Bakken Shale Drilling Activity 2010 [TIMELAPSE]

Uploaded by TheTimoneyGroup on Mar 1, 2011
Tweeted By: @OccupyGreed

NORTH DAKOTA DRILLING TIMELAPSE
 

...............

Might we interest you in our backyard? Have a look at 18,000 active oil and gas wells in Weld County, Colorado. Absolutely SICK SHIT!

Fracking Fumes: Natural Gas Development Worsens Air Quality

NRDC
Switchboard
April 11, 2012
Miriam Rotkin-Ellman

Image: WTFrack.org

Smoggy skies, air quality alerts, burning eyes, headaches, respiratory problems, elevated cancer risk…  Sounds just like Los Angeles or another urban center, right? Not this time.  These air quality problems are being reported in rural America.  What’s going on? An explosion in natural gas drilling is bringing industrial air pollution into people’s backyards. Without strong safeguards from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), communities across the country will pay the price with their health.

Natural gas production releases an alphabet soup of pollutants into the air which are bad news for everyone – the family next door, the neighboring towns, and ultimately, communities all over the world feeling the impacts of climate change.  This is a new and growing industry, but here’s what we know so far:

Local: Air quality testing in the areas around natural gas wells and processing equipment – in Colorado, Texas, andNew Mexico - have shown levels of pollutants, such as benzene, xylene,  1,3-butadiene, and other hydrocarbons, that can cause respiratory and neurological impacts and increase the risk of cancer. A recently published study looking at air quality data collected in rural Colorado found that these health risks increased the closer you got to the gas wells. Diesel emissions from heavy machinery and trucks also pollute the air at a local level.

Regional:  Last year was a winter for the record books in...

Continue reading...

DeGette urges EPA to consider health threats posed by gas drilling

The Colorado Independent
By Troy Hooper
April 3, 2012

U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette (Photo via http://degette.house.gov)

As the Environmental Protection Agency finalizes its air standards for hydraulic fracturing, U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette sent a letter today asking it to consider a new study that shows Colorado residents living near natural gas wells are exposed to increased levels of carcinogens and other toxins.


Continue reading...

Here is DeGette and Waxman’s letter in its entirety:

April 3, 2012

The Honorable Lisa Jackson
Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460

Dear Administrator Jackson:

EPA is working to finalize new standards for oil and gas operations to reduce emissions of smog-forming volatile organic compounds and toxic air pollutants that can cause cancer and other serious health effects. As you consider these standards, we ask that you consider a new study from the Colorado School of Public Health that raises concerns about the potential public health impact of air emissions from unconventional gas drilling operations. The findings from this study, while preliminary, reinforce the importance of your forthcoming rules and the need for additional research.

Scientists at the Colorado School of Public Health examined three years of air monitoring data in Garfield County, Colorado and concluded that residents living near natural gas wells may face increased exposure to benzene, a known human carcinogen, and other toxic chemicals, such as ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylene. The researchers found higher lifetime cancer risks for people living closer to the wells. They also concluded that these nearby residents have a higher risk of experiencing neurological and respiratory health effects, such as headaches, throat and eye irritation, impaired lung capacity, dizziness, fatigue, numbness in the limbs, and tremors.

The authors concluded:

[P]reliminary results indicate that health effects resulting from air emissions during development of unconventional natural gas resources are most likely to occur in residents living nearest to the well pads and warrant further study. Risk prevention efforts should be directed towards reducing air emission exposures for persons living and working near wells during well completions.

We support the responsible and safe production of U.S. oil and natural gas resources. The good news is that we can control potentially harmful air emissions from drilling operations by implementing proven technology and best practices already in use today. We hope that you will consider the results of this new study in your rulemaking, and we look forward to reviewing EPA’s new rules once finalized.

Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman
Ranking Member

Diana DeGette
Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations

CU Denver study links fracking to higher concentration of air pollutants

The Denver Post
Mark Jaffe
3/20/2012

People living within a half-mile of oil- and gas-well fracking operations were exposed to air pollutants five times above a federal hazard standard, according to a new Colorado study.

The University of Colorado Denver School of Public Health analysis is one of a string of studies in Wyoming, Utah and Colorado that highlight the air-quality impacts of drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

"Our data show that it is important to include air pollution in the national dialogue on natural-gas development that has focused largely on water," said Lisa McKenzie, the study's lead author.

The analysis found volatile organic chemicals at five times the level below which the emissions are considered unlikely to cause health problems, according to the federal Environmental Protection Agency's Hazard Index.

The chemicals can have neurological or respiratory effects that include eye irritation, headaches, sore throat and difficulty breathing, the study said.

"We are seeing indications that oil and gas operations can release chemicals that can be harmful to residents," 

McKenzie said.

The study used three years of data around Battlement Mesacollected by Garfield County.

The findings add fuel to the debate in Colorado over how far wells must be set back from residential areas — an issue being reviewed by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. The state requires a 150-foot setback in rural areas and 350 feet in developed areas.

"This study raises questions about those setback standards," said Frank Smith, director of organizing for the nonprofit Western Colorado Congress.

A bill in the state legislature that would have raised setbacks to 1,000 feet died in committee in February.

There are about 47,000 active wells in Colorado. Drilling began on nearly 3,000 more last year, most of them in Weld and Garfield counties, according to the oil and gas commission. In a study of nearly 5,000 well sites from 2009 to 2012, the commission found that 74 percent were at least 1,000 feet from any buildings. But 8 percent were within 500 feet of structures, some of which were residences.

Among the chemicals detected at elevated concentrations in the new study were trimethylbenzenes, aliphatic hydrocarbons and xylenes.

"The greatest health impact corresponds to the relatively short-term, but high emission, well completion period," the study said.

Continue reading...

Bombshell Study: High Methane Emissions Measured Over Gas Field “May Offset Climate Benefits of Natural Gas”

ThinkProgress

By Joe Romm on Feb 8, 2012 at 6:29 pm

Air sampling by NOAA over Colorado Finds 4% Methane Leakage, More Than Double Industry Claims

Natural-gas operations could release far more methane into

the atmosphere than previously thought. [Source: Nature]

How much methane leaks during the entire lifecycle of unconventional gas has emerged as a key question in the fracking debate. Natural gas is mostly methane (CH4). And methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than (CO2), which is released when any hydrocarbon, like natural gas, is burned.
Even without a high-leakage rate for shale gas, we know that “Absent a Serious Price for Global Warming Pollution, Natural Gas Is A Bridge To Nowhere.”
But the leakage rate does matter. A major 2011 study by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) concluded:

The most important result, however, in accord with the above authors, is that, unless leakage rates for new methane can be kept below 2%, substituting gas for coal is not an effective means for reducing the magnitude of future climate change.

The industry has tended kept most of the data secret while downplaying the leakage issue. Yet I know of no independent analysis that finds a rate below 2%, including one by the National Energy Technology Laboratory, the DOE’s premier fossil fuel lab.
Now, as the journal Nature reports, we finally have some actual air sampling measurements, and they appear to confirm the higher estimates put forward by Cornell professor Robert Howarth:

When US government scientists began sampling the air from a tower north of Denver, Colorado, they expected urban smog — but not strong whiffs of what looked like natural gas. They eventually linked the mysterious pollution to a nearby natural-gas field, and their investigation has now produced the first hard evidence that the cleanest-burning fossil fuel might not be much better than coal when it comes to climate change.

Led by researchers at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the University of Colorado, Boulder, the study estimates that natural-gas producers in an area known as the Denver-Julesburg Basin are losing about 4% of their gas to the atmosphere — not including additional losses in the pipeline and distribution system. This is more than double the official inventory, but roughly in line with estimates made in 2011 that have been challenged by industry. And because methane is some 25 times more efficient than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in the atmosphere, releases of that magnitude could effectively offset the environmental edge that natural gas is said to enjoy over other fossil fuels.

Methane is 25 times more efficient than CO2 trapping heat over 100 year — but it is 100 times more efficient than CO2 trapping heat over two decades.

“If we want natural gas to be the cleanest fossil fuel source, methane emissions have to be reduced,” says Gabrielle Pétron, an atmospheric scientist at NOAA and at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and first author on the study, currently in press at the Journal of Geophysical Research. Emissions will vary depending on the site, but Pétron sees no reason to think that this particular basin is unique. “I think we seriously need to look at natural-gas operations on the national scale.”

Continue reading... 

Eat this data @TishaSchuller - COGA

HEARING: Regulatory Reform Series #7 - The EPA’s Regulatory Planning, Analysis, and Major Actions

September 22, 2011

The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held a hearing on Thursday, September 22, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. in room 2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building. The hearing was entitled “Regulatory Reform Series #7 - The EPA’s Regulatory Planning, Analysis, and Major Actions.”

Background Memo


Watch the Archived Webcast




Witness List
The Honorable Lisa P. Jackson
Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Witness Testimony (Truth in Testimony)
Opening statement from Oversight and Investiagtions Chairman Cliff Stearns

Opening statement from Energy and Commerce Chairman Fred Upton


-------------------

Why is America discussing the amount of deaths caused from industry?  Are we that morally contaminated?

House Bills Repeal, Gut Safeguards Against Mercury & Toxic Air Pollution From Cement Plants, Incinerators, Boilers; Would Allow More Premature Deaths, Asthma Attacks

John Walk
NRDC
Posted September 30, 2011


The week of October 2nd, two bills aimed at blocking critical health protections against mercury and other toxic air pollution from incinerators and boilers (H.R. 2250) [pdf] and cement plants (H.R. 2681) [pdf] are expected to be brought up for a House floor vote. These bills continue the deadly trend of the Cantor Pollution Plan – rolling back clean air safeguards and putting millions of American lives at risk.

Last week saw adoption of the most extreme attack on the Clean Air Act ever to pass the House, legislation called the TRAIN Act (H.R. 2401). This Act repeals and blocks smog, soot, mercury and air toxics standards for power plants that would save over 130,000 lives and avoid over 1 million asthma attacks.

Like the TRAIN Act does with power plants, H.R. 2250 and H.R. 2681 nullify existing clean air standards for cement plants, incinerators and industrial boilers that collectively number in the thousands emitting mercury, arsenic, lead and cancer-causing toxins into our communities. Then these two bills allow the indefinite delay of compliance with these toxic air pollution standards, providing no guarantee of reductions even within a decade. Both bills forbid EPA from issuing final standards for these facilities for 15 months and also eliminate any deadlines by which industrial polluters must meet final standards once they are issued.

Even more irresponsibly, these bills severely weaken the Clean Air Act and overturn multiple federal court decisions to gut strong toxic air pollution standards that under current law must be applied to achieve deep cuts in dangerous mercury, lead, dioxins and acid gases from these facilities. See pages 10-13 and 16-17 of my Congressional testimony opposing the 2 bills here [pdf].

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has testified that weakening changes to the Clean Air Act included in the TRAIN Act – changes that are essentially identical to provisions in the cement, incinerator, and boiler bills -- “weaken and possibly destroy our ability to ever address those toxins, toxic pollutants” like “mercury and arsenic and lead and hydrochloric acid.” [Video testimony, starting at minute 50:50].

Cement plants and industrial boilers are two of the largest industrial emitters of mercury in the United States. Giving these industries a free pass, while over 100 other industries have already controlled their toxic pollution makes no sense and will seriously harm Americans’ health.

Incinerators and industrial boilers spew toxic air pollution such as cancer-causing dioxins, arsenic, and mercury and lead, which harm children’s brains. EPA is currently reconsidering toxic air pollution standards for these facilities and expects to finalize them by April of 2012. H.R. 2250 blocks critical health protections against mercury and toxic air pollution that are already a decade overdue. The bill blocks final standards by a minimum of 3.5 more years.

Cement plants also spew mercury and other deadly toxic air pollution. EPA finalized toxic air pollution standards for cement plants one year ago, in September 2010. These standards already are thirteen years overdue, and H.R. 2681 would further delay standards by a minimum of 4.5 years.
Both bills, however, then gratuitously repeal longstanding Clean Air Act compliance deadlines, thereby allowing actual compliance with any future standards to be delayed indefinitely. As summarized below, these delays will result in vastly more asthma attacks, more illness, and more avoidable deaths.

According to EPA’s analysis [pdf], as summarized in a recent White House blog, these two bills collectively would mean, at a minimum:

• 32,500 more premature deaths;
• 19,500 additional heart attacks; and
• 208,000 asthma attacks that otherwise would have been avoided.

Continue reading...

So we ask you: 'What is your death/benefit ratio in your fracking business model Ms. Klaber?'

Marcellus Shale Coalition

September 27, 2011

Pittsburgh, Pa. – At a public U.S. Environmental Protection Agency hearing today, Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC) president and executive director Kathryn Klaber underscored the fact that “clean-burning natural gas has undeniable air quality benefits.” Klaber strongly recommended “a 60-day extension” for the rulemaking comment period, given the host of proposed air regulations related to domestic oil and natural gas development, and expressed hope that regulators will join industry “in recognizing the tremendous air quality benefits of natural gas.”
Klaber’s prepared remarks are as follows:

Good afternoon. I am Kathryn Klaber, President and Executive Director of the Marcellus Shale Coalition, a multi-state association formed in 2008 and currently comprised of nearly 250 exploration and production, midstream, and supply-chain member companies fully committed to developing clean-burning natural gas resources in the Marcellus geological formation. Last year, our Coalition adopted a set of Guiding Principles, which comprise our vision for operating in a responsible, transparent manner in order to maximize the environmental, economic, and energy security benefits of clean-burning, abundant natural gas. Among those Guiding Principles is our focus on implementing state-of-the-art environmental protection across our operations. These are words we live and operate by – our commitment to our neighbors in this region and to the state agencies responsible for tightly regulating this industry.

I join you this afternoon not only as President of this dynamic Coalition, but also as a member of Pennsylvania’s Air Quality Technical Advisory Committee. I serve on the Committee for the same reason I proudly represent Marcellus producers today and every day: the work we are doing is improving environmental quality. Clean-burning natural gas has undeniable air quality benefits, and increasing its use in heating and fueling, transportation, and electricity generation serves all of us well. Ours is an industry committed not only to producing more clean-burning American natural gas, but to promoting it as well in our daily operations – from the use of natural gas-powered vehicles to rigs fueled in part by natural gas.

It is with these benefits in mind that I would briefly like to share my thoughts on some of the proposals made by the EPA. The Coalition will go into greater detail concerning these issues in the written comments to be submitted at a later date.

1. EPA has Underestimated Cost of Compliance

There are several examples in the Regulatory Impact Analysis in which EPA bases cost per ton reduction on gas with an inflated volatile organic compound weight percentage. For example, the northern Marcellus play in Pennsylvania contains dry gas, which would dramatically increase the cost per ton reduction when evaluating the feasibility of reduced emissions completions, vapor recovery units, flares, optical imaging leak detection and repair programs, as well as others. EPA should reconsider and provide for exemptions or other reasonable provisions for activities associated with dry gas plays

Continue reading...

Is it just us, or does anyone else believe that when Volatile Organic Compounds are emitted into the air, the air quality is thus reduced? The statement that clean-burning natural gas has undeniable air quality benefits is out of this world and as unrealistic as being able to surf the rings of  Saturn! 

Dear Kathryn Klaber,

We have never read such moronic scripture of industrial junk in a very long time! Your assessment is far from reality and feels like a science fiction novel.  Your 'mis-use' of words (Clean-burning), shows that you are wearing the industry label well. You also appear to lack real, irrefutable scientific reasoning. We implore you to resign from public speaking and commentary until such time that you can have a basic grasp on the science that is at hand.  With all due respect: You're occupying the same quantum state as a moron.

Consider the amount of controlled or uncontrolled released natural gas from hydraulic fracturing.  Just recently, it was reported that North Dakota (HERE) is burning 30% of all produced natural gas into the air because of lack of storage, lack of monetary value and consider it waste and burn it. This is undeniably air quality degradation.

Now consider the amount (MCF) of natural gas that is both released as controlled and uncontrolled amounts in the processes of recovering natural gas from shale formations. Weld  County, Colorado releases or flares roughly 1,361,000 MCF over a six month period, enough to cause asthma in most people.

Cornell’s study, conducted by Howarth, Prof. Anthony Ingraffea, civil and environmental engineering, and Renee Santoro, a research technician in ecology and evolutionary biology, has previously been used as a scientific reference for advocates against hydrofracking.

Their research determined that the shale gas released through hydrofracking generated life greenhouse gas emissions that were “at least 20 percent greater” than that of burning coal. This meant that using natural gas as a source of energy was “dirtier” than coal in respect to its environmental impact.

'Natural gas is mostly methane, which is a much more potent greenhouse gas, especially in the short term, with 105 times more warming impact, pound for pound, than carbon dioxide (CO2).' Howarth said.

So we ask you: 'What is your death/benefit ratio in your business model Ms. Klaber?

Some light reading for you Ms. Klaber HERE

Junk Propaganda Reporting at its Best? - Greeley Tribune: Oil and Gas "We don't Have a lot of Problems"

Oil and gas is a fixture in life, government of Weld County

By aromano@greeleytribune.com">Analisa Romanoaromano@greeleytribune.com

Greeley Tribune

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

These days, oil and gas isn’t just an industry in Weld County — it’s a way of life.

“People are used to it,” said Weld planning director Trevor Jiricek.
So is the Weld County Planning Commission. Because it has been inundated with applications to extract, store and process oil and natural gas, the commission hosted a special meeting Tuesday to focus on five requests submitted by the mammoth natural gas collector, DCP Midstream.
Jiricek said about 50 percent of the requests submitted to the planning department have to do with oil and gas.

“It makes you wonder what percent beyond that 50 is not directly related to oil and gas, but some kind of support,” Jiricek said. He said up to 75 percent of the activity surrounding land use cases could have their roots in the oil and gas industry.
Last year, the commission issued 841 building permits for oil and gas, which is three times that of 2005. And this year is on track to surpass 2010, according to a work output report from Weld’s Department of Planning Services, with 115 oil and gas building permits issued in August alone.
To compare, 50 residential building permits were issued in 2010, about one-fifth of what was issued in 2005.

As governments in Weld County well know, those permits have translated to an abounding flow of severance and property tax revenue from oil and gas companies.
In fiscal 2011, Weld received $1.72 million in severance tax revenue, in addition to $846,000 in mineral leases, according to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs.

Weld County assessor Chris Woodruff said the overall oil and gas class in the county is valued at $2.4 billion, translating to a taxable value of $5.2 billion.

In other words, Woodruff said, for every dollar of property taxes paid, about 47 cents comes from the oil and gas industry.Every case the commission heard Tuesday would build up the infrastructure needed for a pipeline in the Niobrara Formation that would transfer natural gas.DCP, which specializes in the transportation of gas, hopes to see the 57 miles of pipeline completed by mid-2013, said Greg Kardos, the company’s asset manager for Weld County.
“The D-J Basin is reinventing itself in anticipation of Niobrara,” Kardos told the commission.

The four gas compressors and electric gas processing facility DCP is requesting would add to the 150 jobs the company already has based in Weld County, he said. Jason Maxey, a member of the planning commission, said his only concern was whether the additions would take away irrigated farm land.

However, no concerns were voiced in the hearing portion of the meeting.

Jiricek said opposition to oil and gas activities is not usually the norm because the adverse effects are often successfully mitigated and because residents of Weld County see the industry as a part of everyday life.
“It’s been a gradual building of the industry,” he said. “We don’t have a lot of problems.”

----------------

Ever consider that an industry has flown in by night and has not provided the public with appropriate health information regarding the potential hazards of fracking?  Do the people of Weld County even know what fracking is?  Do they know the EPA's death ratio standards for cancer acceptance levels for VOC emissions?  We are starting to think that the County doesn't either.




According to the COGCC's website, to date, Weld County has had:

• More than 1,000 Field Inspections
• More than 1,000 Notice of Alleged Violations
• More than 1,000 Public Complaints
• More than 1,000 Spill/Incident reports where 433 Spills CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER and 30 spills CONTAMINATED SURFACE WATER
• More than 1,000 Remediation Forms filed 
• only 229 Mechanical Integrity Tests

Do the people of Weld County know about all of these problems ththe State Oil and Gas Conservation Commission has filed? Our guess is that they do not.  We will replay what we wrote just the other day about the death/benefit the EPA supports.



BELOW

EPA’s risk review estimates that the cancer risk from air toxic emissions from natural gas transmission and storage is approximately 90 in 1 million.

While EPA considers a risk level of 90 in 1 million to be acceptable, the agency is proposing changes to this standard that would lower the risk level to 20 in 1 million. What a nice way to dilute the issue...

Dividing 90 deaths into one million equals one death per 11,111 people in a population.

Therefore, the risk FOR CANCER ONLY, is guaranteed to be 1 in 11,111. The EPA says that is acceptable. Now are they also considering the well density of an area parallel with its population?


Consider an area like Weld County, Colorado which has an estimated 18 - 20,000 active oil and gas wells and a population of 268,000 citizens, which equates to 15 active oil and gas wells per citizen! That's a staggering proposition. In order to estimate the death ratio per a set population, we'd have to understand the estimated amount of toxic chemicals emitted per well on average and use the EPA's formula.

What if the death ratio was 1 in 5,000? That would equate to roughly 54 people dead from cancer caused from toxic emissions in the air. Would this be an annual event? Does anyone think an industry should be unregulated under the Clean Air Act?

link

Hot topic of hydrogen sulfide emissions creates cloud of controversy in gas patch - Can lead to death

Colorado Independent
By David O. Williams | 09.19.11 | 1:49 pm

The hot topic of hydrogen sulfide gas (H2S) emissions associated with natural gas drilling on Colorado’s Western Slope is expected to get a full airing at the monthly meeting of the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (COGCC) today and tomorrow in Broomfield.

The presence of H2S in significant quantities in and around Noble Energy wells in the Piceance Basin in 2009 came as a surprise to many gas patch residents and at least one COGCC board member, Richard Alward, who recently told the Glenwood Post Independent, “I have concerns about my own health, and the health of people who live and work in the Piceance.”

A report delivered by the COGCC to Rifle residents earlier this month showed that of Noble’s 353 active wells in the Parachute, Grand Valley and Rulison fields, a total of 312 were found to have some level of H2S gas. Of those, 37 had levels greater than 10 parts per million (PPM), and four had levels greater than 100 PPM. Exposure at higher levels can lead to breathing difficulties and even death.



Continue reading...

We published a similiar report on July 13, 2011 HERE

Critics of energy 'fracking' raise new concern: sand - Air quality a serious issue

By Anna Driver

updated 9/21/2011 4:56:22 PM ET

Farmer at one proposed Texas site cites 'air quality concerns, concerns about water quality and worries about truck traffic' 

This EOG Resources site in Cooke County, Texas, is seen being prepared last June for operation as a sand mine. It has drawn opposition from groups like Save the Trinity Aquifer, which believes the operation could contaminate local water supplies 

  HOUSTON — Fracking, the latest push in the quest to produce oil and gas, has been blamed for environmental problems ranging from flammable tap water to minor earthquakes. Now a new risk is being alleged: sand mining.

To squeeze hydrocarbons out of shale through hydraulic fracturing of the rock — the process known as fracking — producers need to pump an enormous amount of sand and other materials into the ground.
Obtaining the sand for this requires removing the top layer of earth over a sandstone deposit and using heavy equipment and large amounts of water to produce the fine grains.

According to some environmentalists and residents of affected areas, sand mining poses a threat to air and water quality.

Facing a shortage of the sand needed in fracking, oil and gas producer EOG Resources got into this mining business to secure scare supplies and bring down costs.

But the company is facing big opposition to an operation planned in North Texas' Cooke County.
"One of the big concerns is the impact on the air," said Jessie Thomas-Blate of the conservation group American Rivers. "Mining kicks up a lot of dust, and the people in the area can breathe in that dust."

"One of the big concerns is the impact on the air," said Jessie Thomas-Blate of the conservation group American Rivers. "Mining kicks up a lot of dust, and the people in the area can breathe in that dust."


Continue reading...

Chemicals Used in Hydraulic Fracturing

by Diane, M.P.H, M.S.

Dianesays.com

The following information describes chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, i.e., hydrofracking, and is included here as an addendum to the article: “The United States Should Do More To Promote Safe Energy Production Which Does Not Threaten Environmental and Public Health”:

Environmental and human health concerns associated with hydraulic fracturing include (3):

1. Ground water and aquifer contamination
2. Risks to air quality
3. Migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface
4. Risk of explosive gases entering private potable water wells, creating “flammable water”
5. Tremors and earthquakes within surrounding geographic areas
6. Potential mishandling of waste
7. Loss of land safe for agricultural production
8. Loss of land value
9. Human and animal health risks, including, but not limited to: birth defects, miscarriages, cancers, attention deficit disorder, hyperactivity, learning and other neurological deficits and/or damage. Chemicals currently being used to drill natural gas wells in Pennsylvania have already been associated with neurological problems.

A 2010 study performed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found contaminants in drinking water including: arsenic, copper, vanadium, and adamantanes adjacent to drilling operations. The EPA has investigated several sources, including agricultural activity, but noted gas drilling as a potential cause. On June 23, 2011, the EPA announced that it will examine claims of water pollution related to hydraulic fracturing in Texas, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Colorado and Louisiana (3).^“

Chart: States With Drilling Disclosure Rules (8)

Five states have passed laws or administrative rules requiring drilling companies to reveal some of the chemicals they use when injecting fluids to free natural gas and oil from underground rock formations.

* Wyoming was the first state to require disclosure of fracking fluids.

** Pennsylvania officials did not return calls or emails seeking clarification.
*** The Texas legislature passed the law in May 2011, but state regulators have until 2013 to complete the actual rules.

Chemical Constituents in Additives (3)

About 750 chemicals have been listed as additives for hydraulic fracturing in a report to the US Congress in 2011 (5). The following is a list of the different types of additives that are used in fracturing operations, as indicated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (7).

Classes of Additives	Purpose	Examples
Acid	Facilitates entry into rock formations	hydrochloric acid
Biocides	Kill bacteria and reduce risk of fouling	glutaraldehyde, 2,2 Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide
Breaker	Facilitate proppant entry	peroxodisulfates
Clay stabilizer	Clay stabilization	salts, ie tetramethylammonium chloride
Corrosion inhibitor	Well maintenance	methanol
Crosslinker	Facilitate proppant entry	potassium hydroxide
Friction reducers	Improve surface pressure	sodium acrylate, polyacrylamide
Gelling agents	Proppant placement	guar gum
Iron control	Well maintenance	citric acid, thioglycolic acid
Scale inhibitor	Prevention of precipitation	ammonium chloride, ethylene glycol, polyaccrylate
Surfactant	Reduction in fluid tension	methanol, isopropanol

List of Additives for Hydraulic Fracturing (6)

About 750 chemicals have been listed as additives for hydraulic fracturing in a report to the US Congress in 2011 (5). The following is a partial list of the chemical constituents in additives used in fracturing operations, as indicated by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (7).

CAS Number	Chemical Constituent
2634-33-5	1,2-Benzisothiazolin-2-one / 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one
95-63-6	1,2,4-trimethylbenzene
123-91-1	1,4-Dioxane
3452-07-1	1-eicosene
629-73-2	1-hexadecene
112-88-9	1-octadecene
1120-36-1	1-tetradecene
10222-01-2	2,2 Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide, a biocide
27776-21-2	2,2′-azobis-{2-(imidazlin-2-yl)propane}-dihydrochloride
73003-80-2	2,2-Dibromomalonamide
15214-89-8	2-Acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulphonic acid sodium salt polymer
46830-22-2	2-acryloyloxyethyl(benzyl)dimethylammonium chloride
52-51-7	2-Bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
111-76-2	2-Butoxy ethanol
1113-55-9	2-Dibromo-3-Nitriloprionamide (2-Monobromo-3-nitriilopropionamide)
104-76-7	2-Ethyl Hexanol
67-63-0	2-Propanol / Isopropyl Alcohol / Isopropanol / Propan-2-ol
26062-79-3	2-Propen-1-aminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-2-propenyl-chloride, homopolymer
9003-03-6	2-propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt
25987-30-8	2-Propenoic acid, polymer with 2 p-propenamide, sodium salt / Copolymer of acrylamide and sodium acrylate
71050-62-9	2-Propenoic acid, polymer with sodium phosphinate (1:1)
66019-18-9	2-propenoic acid, telomer with sodium hydrogen sulfite
107-19-7	2-Propyn-1-ol / Propargyl alcohol
51229-78-8	3,5,7-Triaza-1-azoniatricyclo[3.3.1.13,7]decane, 1-(3-chloro-2-propenyl)-chloride,
115-19-5	3-methyl-1-butyn-3-ol
127087-87-0	4-Nonylphenol Polyethylene Glycol Ether Branched / Nonylphenol ethoxylated / Oxyalkylated Phenol
64-19-7	Acetic acid
68442-62-6	Acetic acid, hydroxy-, reaction products with triethanolamine
108-24-7	Acetic Anhydride
67-64-1	Acetone
79-06-1	Acrylamide
38193-60-1	Acrylamide – sodium 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonate copolymer
25085-02-3	Acrylamide – Sodium Acrylate Copolymer or Anionic Polyacrylamide
69418-26-4	Acrylamide polymer with N,N,N-trimethyl-2[1-oxo-2-propenyl]oxy Ethanaminium chloride
15085	-02-3 Acrylamide-sodium acrylate copolymer
68551-12-2	Alcohols, C12-C16, Ethoxylated (a.k.a. Ethoxylated alcohol)
64742-47-8	Aliphatic Hydrocarbon / Hydrotreated light distillate / Petroleum Distillates / Isoparaffinic Solvent / Paraffin Solvent / Napthenic Solvent
64743-02-8	Alkenes
68439-57-6	Alkyl (C14-C16) olefin sulfonate, sodium salt
9016-45-9	Alkylphenol ethoxylate surfactants
1327-41-9	Aluminum chloride
73138-27-9	Amines, C12-14-tert-alkyl, ethoxylated
71011-04-6	Amines, Ditallow alkyl, ethoxylated
68551-33-7	Amines, tallow alkyl, ethoxylated, acetates
1336-21-6	Ammonia
631-61-8	Ammonium acetate
68037-05-8	Ammonium Alcohol Ether Sulfate
7783-20-2	Ammonium bisulfate
10192-30-0	Ammonium bisulfite
12125-02-9	Ammonium chloride
7632-50-0	Ammonium citrate
37475-88-0	Ammonium Cumene Sulfonate
1341-49-7	Ammonium hydrogen-difluoride
6484-52-2	Ammonium nitrate
7727-54-0	Ammonium Persulfate / Diammonium peroxidisulphate
1762-95-4	Ammonium Thiocyanate
7664-41-7	Aqueous ammonia
121888-68-4	Bentonite, benzyl(hydrogenated tallow alkyl) dimethylammonium stearate complex / organophilic clay
71-43-2	Benzene
119345-04-9	Benzene, 1,1′-oxybis, tetratpropylene derivatives, sulfonated, sodium salts
74153-51-8	Benzenemethanaminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-[2-[(1-oxo-2-propenyl)oxy]ethyl]-, chloride, polymer with 2-propenamide
10043-35-3	Boric acid
1303-86-2	Boric oxide / Boric Anhydride
71-36-3	Butan-1-ol
68002-97-1	C10 – C16 Ethoxylated Alcohol
68131-39-5	C12-15 Alcohol, Ethoxylated
10043-52-4	Calcium chloride
124-38-9	Carbon dioxide
68130-15-4	Carboxymethylhydroxypropyl guar
9012-54-8	Cellulase / Hemicellulase Enzyme
9004-34-6	Cellulose
10049-04-4	Chlorine dioxide
77-92-9	Citric Acid
94266-47-4	Citrus Terpenes
61789-40-0	Cocamidopropyl betaine
68155-09-9	Cocamidopropylamine Oxide
68424-94-2	Coco-betaine
7758-98-7	Copper(II) sulfate
31726-34-8	Crissanol A-55
14808-60-7	Crystalline Silica (Quartz)
7447-39-4	Cupric chloride dihydrate
1120-24-7	Decyldimethyl Amine
2605-79-0	Decyl-dimethyl Amine Oxide
3252-43-5	Dibromoacetonitrile
25340-17-4	Diethylbenzene
111-46-6	Diethylene glycol
22042-96-2	Diethylenetriamine penta (methylenephonic acid) sodium salt
28757-00-8	Diisopropyl naphthalenesulfonic acid
68607-28-3	Dimethylcocoamine, bis(chloroethyl) ether, diquaternary ammonium salt
7398-69-8	Dimethyldiallylammonium chloride
25265-71-8	Dipropylene glycol
139-33-3	Disodium Ethylene Diamine Tetra Acetate
5989-27-5	D-Limonene
123-01-3	Dodecylbenzene
27176-87-0	Dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid
42504-46-1	Dodecylbenzenesulfonate isopropanolamine
50-70-4	D-Sorbitol / Sorbitol
37288-54-3	Endo-1,4-beta-mannanase, or Hemicellulase
149879-98-1	Erucic Amidopropyl Dimethyl Betaine
89-65-6	Erythorbic acid, anhydrous
54076-97-0	Ethanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propenyl)oxy]-, chloride, homopolymer
107-21	-1 Ethane-1,2-diol / Ethylene Glycol
9002-93-1	Ethoxylated 4-tert-octylphenol
68439-50-9	Ethoxylated alcohol
126950-60-5	Ethoxylated alcohol
67254-71-1	Ethoxylated alcohol (C10-12)
68951-67-7	Ethoxylated alcohol (C14-15)
68439-46-3	Ethoxylated alcohol (C9-11)
66455-15-0	Ethoxylated Alcohols
84133-50-6	Ethoxylated Alcohols (C12-14 Secondary)
68439-51-0	Ethoxylated Alcohols (C12-14)
78330-21-9	Ethoxylated branch alcohol
34398-01-1	Ethoxylated C11 alcohol
61791-12-6	Ethoxylated Castor Oil
61791-29-5	Ethoxylated fatty acid, coco
61791-08-0	Ethoxylated fatty acid, coco, reaction product with ethanolamine
68439-45-2	Ethoxylated hexanol
9036-19-5	Ethoxylated octylphenol
9005-67-8	Ethoxylated Sorbitan Monostearate
9004-70-3	Ethoxylated Sorbitan Trioleate
64-17-5	Ethyl alcohol / ethanol
100-41-4	Ethyl Benzene
97-64-3	Ethyl lactate
9003-11-6	Ethylene Glycol-Propylene Glycol Copolymer (Oxirane, methyl-, polymer with oxirane)
75-21-8	Ethylene oxide
5877-42-9	Ethyloctynol
68526-86-3	Exxal 13
61790-12-3	Fatty Acids
68188-40-9	Fatty acids, tall oil reaction products w/ acetophenone, formaldehyde & thiourea
9043-30-5	Fatty alcohol polyglycol ether surfactant
7705-08-0	Ferric chloride
7782-63-0	Ferrous sulfate, heptahydrate
50-00-0	Formaldehyde
29316-47-0	Formaldehyde polymer with 4,1,1-dimethylethyl phenolmethyl oxirane
153795-76-7	Formaldehyde, polymers with branched 4-nonylphenol, ethylene oxide and propylene oxide
75-12-7	Formamide
64-18-6	Formic acid
110-17-8	Fumaric acid
65997-17-3	Glassy calcium magnesium phosphate
111-30-8	Glutaraldehyde
56-81-5	Glycerol / glycerine
9000-30-0	Guar Gum
64742-94-5	Heavy aromatic petroleum naphtha
9025-56-3	Hemicellulase
7647-01-0	Hydrochloric Acid / Hydrogen Chloride / muriatic acid
7722-84-1	Hydrogen peroxide
79-14-1	Hydroxy acetic acid
35249-89-9	Hydroxyacetic acid ammonium salt
9004-62-0	Hydroxyethyl cellulose
5470-11-1	Hydroxylamine hydrochloride
39421-75-5	Hydroxypropyl guar
35674-56-7	Isomeric Aromatic Ammonium Salt
64742-88-7	Isoparaffinic Petroleum Hydrocarbons, Synthetic
64-63-0	Isopropanol
98-82-8	Isopropylbenzene (cumene)
68909-80-8	Isoquinoline, reaction products with benzyl chloride and quinoline
8008-20-6	Kerosene
64742-81-0	Kerosine, hydrodesulfurized
63-42-3	Lactose
64742-95-6	Light aromatic solvent naphtha
1120-21-4	Light Paraffin Oil
14807-96-6	Magnesium Silicate Hydrate (Talc)
1184-78-7	methanamine, N,N-dimethyl-, N-oxide
67-56-1	Methanol
68891-11-2	Methyloxirane polymer with oxirane, mono (nonylphenol) ether, branched
8052-41-3	Mineral spirits / Stoddard Solvent
141-43-5	Monoethanolamine
44992-01-0	N,N,N-trimethyl-2[1-oxo-2-propenyl]oxy Ethanaminium chloride
64742-48-9	Naphtha (petroleum), hydrotreated heavy
91-20-3	Naphthalene
38640-62-9	Naphthalene bis(1-methylethyl)
93-18-5	Naphthalene, 2-ethoxy-
68909-18-2	N-benzyl-alkyl-pyridinium chloride
68139-30-0	N-Cocoamidopropyl-N,N-dimethyl-N-2-hydroxypropylsulfobetaine
7727-37-9	Nitrogen, Liquid form
68412-54-4	Nonylphenol Polyethoxylate
121888-66-2	Organophilic Clays
64742-65-0	Petroleum Base Oil
64741-68-0	Petroleum naphtha
70714-66-8	Phosphonic acid, [[(phosphonomethyl)imino]bis[2,1-ethanediylnitrilobis(methylene)]]tetrakis-, ammonium salt
8000-41-7	Pine Oil
60828-78-6	Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-[3,5-dimethyl-1-(2-methylpropyl)hexyl]-w-hydroxy-
25322-68-3	Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), a-hydro-w-hydroxy / Polyethylene Glycol
24938-91-8	Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), α-tridecyl-ω-hydroxy-
51838-31-4	Polyepichlorohydrin, trimethylamine quaternized
56449-46-8	Polyethlene glycol oleate ester
62649-23-4	Polymer with 2-propenoic acid and sodium 2-propenoate
9005-65-6	Polyoxyethylene Sorbitan Monooleate
61791-26-2	Polyoxylated fatty amine salt
127-08-2	Potassium acetate
12712-38-8	Potassium borate
1332-77-0	Potassium borate
20786-60-1	Potassium Borate
584-08-7	Potassium carbonate
7447-40-7	Potassium chloride
590-29-4	Potassium formate
1310-58-3	Potassium Hydroxide
13709-94-9	Potassium metaborate
24634-61-5	Potassium sorbate
112926-00-8	Precipitated silica / silica gel
57-55-6	Propane-1,2-diol, or Propylene glycol
107-98-2	Propylene glycol monomethyl ether
68953-58-2	Quaternary Ammonium Compounds
62763-89-7	Quinoline,2-methyl-, hydrochloride
15619-48-4	Quinolinium, 1-(phenylmethl),chloride
7631-86-9	Silica, Dissolved
5324-84-5	Sodium 1-octanesulfonate
127-09-3	Sodium acetate
95371-16-7	Sodium Alpha-olefin Sulfonate
532-32-1	Sodium benzoate
144-55-8	Sodium bicarbonate
7631-90-5	Sodium bisulfate
7647-15-6	Sodium bromide
497-19-8	Sodium carbonate
7647-14-5	Sodium Chloride
7758-19-2	Sodium chlorite
3926-62-3	Sodium chloroacetate
68-04-2	Sodium citrate
6381-77-7	Sodium erythorbate / isoascorbic acid, sodium salt
2836-32-0	Sodium Glycolate
1310-73-2	Sodium Hydroxide
7681-52-9	Sodium hypochlorite
7775-19-1	Sodium Metaborate .8H2O
10486-00-7	Sodium perborate tetrahydrate
7775-27-1	Sodium persulfate
9003-04-7	Sodium polyacrylate
7757-82-6	Sodium sulfate
1303-96-4	Sodium tetraborate decahydrate
7772-98-7	Sodium thiosulfate
1338-43-8	Sorbitan Monooleate
57-50-1	Sucrose
5329-14-6	Sulfamic acid
112945-52-5	Synthetic Amorphous / Pyrogenic Silica / Amorphous Silica
68155-20-4	Tall Oil Fatty Acid Diethanolamine
8052-48-0	Tallow fatty acids sodium salt
72480-70-7	Tar bases, quinoline derivs., benzyl chloride-quaternized
68647-72-3	Terpene and terpenoids
68956-56-9	Terpene hydrocarbon byproducts
533-74-4	Tetrahydro-3,5-dimethyl-2H-1,3,5-thiadiazine-2-thione (a.k.a. Dazomet)
55566-30-8	Tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)phosphonium sulfate (THPS)
75-57-0	Tetramethyl ammonium chloride
64-02-8	Tetrasodium Ethylenediaminetetraacetate
68-11-1	Thioglycolic acid
62-56-6	Thiourea
68527-49-1	Thiourea, polymer with formaldehyde and 1-phenylethanone
108-88-3	Toluene
81741-28-8	Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride
68299-02-5	Triethanolamine hydroxyacetate
112-27-6	Triethylene glycol
52624-57-4	Trimethylolpropane, Ethoxylated, Propoxylated
150-38-9	Trisodium Ethylenediaminetetraacetate
5064-31-3	Trisodium Nitrilotriacetate
7601-54-9	Trisodium orthophosphate
57-13-6	Urea
25038-72-6	Vinylidene Chloride/Methylacrylate Copolymer
7732-18-5	Water
1330-20-7	Xylene
	Aliphatic acids
	Aliphatic alcohol glycol ether
	Alkyl Aryl Polyethoxy Ethanol
	Alkylaryl Sulfonate
	Aromatic hydrocarbons
	Aromatic ketones
	Oxyalkylated alkylphenol
	Petroleum distillate blend
	Polyethoxylated alkanol
	Polymeric Hydrocarbons
	Salt of amine-carbonyl condensate
	Salt of fatty acid/polyamine reaction product
	Sugar
	Surfactant blend

References:

1. Burkey, Brent M. “See the State’s List of Chemicals Used in Hydrofracking.” July 19, 2010. ( www.yorkblog.com/…/see-the-states-list-of-chemicals-used-in-hydr…)
2. Hydrofracking Can Leach Toxic Chemicals. Are You Safe? (www.nrdc.org)
3. “Hydraulic Fracturing.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. July 21, 2011. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing)
4. Kuznetz, Nicholas. “Critics Find Gaps in State Laws to Disclose Hydrofracking Chemicals.” ProPublica. June 20, 2011.(www.propublica.org/article/…hydrofracking chemicals-single)
5. Kusnetz, Nicholas. ”Fracking Chemicals Cited in Congressional Report Stay Underground”. ProPublica. Published April 8, 2011. Retrieved July 11, 2011.
6. “List of Additives for Hydraulic Fracturing.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. July 27, 2011. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List-of-additives-for-hydraulic -fracturing)
7. “Natural Gas Development Activities and High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing”. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. September 30, 2009. pp. 45–51.
8. “States With Drilling Disclosure Rules”. WTFrack.org: Chart: States With Drilling Disclosure Rules”. June 24, 2011. <strong>Source:</strong> <em>Reporting by Nicholas Kusnetz/ProPublica</em> (wtfrackorg.blogspot.com/…/chart-states-with-drilling-disclosure.html)
9. http://anga.us/media/136662/cogis%20complaint%20report%205-23-08.pdf
10. “EPA: Natural Gas Drilling May Contaminate Drinking Water – Science News”. redOrbit. 2011-06-25. Retrieved 2011-07-13.