and the pollution potential of shale fracking is fully documented and assessed.*

    Now we see the real agenda. Stop drilling, and if you can’t stop it, slow it down any way you can. There’s isn’t any evidence that natural gas drilling pollutes water supplies because such evidence does not exist. So instead, manufacture a scare with headlines in hopes you can buy time to figure out a way to get Congress to kill gas drilling for good.

    I can only speculate why anyone would not want cheaper, cleaner energy supplies that benefit everyone, but my guess is that the people running organizations like American Rivers have become so caught up in their philosophy of anti-fossil fuels of any kind, they’re willing to deny their fellow Americans the benefits of cheaper, cleaner energy because they (the self-proclaimed enlightened ones) think we (the great unwashed) should all be driving golf carts for cars and getting energy from wind mills. No thanks. Renewable energy is a part of our future, but it’s not a meaningful and substantial part of our present—and organizations like American Rivers just don’t get that. Don’t fall for their cynical manipulations.

    *American Rivers Press Release (June 2) – Upper Delaware Named America’s Most Endangered River

  • | | | | | |

    Gas Drilling & Compressor Plants in DISH, TX Not Poisoning Local Population

    Since February of this year, Mayor Calvin Tillman from DISH, Texas has visited—several times—the Marcellus Shale regions of New York and Pennsylvania, sponsored by groups like Shaleshock and other anti-drilling organizations. Mayor Tillman claims that his small town in Texas, north of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex area, has been contaminated by shale gas drilling. DISH is located in the Barnett Shale deposit. Some of the drilled gas wells are within the city limits, and others sit just outside of town. MDN attended one of Mayor Tillman’s presentations back in February and you can read about my impressions here. It’s a fair statement that Mayor Tillman has been a popular speaker for those opposed to drilling in the Marcellus Shale, drawing sizable crowds.

    One of the claims made by Mayor Tillman in his talks is that either local gas wells, or the compressor plants used to pressurize shale gas for area pipelines, or both is polluting DISH and its citizens. DISH is unusual in that there are 11 large pipelines in the DISH area, far more than normally found in a single location (the most in one area for shale gas that MDN is aware of). Odors are coming from the compressor plants, so it’s certainly not a stretch to think that if you can smell it, it may be polluting or causing harm. That was Mayor Tillman’s suspicion, so he used city funds to conduct environmental testing in the DISH area, and separately another organization performed a health “survey” of current and former DISH residents (for free). Problem is, both the environmental testing and the health survey were flawed in their methodologies, which casts doubt on the findings. So the Texas Department of State Health Services stepped in to do a scientific health study using blood and tissue samples.

    Agency officials collected biological samples from 28 Dish residents in late January to see whether levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in their blood were higher than those in the broader population. “We were looking to see whether a single contaminant or a handful of contaminants were notably elevated in many or all of the people we tested,” said Dr. Carrie Bradford, the toxicologist who led the investigation.*

    And what was the conclusion of the Department of State Health?

    Texas health officials found no connection between pollution from a natural gas compressor station in Dish, Texas and levels of toxins in the blood of people living nearby.*

    The new report from the Department of State Health Services says levels of benzene and other contaminants was no higher in Dish residents than in the nation’s population in general.**

    MDN wonders if the now less than credible Mayor Tillman will still be such a large draw when he comes calling again?

    *Elimra Star-Gazette (May 26) – Texas gas study finds no pattern of elevated toxins near compressor
    **Dallas Fort Worth – Channel 33 News (May 12) – DISH Report: No evidence gas well hurting residents of Dish, Texas

  • | | | |

    Steuben County, NY May Accept Marcellus Drill Cuttings in County Landfill

    Like neighboring Chemung County, NY, officials in Steuben County, NY are actively considering accepting Marcellus drill cuttings (leftover dirt and rock from drilling gas wells) in the county landfill. Drillers over the border in Pennsylvania are looking for a location to dump the cuttings. The debate over whether to accept drill cuttings always centers on whether there is radioactivity in the cuttings and if it will become a problem down the road when liquids leach from the landfill into groundwater supplies. Chemung County has done extensive research and finds the radioactivity levels to be very low—and safe. Chemung County currently accepts drill cuttings, and now Steuben County is considering it too.

    “Right now, we’re just talking about relatively small amounts we would bring in, if we brought it in. We want to be sure of ourselves though,” said Steuben County public works commissioner Vince Spagnoletti.*

    As with Chemung County, economics is driving the decision for Steuben County as well:

    Spagnoletti says bringing in around 10,000 tons per year of the drill cuttings could raise around $300,000 to the operational budget of the landfill.*

    That’s a potential $300,000 that taxpayers would not have to pony up.

    *YNN Your News Now (May 11) – Steuben County may allow Marcellus shale debris to be dumped in landfill

  • | | | |

    CONSOL Energy Building Coal Mine Acid Water Treatment Plants to Produce Water for Marcellus Shale Drilling

    CONSOL Energy is a long-time coal producing company and now the third largest player (by acreage) in the Marcellus Shale after buying Dominion Resource’s gas exploration and production division (for $3.5 billion). So what’s next for CONSOL? Water!

    CONSOL already traps and treats millions of gallons of water from the coal mining operations they have. They now plan to reuse that water for their Marcellus Shale drilling operations, and perhaps even sell it to their drilling competitors.

    “We already have access to all this water that we already own and already treat,” running from underground mines such as the Bailey-Emerald complex in Greene and Washington counties, [Consol CEO J. Brett] Harvey said.

    “We are actually going into the water business, I would say,” he said. Natural gas “was a byproduct of coal, and we built a gas company. Now it looks like water is a byproduct of all this (coal production), and we’ll probably develop great water resources for the state.”

    Each [coal] mine treats and discharges millions of gallons each year. Consol will spend $200 million to $300 million over the next five years to build four or five new water treatment plants in Marcellus areas, he said, adding, “I’d love to be in the position where I am selling water to all our competitors” who now buy water from municipalities and other sources.

    The idea is gaining momentum elsewhere.

    “The reusing of acid mine drainage for fracking is a viable alternative to using surface and ground water,” Radisav Vidic, chairman of the civil and environmental engineering department at the University of Pittsburgh, told an audience at a Marcellus Shale conference yesterday at Duquesne University.*

    *Pittsburgh Tribune-Review (May 5) – Consol pegs water as next business move

  • |

    ‘Energy in Depth’ Sets the Record Straight on Hydraulic Fracturing

    Below is an “Issue Alert” published by Energy in Depth (EID) on May 4th—reprinted here with permission. EID is an online educational website sponsored by oil and gas producing associations from across the U.S. It’s mission is to respond to half-truths and outright falsehoods with science and facts. They do an excellent job. The piece below is an important read to help set the record straight about hydraulic fracturing. In recent months, “fracking” has been made out to be dangerous and unsafe and the hue and cry is to outlaw it as a method of harvesting natural gas. EID does a great job in responding to the charges being leveled against this important and safe (and 60-year-old) technology.

    Energy in Depth (May 4 Issue Alert) – Evidence is Not the Plural of Anecdote

    EID responds to NRDC’s running list of conjectures and distortions targeting safety, performance of hydraulic fracturing

    Last month, our friends over at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) started up a running tally on their blog identifying “incidents where drinking water has been contaminated and hydraulic fracturing is a suspected cause.”

    Of course, in a country with more than 470,000 active natural gas wells in operation, providing American consumers with more than 20 trillion cubic feet of natural gas each year, the unfortunate (and inevitable) reality of the situation is that the occasional incident will occur. And since a good number of these wells depend on fracturing to be viable, it’s also inevitable that those who oppose the use of hydraulic fracturing on ideological grounds (as opposed to scientific ones) will continue to blame the heavily regulated, 60-year-old technology for just about everything that may go wrong under the sun.

    In a lot of ways, hydraulic fracturing has become the victim of its own success. Almost universally regarded as the sine-qua-non of energy production in America today, hydraulic fracturing—coupled with horizontal drilling technology—allows operators today to produce more than 10 times the amount of energy by drilling fewer than 1/10th the number of wells.

    That this is great news for the environment is so self-evident as to require no further explanation. But smaller footprints aside, it also allows us to tap an abundance of resources that simply could not be accessed without it. And that’s the thing: NRDC would prefer these resources be kept in the ground—and at least has the courage to say so. But it knows the way to do that isn’t to attack the jobs, revenue or people associated with bringing this extraordinary resource to the surface. It knows it can’t attack the carpenter. So it’s decided to attack his tools instead.

    Read More “‘Energy in Depth’ Sets the Record Straight on Hydraulic Fracturing”

  • | | | |

    NY Congressman Michael Arcuri Talks Out Both Sides of His Mouth on Drilling in the Marcellus

    Upstate New York Congressman Michael Arcuri says the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico means we should slow down (or perhaps not even start) drilling in the Marcellus Shale. Yes folks, we don’t make this stuff up! An oil drilling accident off-shore now equates with hydraulic fracturing of shale for natural gas. Go figure.

    Mr. Arcuri’s press release below, taken verbatim from his website, is a classic example of a politician talking out of both sides of his mouth:

    WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Rep. Michael A. Arcuri (NY-24) issued the following statement renewing his call for a cautious approach to natural gas drilling in Upstate New York in light of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico:

    “The BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico demonstrates how vital it is for us to proceed with the utmost caution when considering natural gas drilling in Upstate New York.  While I support measures to open up energy reserves here at home and create new job opportunities for Upstate families, I also believe that we must carefully examine the potential outcome that natural gas drilling may have on the health of surrounding homes and communities.  Natural gas is a tremendous natural resource with great economic potential, but we must move forward in a way that protects an even more precious natural resource – our abundant supply of clean drinking water.

    “New York’s natural gas reserves are not declining in value as they wait to be developed, and methods become safer and more efficient as companies adapt techniques. But, as we have seen in the Gulf of Mexico, we cannot assume a spill will not happen or become careless in protecting the environment because one mistake could be devastating.

    “With so many residents who live in rural areas relying completely on well water, we cannot afford to sacrifice the purity of our water by rushing to drill.

    “It is my hope that this disaster serves as a reminder to us all just how high the stakes are and that we must take every precaution possible to ensure that a rush to drill the Marcellus Shale does not irreparably contaminate our water.”

    *Press Release (May 4) – Arcuri Renews Call for Cautious Approach to Natural Gas Drilling in Upstate New York in Light of Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill

  • |

    Anti-Driller Lets the Truth Slip Out: “It’s not about the science”

    Don’t look now, but somehow a little bit of truth seeped into the reporting about hydraulic fracturing. And it happened in the Syracuse Post-Standard:

    At a public forum in DeWitt, Syracuse University hydrology professor Don Siegel thought he had presented enough unbiased, scientific information to prove that drilling for natural gas in New York would benefit the state far more than it might hurt.

    Then someone in the audience of more than 75 stood up.

    “With all due respect, Dr. Siegel,” she said, “it’s not about the science.”

    Two months later, Siegel still stews over those words.

    The debate should be about the science, he contends, as do two retired SU professors, Bryce Hand and Joe Robinson — who have defended high-volume hydraulic fracturing as a safe method to capture a huge supply of underground natural gas in the Marcellus Shale formation.

    But opponents of hydrofracking have “dispensed with science and rely on fear” to turn the public against drilling, Siegel said.*

    The article quotes one scientist (a Cornell professor) who is opposed to drilling, but at least the pro-drilling (and scientific) side of the debate is fully explored in this article, and is well worth the read. Kudos to the Post-Standard for some honest reporting.

    *Syracuse Post-Standard (May 2) – Some scientists say hydrofracking benefits outweigh risks

  • | | | | | |

    More Delay Tactics, Elected Officials in NY Actively Oppose Drilling in the Marcellus Shale

    New York State’s future with drilling in the Marcellus Shale continues to be cloudy at best. While MDN believes drilling should start—now—hoping and wishing will not make it happen and New York landowners have to face the cold, hard reality it may not happen until summer 2011 at the very earliest (if indeed it ever happens). Now that the NY Department of Environmental Conservation is proposing two sets of rules for drilling—one for the New York City and Syracuse watershed areas, the other for everyone else—anti-drillers are using it as a wedge issue.

    Must be fun being an anti-drilling person in NY. First, you say over and over and over again that drilling in the Marcellus in the watershed may contaminate New York City’s water supply. And so, when finally the DEC throws up its hands and says, “OK, we’ll take drilling in the watershed off the table,” the new argument becomes, “See! See! If it’s not safe for the watershed, it’s not safe anywhere!” Gotta love that twisted logic. Point of fact: Hydraulic fracturing is safe everywhere, including the watersheds.

    Here’s some of the latest opposition to drilling from New York’s elected leaders:

    Assemblyman Kevin Cahill, D-Kingston, chairman of the Assembly’s Energy Committee, and Assemblywoman Barbara Lifton, D-Ithaca, are preparing legislation that will require the same drilling regulations for all state watersheds, including the Delaware.

    Assemblywoman Aileen Gunther, D-Forestburgh, recently co-sponsored a bill calling for a moratorium on drilling at least until a federal study on the impact of “fracking” on drinking water is complete — in about two years.

    And on Friday, Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-Hurley, called on the Delaware Basin Commission, which approves withdrawals of Delaware River water used for “fracking,” to conduct an environmental impact study on the cumulative effects of those withdrawals before it considers any applications.*

    So, let’s recite the playbook: Claim it’s not safe. Claim it pollutes water supplies. And when all else fails, call for “let’s go slow and do more studies” and try to delay drilling for at least 2-3 more years to give the anti-drilling forces time to solidify opposition and completely kill it forever.

    And lest PA thinks they’re clear of all this, you’re not. The Delaware River Basic Commission has effectively blocked drilling in the Delaware River watershed for now. And your own U.S. Senator, Bob Casey, is asking the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to get involved in the situation in Dimock, PA.

    *Middletown Times Herald-Record (May 2) – Legislators want drilling rules fairly crafted

  • | | | |

    PA League of Women Voters Comes Out Against Drilling in the Marcellus

    The League of Women Voters of Pennsylvania is anti-drilling. Although they pretend to be a non-partisan group, they are anything but. Not only do they sponsor forums with anti-drilling speakers on a regular basis, they have now issued an official position in favor of an extraction tax on drilling in PA, and they have gone on record favoring strict new regulations for drilling in PA. While they don’t categorically say “don’t drill,” their positions and statements essentially do say it. Here’s the opening (alarmist) paragraph from the press statement announcing their official position on drilling in the Marcellus:

    FRAC is a four-letter word, F, R, A, C. FRAC impacts everyone in Pennsylvania. It requires the immediate attention of all–from young and old, from rich to poor, from Pittsburgh to Easton, and from Philadelphia to Erie. Why? Fracturing is an explosive process that expels natural gas from Marcellus Shale, a rock that lies deep beneath two-thirds of our Commonwealth. Natural gas extraction impacts our water, our land, our air, our communities, our public health, and our economy.*

    Yes, fracturing is an explosive process—small, controlled explosions that happen a mile below solid rock (conveniently left out of the statement). The language used in the press statement is distorting and pejorative about the process of drilling. But hey, it’ll bring in the contributions and it whips up the faithful!

    *Statement by Olivia Thorne, President, PALWV (May 3) – Press Conference on Marcellus Shale Natural Gas Extraction

  • | | | |

    NY DEC Message to Landowners in New York’s Watersheds: Forget About Drilling

    These are the bald facts of life for New York landowners who own land in either the New York City or Syracuse watershed areas and may want to lease their land for Marcellus Shale gas drilling: Forget it. That’s the loud and clear message from NY Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Commissioner Pete Grannis. After the DEC’s announcement of last week, no energy company in their right mind will be willing to drill in New York’s watersheds (although drilling companies currently drill safely in the Susquehanna River watershed in PA, and are trying to drill in the Delaware River watershed in PA).

    Reaction from landowners in New York has been mixed. While some believe watershed landowners are being unfairly penalized, others think this may speed up the process of drilling for everyone else by removing a key objection to drilling—that drilling may contaminate city water supplies.

    From a press release issued by the NY DEC last week:

    April 23 – New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) Commissioner Pete Grannis today announced that due to the unique issues related to the protection of New York City and Syracuse drinking water supplies, these watersheds will be excluded from the pending generic environmental review process for natural gas drilling using high-volume horizontal drilling in the Marcellus shale formation. Instead, applications to drill in these watersheds will require a case-by-case environmental review process to establish whether appropriate measures to mitigate potential impacts can be developed. There are 58 pending applications for horizontal drilling in the Marcellus shale; no applications are located in either the New York City or the Skaneateles Lake watersheds (Syracuse utilizes the Skaneateles watershed).

    Read More “NY DEC Message to Landowners in New York’s Watersheds: Forget About Drilling”

  • | | | | |

    Opinion: How the AP and Other Media Outlets “Wag the Dog” Against Drilling in the Marcellus Shale

    Google News Search "Louis Matoushek" MDN notes with some amusement how news is manufactured—and is thankful blogs are around to help set the story straight. Case in point: A few days ago the Associated Press ran a single story about the “raging debate” over gas drilling in Northeast Pennsylvania. While the drilling debate is certainly ongoing, and there are plenty of people on both sides of the debate, the AP story would have us believe the forces of good (people against drilling) are rising up in overwhelming numbers to oppose the forces of evil (the nasty energy companies who want to rape and pillage the unspoiled landscape, along with the greedy landowners who enable them).

    That single AP anti-drilling story was picked up by no less than 250 media outlets, including large city newspapers, television stations and everything down to small town newspapers—all in the course of two days. One would have to be blind to miss the coverage and not think, “Maybe there are a lot of people opposed to drilling after all!” And all from a single story run again and again and again.

    The AP story starts this way:

    A few hundred yards from Louis Matoushek’s Wayne County farmhouse is a well that could soon produce not only natural gas, but a drilling boom in the wild and scenic Delaware River watershed.

    Energy companies have leased thousands of acres of land in Pennsylvania’s unspoiled northeastern tip, hoping to tap vast stores of gas in a sprawling rock formation—the Marcellus shale—that some experts believe could become the nation’s most productive gas field.*

    But wait, it’s not enough that the villainous drilling companies want to spoil the unspoiled land in PA. While that argument will sway some readers, let’s throw in the thing that works every time, the one thing that will magically turn everyone against drilling: Water.

    Standing in the way is a loose coalition of sporting groups, conservationists and anti-drilling neighbors. They contend that large-scale gas exploration so close to crucial waterways will threaten drinking water, ruin a renowned wild trout fishery, wreck property values, and transform a rural area popular with tourists into an industrial zone with constant noise and truck traffic.

    Both sides are furiously lobbying the Delaware River Basin Commission, the powerful federal-interstate compact agency that monitors water supplies for 15 million people, including half the population of New York City. The commission has jurisdiction because the drilling process will require withdrawing huge amounts of water from the watershed’s streams and rivers and because of the potential for groundwater pollution.*

    PA learns fast. They look over the border at New York where City politicians bleat about the New York City watershed as if drillers are about to poison the water supply of the entire City, and say, “Hey, if it works for them, maybe it will work for us.” And so, the shrill voices in PA have found their argument: Drilling pollutes water. Run the story (i.e. lie) enough times and after a while people will believe it.

    Don’t fall for the lie. And landowners: Make your voices heard!

    *Pittsburgh Tribute-Review/AP (Apr 19) – Gas-drilling foes fear for local water supplies

  • | | |

    Penn State to Monitor 50 Water Wells to Measure Marcellus Drilling Affects on Water Supplies

    Penn State will monitor water wells in Pennsylvania to see if they are affected by drilling activity. MDN applauds this effort:

    Penn State’s School of Forest Resources along with several Penn State Cooperative Extension county offices have received funding from the Center for Rural Pennsylvania and the Pennsylvania Water Resources Research Center to conduct a research study on the potential impacts of Marcellus gas drilling on rural drinking water supplies.

    The data collected from the study is for research purposes, Penn State officials said.

    About 50 private water wells will be selected for free water testing of 15 water quality parameters. Water samples will be collected by trained Penn State researchers both before and after nearby Marcellus gas well drilling has occurred.

    Interested residents of the southwest region of Pennsylvania can take the eligibility survey here, call Dana Rizzo at 724-837-1402 or e-mail.*

    *Fayette Daily Courier (Apr 12) – Ongoing Penn State study planned on impact of gas drilling