• | | | | |

    Fracking Fluid Spill in Tioga County, PA – DEP Investigating, Talisman Shuts Down Operations for Eight Days

    Talisman Energy shut down its four North American shale gas drilling operations for eight days following a fracking fluid release (MDN would call it an “accident”) on Jan. 17th at its drilling operation in Tioga County, PA, in the Tioga State Forest. According to Talisman, there were no injuries and the fluid was contained at the well site.

    Read More “Fracking Fluid Spill in Tioga County, PA – DEP Investigating, Talisman Shuts Down Operations for Eight Days”

  • | | | |

    Some Landowners in Tioga, PA Area Receive Six-Figure Royalty Checks – Each Month

    gas money flameAn article discussing the potential impacts of shale gas drilling in the area around Erie, PA does a good job in exploring the benefits of shale gas drilling that have already occurred in Tioga County, PA. Tioga County is one of the most densely populated drilling regions in the entire Marcellus Shale play. A few facts from the article:
    Read More “Some Landowners in Tioga, PA Area Receive Six-Figure Royalty Checks – Each Month”

  • Marcellus Drilling News Resumes Publication

    And...We're Back!Thank you to everyone who has asked when MDN would resume publication. Starting January 31, we’re back! The purpose of MDN (Marcellus Drilling News) is to bring news, resources and commentary that is of interest and benefit to landowners in the Marcellus Shale region of the U.S. That is, for those people who are potentially affected by drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale—which is just about everyone in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions of the United States. But in particular, it is for landowners in the Marcellus—those who stand to gain (or lose) by leasing land for natural gas drilling.

    Read More “Marcellus Drilling News Resumes Publication”

  • | | |

    Shame on the EPA for Changing a Meeting on Hydraulic Fracturing the Night Before it’s Scheduled (Updated)

    UPDATE (Aug 11): Below is my original post, in all of its flawed glory. A confession: I’ve made a mistake, and I prefer to correct the record right here, up high for everyone to see. Part of my “rant” below is based on a simple and stupid mistake I made–the original EPA meeting was scheduled for August 12, not August 10. I had it incorrectly listed in my calendar. So my original contention that the EPA changed the meeting the night before was plain wrong. Second, it seems there was a dispute between the EPA and Binghamton University where the event was to be held about the amount of money needed to handle a larger than anticipated crowd. The number BU requested went from $6,000 to $40,000 and the EPA resisted and did not have much of a choice but to try and change the venue. Yes, I can point out that the EPA has no problem wasting $1.5M of taxpayer money on a new study of hydraulic fracturing when they just did one a few years ago and hey, what’s another $36K? But I won’t. I’ll simply say,  I was wrong. When you make a mistake in public, you need to correct it in public.

    Read More “Shame on the EPA for Changing a Meeting on Hydraulic Fracturing the Night Before it’s Scheduled (Updated)”

  • | |

    New York Senate Bill S8129B Passes – Moratorium on Marcellus Gas Drilling Comes to New York

    Sen. Antoine Thompson Tuesday, August 4, was a sad day for New Yorkers who, after more than two years of waiting, found out they will have to wait longer to begin drilling for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale. On Tuesday, the New York Senate voted 48-9 to prevent hydraulic fracturing (drilling) of gas wells in the Marcellus and Utica Shale formations in New York State. The moratorium, sponsored by State Senator Antoine Thompson (Democrat-Buffalo), prevents gas drilling for another nine months, until May 15, 2011.

    Read More “New York Senate Bill S8129B Passes – Moratorium on Marcellus Gas Drilling Comes to New York”

  • | | |

    Atlas Energy Figures Out a Way to Increase Marcellus Shale Gas Production an Average 138% Per Well

    Atlas Energy’s Marcellus Shale gas output is up 21% in the second quarter from the first quarter of 2010. At the end of June, their net production rate in the Marcellus region was 59 Mmcfe (million cubic feet of natural gas equivalents) per day. The company brought eight new horizontal Marcellus Shale wells online in southwestern Pennsylvania from April to June with average peak average daily rates of 5.1 Mmcf per day.

    Read More “Atlas Energy Figures Out a Way to Increase Marcellus Shale Gas Production an Average 138% Per Well”

  • |

    Oxford Landowner Coalition Merges with CNY Land Coalition

    Two very active landowner groups in Upstate New York have agreed to merge. Here’s the official letter from CNY Land Coalition President Brian Conover:

    Oxford Coalition Is Merging With The CNY Landowner’s Coalition

    In what promises to be a win-win for both coalitions, the Oxford Coalition, which has been under the leadership of Bryant LaTourette, is merging with our coalition. Serious discussions for this merger began about 7 weeks ago and after a number of very positive conversations, both sides have agreed that we can accomplish more for our common cause if we work as one.

    Read More “Oxford Landowner Coalition Merges with CNY Land Coalition”

  • | | | |

    Broome County, NY May Sign a Deal to Lease County-Owned Land for $15.9M

    Lately it’s not been often MDN has reported on lease deals in New York State, due to the ongoing opposition of New York politicians to drilling in the state. So it’s with some surprise, and pleasure, that we noticed an article in today’s paper that Broome County, New York may soon sign a deal with Inflection Energy:
    Read More “Broome County, NY May Sign a Deal to Lease County-Owned Land for $15.9M”

  • | | | |

    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”

  • The Reason Big Oil is Getting Gassy

    An Economist article republished in the Winnipeg Free Press does a good job of explaining why natural gas is on the ascendancy in the energy universe, and why oil will soon be in decline. Need evidence? Last year, seven of eight Exxon Mobil projects that were completed were natural gas projects. This year two of three scheduled projects are natural gas related. Royal Dutch Shell says by 2012 half (50 percent!) of its energy output will come from natural gas.

    Read More “The Reason Big Oil is Getting Gassy”

  • | | | | |

    Encana’s Big Gamble in Luzerne County, PA

    Will Encana Oil & Gas’ gamble in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania pay off? We’ll know soon. Encana is due to start drilling two exploratory wells in Luzerne County this week. The drilling process itself will last 65-75 days.

    So why is it a gamble for Encana to drill for gas in Luzerne County? Nobody knows for sure if the Marcellus Shale gas deposits are commercially viable that far south.
    Read More “Encana’s Big Gamble in Luzerne County, PA”

  • | | | | | |

    Two-Thirds of Wyoming County, PA Land Now Leased, More Land being Sought by Drillers

    Nearly two-thirds of the land in Wyoming County, Pennsylvania is leased by natural gas drilling companies, and recent strong gas production from wells in the northern part of the county have sparked a competition to lease even more Wyoming County land.
    Read More “Two-Thirds of Wyoming County, PA Land Now Leased, More Land being Sought by Drillers”

  • | | | | | | |

    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

  • | | |

    Chesapeake Energy has 19 Active Drilling Rigs in Northeast PA Alone

    Brian Grove, corporate spokesman for Chesapeake Energy, addressed the Chamber of Business and Industry of Centre County in State College, PA today. Among his comments was this statement showing Chesapeake’s commitment to the Marcellus Shale:

    “In northeastern Pennsylvania, where I’m from … we have 19 drilling rigs right now active in the northern tier. That’s as many, right now, as our company has in the Barnett Shale in Texas.”*

    Grove also warned that a steep severance tax and “overly heavy” regulation will slow drilling growth in PA.

    *The Centre Daily Times (June 30) – Natural Gas Rep: Drilling companies here to stay in Pennsylvania

  • |

    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