| | | | | | |

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

|

MDN Responds to a Reader’s Questions

Below is an email MDN recently received from a reader. I thought it would be instructive to share both the reader’s original email and my response so newer readers of MDN have a better understanding of what this blog is about, and the “angle” from which it comes with it’s coverage and commentary. Here is the reader’s email to MDN (the “sic” references below indicate where there are misspellings in the original email to me):

I have recently read an article on Marcellusdrilling.com, “Marcellus Drilling News,” entitled “Gas well blowout in Clearfield County, PA causes ‘modest’ environmental damage.”  I am currently obtaining my Masters of Science in Environmental Policy, and I have a few questions/ comments/ suggestions for this article in particular.  Although the article is informative to the extent it was intended, there are a few journalistic traps that you have wandered into.

First, the rhetoric of the “Anti-drillers” and “Mainstream media” is a tired plea for attention.  Those who want to believe the “mainstream media” will believe them, and those who wish to get their news from their uncle Lenny are going to do so as well, regardless of what an article communicates.  News releases, in my opinon [sic], lose strength when the closing statement bashes the media, and establishes apples to oranges comparisons, which leads me to my next point.

Comparing environmental degredation [sic] and drilling accidents to car accidents is a comparison that has absolutly [sic] no relavence [sic].  This ‘statistic’ (used loosley [sic]) is meaningless.  This is not unlike making the statement, “Hotdogs are one of the leading causes of choking among children, how many children choke on phonebooks, ZERO! Take this as a lesson and feed you child the yellow pages today.”  I know that this is a bit of an exageration [sic], but it is not too far off the comparison that was made in this article.

Lastly the wording downplaying the fracking fluid’s chemical contents by using a very sneaky “(mostly water)” comment.  Even though chemicals only compose 1% of the fracking fluid in drilling operations, this accident released nearly 350 gallons of pure chemicals, most of which are unknown.

In closing, in order to be a more reliable source of news for a public that is obtaining more “liberal education” (see how that takes away from the content of the letter), it would behoove Marcellus Drilling News to leave out these quips I have mentioned above.  If you would like to see how a news report should look, I have attached a shortened research report written by me on Marcellus law and policy in New York and Pennsylvania that you could post on your site.

There is one question that is on my mind and could also be another suggestion.  I would like to know where funding for this site originates.

Thank you for your time in reading this,

And here was my response:

Thanks for your email and research paper. I will take time to read it. I appreciate all comments, even from those who disagree with my own views. MDN is a blog site, I have a point of view, I express it. There is no funding for the site—it is a labor of love on my part. I receive no money from anyone for it. I work in a completely different (non-energy) industry and this is a “hobby” taking only an investment of my time (which I’ve had precious little of recently, hence few updates). As I’ve stated in comments on the site before, I reserve the right to run advertising on the site at some future date—but that in no way affects my opinions or coverage.

I feel, passionately, that environmental extremism coupled with ignorance is behind most anti-drilling sentiment, and I aim to counter-balance it with MDN. I believe drilling can be done safely. Zero accidents? Nope. We can’t expect it from ANY human endeavor—it’s just not a reasonable viewpoint. Safe enough? A resounding YES. That’s where I “come from” with my reporting and opinions. I’m not a journalist so I don’t worry about falling into journalistic traps. I understand my commentary tends to grate sometimes…I try and keep a balance with what I report and keep snide remarks to a minimum. But blogs do take positions and make no apologies for the positions they take.

Chances are if we were to meet on the street, in a store or at university, we would quite possibly be friends. I have good friends who are on the other side of the fence on this and many other issues. I’m not an unreasonable person, nor avaricious. I don’t stand to make money from leasing land—I only have 2/3 of an acre in a residential neighborhood! At its very core, the struggle in New York is over private property rights and liberty—the right to do with your land as you see fit, provided it does not harm others. Gas drilling does not harm people nor the environment. Does it affect the environment? Sure—but it’s limited, and believe it or not, clearing some trees and drilling a hole in the ground, and even pumping a few million gallons of water with chemicals, does not irreparably damage Mother Earth and it certainly does not pollute drinking water supplies. I encourage you to dig deeper in your own research and not fall prey to the standard environmentalist party line.

I hope this helps you understand a bit more about MDN and the writer behind it. Thanks for reading MDN, and thanks for taking the time to write.

Jim Willis
Editor, MDN

| | | | |

Forced Pooling – An Issue Coming to the Forefront in Pennsylvania

Now that a severance tax is coming to Pennsylvania, natural gas drillers will likely push for a provision called “forced pooling” in PA which makes it easier to gather gas from properties that are not leased but sit in-between other leased land.

The Marcellus Shale natural gas industry wants to see legislation attached to any severance tax adopted by the state that would force property owners who refuse leases to allow drillers to gather the gas beneath their land, an industry coalition leader said Monday.

Calling it the most economical and conservative land-use approach to drilling for gas, David Spigelmyer, Chesapeake Energy’s regional vice president for government relations, said in a Times-Shamrock newspapers editorial board meeting that “forced pooling” is a key element of any legislation the state’s Marcellus drillers could support and is actively being discussed during budget negotiations in the capital.

Such a statute would help avoid an unnecessary proliferation of wells, Spigelmyer said, but critics say it is a form of eminent domain.*

This is an unresolved and complex issue that’s about to become red hot in PA. There are strong arguments on both sides. MDN believes landowners should have the right to allow drilling on and under their land provided it does not harm nearby populations or the environment. It is the constitutional right for citizens of this country to use their land as they see fit. On the other hand, to force a landowner who does not want to lease their land into a pool with their neighbors who have leased, is also unfair. If it means a proliferation of wells and added expense, so be it. The drilling company will have to bear the cost. Citizens should not have to worry that portions of their property will be used against their will—both on the surface and under it. It’s wrong to stop drilling based on irrational fear (as is being done in New York), and it’s equally wrong for drillers to force landowners to allow drilling under their land.

What do you think about forced pooling? Leave a comment below and let us know.

*Wilkes-Barre Citizen’s Voice (June 29) – Gas industry wants access to unleased property

| | |

PA Budget Deal Approved: Marcellus Landowners are the Losers

Pennsylvania has just reached a new budget agreement for the next fiscal year, weighing in at a staggering $28.05 billion. Those who smoke cigars and use smokeless tobacco can breathe easier (or perhaps not)—your bad habit has escaped the tax man yet again this year. There are no state taxes on cigars and smokeless tobacco. But if you’re a landowner who’s getting royalty payments, you’re about to get soaked. Everyone knew it was only a matter of time before the politicians, who can’t resist taxing everything under the sun, would not be able to resist a severance tax on gas drilling. It’s now happened:

The [budget] agreement calls for the Legislature to enact a severance tax on natural gas extraction in the Marcellus Shale by Oct. 1, Rendell said, with the tax becoming effective Jan. 1, 2011. He said he would like to see a tax rate close to West Virginia’s, which is roughly 6 percent.*

It makes no difference if the tax is levied on the drilling company or not—ultimately this tax will come out of the pockets of landowners because expenses are always passed back. Oh well, it was a good run while it lasted. At least they’re drilling in PA!

*Pittsburgh Business Times (June 29) – Rendell: Pa. reaches budget agreement

| | | | |

Delaware River Basin Commission Bans Exploratory Drilling in Marcellus Shale in the Watershed

Once again the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) is overreaching. There is no doubt the commission is packed with people opposed to shale gas drilling, and they have no regard for private property owners or their property rights. Under the guise of “protecting the water supply,” a single person—the director of the DRBC—has now banned exploratory drilling in the watershed with the stroke of a pen. What does it mean? If you’re a property owner living in the Delaware River watershed (New York or Pennsylvania), drilling for you won’t happen any time soon. Maybe never.

Today’s DRBC press release:

Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) Executive Director Carol R. Collier today announced that she has supplemented her May 19, 2009 determination to include natural gas exploratory wells.

“My 2009 determination that sponsors of natural gas extraction projects in shale formations must obtain commission approval before commencing such projects expressly did not cover wells intended solely for exploratory purposes,” Collier said.  “Today, I am extending the provisions of my 2009 determination to include exploratory wells, subject to reservations for exploratory well projects already approved by the states on or before June 14, 2010.”

By this supplemental determination, all natural gas well project sponsors, including the sponsors of natural gas well projects intended solely for exploratory purposes, must first apply for and obtain commission approval before commencing any natural gas well project for the production from or exploration of shale formations within the drainage area of Special Protection Waters in the Delaware River Basin.

“For the purpose of this determination, any natural gas well drilled in or through shale is assumed to be targeting a shale formation and is subject to this determination, unless the project sponsor proves otherwise,” Collier added. All other aspects of the 2009 determination remain in effect.

Today’s action recognizes the risks to water resources, including ground and surface water that the land disturbance and drilling activities inherent in any shale gas well pose. “In light of the commission’s May 5, 2010 decision to finalize natural gas regulations before considering project approvals, this supplemental determination removes any regulatory incentive for project sponsors to classify their wells as exploratory wells and install them without  DRBC review before the commission’s natural gas regulations are in place,” Collier said. “It thus supports the commission’s goal that exploratory wells do not serve as a source of degradation of the commission’s Special Protection Waters.”

“Where entities have invested in exploratory well projects in reliance on my May 2009 determination and information from DRBC staff, there are countervailing considerations that favor allowing these projects to move ahead,” Collier stated in her supplemental determination. “I am informed that since May of 2009, Pennsylvania has issued a limited number of natural gas well drilling permits within the Delaware River Basin targeting shale formations, while New York State has not issued any natural gas well permits targeting shales in the basin since that date. In contrast to the thousands of wells projected to be installed in the basin over the next several years, the risk to basin waters posed by only the wells approved by Pennsylvania since May 2009 are comparatively small. Not only are these wells subject to state regulation as to their construction and operation, but they continue to require commission approval before they can be fractured or otherwise modified for natural gas production. In light of these existing safeguards and the investment-backed expectations of the sponsors of these projects, this supplemental determination does not prohibit any exploratory natural gas well project from proceeding if the applicant has obtained a state natural gas well permit for the project on or before June 14, 2010.”

Most of the shale formations that may be subject to horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques requiring large volumes of water in the basin are located within the drainage area to DRBC’s designated Special Protection Waters (SPW). The commission’s SPW program is designed to prevent degradation in streams and rivers considered to have exceptionally high scenic, recreational, ecological, and/or water supply values through stricter control of wastewater discharges, non-point pollution control, and reporting requirements. Coverage of the DRBC’s SPW anti-degradation regulations includes the 197-mile non-tidal Delaware River from Hancock, N.Y. south to Trenton, N.J. and the land draining to this stretch.

Any person adversely affected by this action may request a hearing by submitting a request in writing to the commission secretary within 30 days of the date of this supplemental determination in accordance with the DRBC’s Rules of Practice and Procedure.

*DRBC Press Release (June 14) – DRBC Executive Director Determination Extended to Include Natural Gas Exploratory Wells

| | | |

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 [email protected] 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

| | |

PA Gas Driller Bonds Will Skyrocket from $2,500 to $150,000 per Marcellus Gas Well Under Proposed Legislation

Pennsylvania lawmakers, both Democrat and Republican, agree that bonds posted by drillers need to increase—dramatically. The bonds are used to cover the costs of plugging or closing natural gas wells. The current bond requirements date back to 1984.

Drillers are required to post a $2,500 bond for a single well and $25,000 blanket bond to cover any number of wells under current law. A measure sponsored by Rep. Camille George, D-74, Houtzdale, would require a $150,000-per-well bond for any well in the Marcellus Shale formation and $12,000 bond on other oil and gas wells. George, chairman of the House Environmental Resources and Energy Committee, also proposes setting a $240,000 blanket bond, while prohibiting blanket bonds for wells in the Marcellus Shale formation. He suggested those amounts would cover the actual costs of decommissioning.

*Hazelton Standard Speaker (May 23) – Marcellus drilling spurs calls for higher bonds

Is Methane Migration from Marcellus Gas Drilling Causing Deaths?

The May 23 Sunday edition of the Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin (PSB) ran an article titled, “Pa. seeks stronger drilling rules to combat methane migration.” At least the headline is accurate. Pennsylvania is indeed attempting to prevent a recurrence of the situation at Dimock, PA which was a failure to properly case a well that led to methane (natural gas) migration into local groundwater supplies. Nothing wrong with good oversight and slapping the offending driller with fines to make sure it doesn’t happen again. But the PSB started their latest anti-drilling narrative with this opening paragraph:

Methane migration related to natural gas drilling has caused death, injuries and property damage in Pennsylvania, leading to plans for stronger regulations and enforcement efforts.*

There you have it—methane migration is causing death. The proof that drilling causes death offered by the PSB? They cite the case of a house explosion in Jefferson County, PA in 2004 due to methane migration that killed three people. That case is a tragedy to be sure and not to be trivialized. But the problem is, it wasn’t due to a horizontally drilled Marcellus Shale gas well like we have today. Horizontally drilled wells did not start to happen until 2006 (with Range Resources). So while it may have been a gas well in Jefferson County that led to an explosion in a nearby house, it was not a horizontally drilled Marcellus gas well. The implied meaning is that the drilling happening today is unsafe and leads to deaths—which is untrue.

The latest apples and oranges comparison is to equate the tragedy of the oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico and BP’s response with drilling on land for a different fuel—natural gas—and try to infer that all energy companies are greedy and all drilling of any kind is unsafe. “Better to wait until we know more. Better to wait until it’s 100 percent safe. The gas has been there for jillions of years and isn’t going anywhere.” Bunkum.

Let’s talk about risk

If you’re alive, you are at risk. Every day you live you experience risk of some type. Risk of getting in a car accident. Risk that lightning will strike you. Risk of a heart attack. How do you deal with it? Minimize the risk if you can, and if you can’t, don’t stress over it. Life is a risk. Here’s the reality: If you drill 10,000 gas wells, one of them will have a problem of some kind. Methane migration, flowback spillage, a truck with chemicals runs off the road and spills something, a worker gets killed. Of all the Marcellus wells drilled, accidents have been very few in number—but they do happen. It’s life. We can ban all drilling, but how would you like to pay double or triple for your energy? How would you like to be cold in the winter? How would you like the government to tell you how many miles you can drive in a day because there isn’t enough energy (oil, gas, natural gas) to meet demand? Or what if the Middle Eastern countries suddenly stopped sending us oil? If that were to happen, there would be far more deaths due to severe energy shortages than you’ll ever have from Marcellus gas drilling. It’s a tradeoff. You don’t simply ban drilling because there will be an accident somewhere, someday.

A second example: One in every 10,000 bridges will fail. No idea if that’s the real number…again, this is an example. So because one in 10,000 (or 5,000, or 15,000) fails, does that mean we should stop building bridges? Because someone dies, tragically, from a bridge failure, or because there is property damage from a bridge failure, should we immediately cease and perhaps even ban traffic over bridges? Try going one mile from your own home without crossing a bridge—you can’t do it! It’s nonsense. But it’s no more nonsense than what is being peddled by anti-drillers whose aim to ban all drilling.

No industry, including natural gas drilling, oil drilling and bridge building, can be subjected to a standard of perfection, no matter how much we strive for it and want it. Don’t fall for Chicken Little arguments that the sky is falling.

*Binghamton Press & Sun-Bulletin (May 23) – Pa. seeks stronger drilling rules to combat methane migration

| | |

PA DEP Secretary Hanger Summons Marcellus Shale Drillers to Meeting, Asks Them to Comply with Unratified New Drilling Rules

After the PA Secretary for the Department of Environmental Protection, John Hanger, summoned Marcellus Shale drilling companies to a meeting, he proceeded to “challenge” them to comply with new drilling rules that likely won’t be adopted until this fall. Talk about arrogant.

“I urged the industry to implement the stronger standards immediately and not wait for the rule to be finalized,” Mr. Hanger said. “I challenged the industry to set a world-class example.”

The summit came ahead of action by the state Environmental Quality Board on Monday on several proposed regulations to require that oil field-grade cement be used in Marcellus Shale wells, to delineate responsibility and notification procedures for gas migration problems and to strengthen requirements for treating drilling wastewater and limiting sediment erosion from wells. Mr. Hanger expects the rules to be adopted by fall.*

Certainly nothing wrong with new rules to help prevent a repeat of the situation in Dimock, PA from recurring, which supposedly the new rules will help guard against. However, MDN continues to notice that Hanger’s tone is increasingly confrontational rather than collaborative.

*Scranton Times Tribune (May 14) – DEP head asks gas drillers to comply with new rules

| | | |

Bradford County, PA Experiencing a Job Boom, Leads Entire State in Net Job Growth

Bradford County, PA Little, rural Bradford County located in northeastern Pennsylvania is seeing a boom in new jobs:

According to the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry and the Center for Workforce Information and Analysis, Bradford County led the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in net job growth from March of 2009 to March 2010.

According to the Northern Tier Regional Planning & Development Commission (NTRPDC), the 2,000 jobs gained represented a 7.2 percent increase while most counties suffered losses in employment. Bradford County saw the unemployment rate drop from 10 percent a year ago to 7.4 percent now.*

And also this:

Tioga County [PA] gained 800 jobs, the third-best improvement of the Commonwealth’s 67 counties.*

How can that be? Simple: Both counties have very active Marcellus Shale drilling.

*Wyalusing Rocket-Courier (May 13) – Bradford County Leads Commonwealth in Job Growth

| | | |

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

New York Times Talks About the Rising Importance of Shale Gas Worldwide

The New York Times recently ran an article talking about the emerging importance of natural gas from shale around the world. The article focuses on Poland and Europe, who have a desire to cut their energy dependence on Russia. But the article also includes these statements about the importance of shale gas in the United States:

The attraction of shale gas is already well known in the United States, where diversification is an advanced theme in energy policy. With the discovery of big shale deposits several years ago, shale gas now accounts for nearly a fifth of the U.S. natural gas supply, compared with just 1 percent in 2000, according to a recent study by IHS CERA, an independent energy research center in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Shale gas “ranks as the most significant energy innovation so far this century,” IHS CERA said in a recent report. “It has the potential at least to cause a paradigm shift in the fueling of North America’s energy future.”*

*New York Times (May 11) – Eastern Europe, Seeking Energy Security, Turns to Shale Gas

| | | | | |

MarkWest Request to Expand Gas Compressor Facilities in Washington County, PA Denied

As MDN has previously reported (see this story), MarkWest Energy operates more than 100 gas compressor facilities, including two in Mount Pleasant Township in Washington County, PA—the location of the very first horizontally drilled Marcellus Shale gas well. There has been tension between area residents and MarkWest about the facilities over issues of noise, lights and odors coming from the facilities. A few months ago MarkWest made application to expand the facilities but the Mt. Pleasant Township Zoning board has just turned them down:

The board denied a request from Mark West Liberty Midstream to expand its Fulton and Stewart compressing stations.

The company had made the request to add two engines at each site and expand the steel structures. The company processes gas for Range Resources.*

MDN doubts this will be the end of this story. There is an ongoing debate about just who has authority to regulate pipelines and compressor facilities, and the matter is far from settled. Does regulation for these types of facilities lie with local governments? Or is it a “utility” that is/should be regulated by the state rather than local authorities? Stay tuned.

*Washington Observer-Reporter (May 12) – Board nixes expansion for gas compressing stations in Mt. Pleasant Township

| | |

Will PA Landowners Pay Higher Property Taxes When Drilling Begins? Maybe

Landowners in Pennsylvania have gotten property tax relief in recent years from a PA law known as “Clean and Green.” If landowners keep their property use as agricultural, open space or forest-land, they are taxed at a lower rate (for those uses) rather than the higher fair market value the land might bring for other uses. But there’s a catch—if a landowner starts using the land for another non-agricultural use, they not only start paying higher taxes on it now, they also have to pay the difference in the tax rate between Clean and Green and fair market value going back up to seven years—as a penalty.

The intent of the program, which is administered through county government, is to encourage property owners to retain their land in agricultural, open-space or forest-land use by providing real estate tax relief.

Property owners benefit through lower taxes as long as their land isn’t used for housing developments or other uses inconsistent with agricultural production, open-space or forest-land use.

If a property owner decided to use the land for a purpose inconsistent with the program, the landowner would have to pay “rollback taxes” – the difference between fair market value and use value of the land – for as many years as the property had been designated Clean and Green, up to a maximum of seven years.*

So the million dollar question: If landowners allow drilling on their land, is that land disqualified from the Clean and Green lower tax rate? Right now, as things stand, each county will interpret the law the way they see fit. There is a bill that has passed the PA Senate and is now before for the House for consideration that would allow gas drilling on Clean and Green land without penalty.

Landowners who have signed leases where drilling will soon begin (or has already begun) need to monitor this situation. Landowners in PA who have not yet signed a lease would do well to be sure there is a clause requiring the driller to pay the difference in taxes should the bill not get signed into law.

*Wilkes-Barre Times Leader (May 11) – Drilling’s effect on ‘Clean and Green’ land uncertain