My Blog List

New warning of poisonous chemicals in natural gas 'hydrofracking'

A congressional report finds that chemicals used in 'hydrofracking' to extract natural gas are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under federal environmental laws.

Jennifer Roger holds a protest sign across the street from natural gas drilling in Flower Mound, Texas. Chemicals used to extract natural gas through "hydrofracking" include “extremely toxic substances,” according to a new report released by members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
LM Otero/AP

By Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writer / April 17, 2011
Chemicals used to extract natural gas from vast areas of the United States include “extremely toxic substances, such as benzene and lead,” according to a new report released by members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Skip to next paragraph
Twenty-nine of the chemicals are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act for risks to human health or listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, according to the report.
“This report shows that these companies are injecting millions of gallons of products that contain potentially hazardous chemicals, including known carcinogens,” said Rep. Henry Waxman (D) of California, senior Democrat on the committee.
Oil and gas industry officials deny that hydraulic fracturing – known as “hydrofracking” – is a threat to the environment or public health.
"This report uses the same sleight of hand deployed in the last report on diesel use – it compiles overall product volumes, not the volumes of the hazardous chemicals contained within those products," Matt Armstrong, an attorney representing companies involved in natural gas drilling, told the New York Times. "This generates big numbers but provides no context for the use of these chemicals over the many thousands of frac jobs that were conducted within the timeframe of the report."
Still, this latest evidence seems likely to accelerate study and possibly regulation of an industrial technique that has become increasingly controversial, particularly through the 2010 documentary film “Gasland.”
Fracking involves pumping a slurry of sand, water, and chemicals deep underground at high pressure – cracking open shale deposits and allowing the natural gas embedded there to emerge. The process has been hailed as a boon for US energy supplies and has boosted US natural-gas reserves in recent years.
But a growing number of residents in Texas, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and other states say the technique has fouled their drinking-water wells and even caused the tap water coming out of their faucets to smell like industrial chemicals.
As shown in “Gasland,” some people’s tap water has flared up when lit with a match.
Joining Rep. Waxman in releasing the report were Edward Markey of Massachusetts, senior Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, and Diana DeGette of Colorado, senior Democrat on the oversight and investigations subcommittee. They had asked for the investigative report before Republicans took over the House in last November’s elections.
Among other things, the report finds:
• The 14 leading oil and gas service companies used more than 780 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products, not including water added at the well site. Overall, the companies used more than 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 different chemicals and other components.
• The components used in the hydraulic fracturing products ranged from generally harmless and common substances, such as salt and citric acid, to extremely toxic substances, such as benzene and lead. Some companies even used instant coffee and walnut hulls in their fracturing fluids.
• Between 2005 and 2009, the oil and gas service companies used hydraulic fracturing products containing 29 chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for their risks to human health, or listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
• The BTEX compounds – benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene – are SDWA contaminants and hazardous air pollutants. Benzene also is a known human carcinogen. The hydraulic fracturing companies injected 11.4 million gallons of products containing at least one BTEX chemical over the five-year period.
• Methanol, which was used in 342 hydraulic fracturing products, was the most widely used chemical between 2005 and 2009. The substance is a hazardous air pollutant and is on the candidate list for potential regulation under SDWA. Isopropyl alcohol, 2-butoxyethanol, and ethylene glycol were the other most widely used chemicals.
• Many of the hydraulic fracturing fluids contain chemical components that are listed as “proprietary” or “trade secret.” The companies used 94 million gallons of 279 products that contained at least one chemical or component that the manufacturers deemed proprietary or a trade secret. In many instances, the oil and gas service companies were unable to identify these “proprietary” chemicals, suggesting that the companies are injecting fluids containing chemicals that they themselves cannot identify.

New warning of poisonous chemicals in natural gas 'hydrofracking'

A congressional report finds that chemicals used in 'hydrofracking' to extract natural gas are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under federal environmental laws.

Jennifer Roger holds a protest sign across the street from natural gas drilling in Flower Mound, Texas. Chemicals used to extract natural gas through "hydrofracking" include “extremely toxic substances,” according to a new report released by members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
LM Otero/AP

By Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writer / April 17, 2011
Chemicals used to extract natural gas from vast areas of the United States include “extremely toxic substances, such as benzene and lead,” according to a new report released by members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
Skip to next paragraph
Twenty-nine of the chemicals are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act for risks to human health or listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act, according to the report.
“This report shows that these companies are injecting millions of gallons of products that contain potentially hazardous chemicals, including known carcinogens,” said Rep. Henry Waxman (D) of California, senior Democrat on the committee.
Oil and gas industry officials deny that hydraulic fracturing – known as “hydrofracking” – is a threat to the environment or public health.
"This report uses the same sleight of hand deployed in the last report on diesel use – it compiles overall product volumes, not the volumes of the hazardous chemicals contained within those products," Matt Armstrong, an attorney representing companies involved in natural gas drilling, told the New York Times. "This generates big numbers but provides no context for the use of these chemicals over the many thousands of frac jobs that were conducted within the timeframe of the report."
Still, this latest evidence seems likely to accelerate study and possibly regulation of an industrial technique that has become increasingly controversial, particularly through the 2010 documentary film “Gasland.”
Fracking involves pumping a slurry of sand, water, and chemicals deep underground at high pressure – cracking open shale deposits and allowing the natural gas embedded there to emerge. The process has been hailed as a boon for US energy supplies and has boosted US natural-gas reserves in recent years.
But a growing number of residents in Texas, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and other states say the technique has fouled their drinking-water wells and even caused the tap water coming out of their faucets to smell like industrial chemicals.
As shown in “Gasland,” some people’s tap water has flared up when lit with a match.
Joining Rep. Waxman in releasing the report were Edward Markey of Massachusetts, senior Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee, and Diana DeGette of Colorado, senior Democrat on the oversight and investigations subcommittee. They had asked for the investigative report before Republicans took over the House in last November’s elections.
Among other things, the report finds:
• The 14 leading oil and gas service companies used more than 780 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products, not including water added at the well site. Overall, the companies used more than 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 different chemicals and other components.
• The components used in the hydraulic fracturing products ranged from generally harmless and common substances, such as salt and citric acid, to extremely toxic substances, such as benzene and lead. Some companies even used instant coffee and walnut hulls in their fracturing fluids.
• Between 2005 and 2009, the oil and gas service companies used hydraulic fracturing products containing 29 chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for their risks to human health, or listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.
• The BTEX compounds – benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene – are SDWA contaminants and hazardous air pollutants. Benzene also is a known human carcinogen. The hydraulic fracturing companies injected 11.4 million gallons of products containing at least one BTEX chemical over the five-year period.
• Methanol, which was used in 342 hydraulic fracturing products, was the most widely used chemical between 2005 and 2009. The substance is a hazardous air pollutant and is on the candidate list for potential regulation under SDWA. Isopropyl alcohol, 2-butoxyethanol, and ethylene glycol were the other most widely used chemicals.
• Many of the hydraulic fracturing fluids contain chemical components that are listed as “proprietary” or “trade secret.” The companies used 94 million gallons of 279 products that contained at least one chemical or component that the manufacturers deemed proprietary or a trade secret. In many instances, the oil and gas service companies were unable to identify these “proprietary” chemicals, suggesting that the companies are injecting fluids containing chemicals that they themselves cannot identify.

EPA to natural gas companies: Give details on 'fracking' chemicals

The natural-gas production industry has resisted providing information about fracking or hydraulic fracturing chemicals, which some say have fouled drinking-water wells.

Oil Shale and raw extract oil held by a Shell Oil spokesman on July 29, 2008.
Noah Rabinowitz/The Denver Post/Newscom/File

By Mark Clayton, Staff writer / September 9, 2010
The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday said it would ask nine big natural-gas production companies to volunteer what the industry has staunchly resisted: details about what hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" chemicals they inject into the ground.
Skip to next paragraph
Fracking for natural gas involves pumping a slurry of sand, water, and chemicals deep underground at high pressure – cracking open natural-gas-bearing shale deposits and allowing the gas embedded there to emerge. The process has been hailed as a boon for US energy supplies and has single-handedly boosted US natural-gas reserves in recent years.
But a growing number of residents in Texas, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and other states say the technique has fouled their drinking-water wells and even caused the tap water coming out of their faucets to smell like industrial chemicals.
In March, the EPA announced it would study the "potential adverse impact" that hydraulic fracturing might have on drinking water. The agency is holding public meetings in major oil and gas production regions to get citizen, industry, and expert input. First results of the study are expected in late 2012.
Remarkably little is known about the composition of fracking fluids. While a public-relations campaign by the natural-gas industry indicated that many of the chemicals used can be found under a kitchen sink, the industry has long resisted efforts to identify those chemicals. Some lists have emerged, but without crucial details needed to determine impacts on health and the environment, experts say. No comprehensive national study of the practice has been conducted.
"Natural gas is an important part of our nation’s energy future, and it’s critical that the extraction of this valuable natural resource does not come at the expense of safe water and healthy communities," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a statement. "EPA will do everything in its power, as it is obligated to do, to protect the health of the American people and will respond to demonstrated threats while the study is underway.”
The EPA says its study will focus on the impacts of the chemicals on human health and the environment, as well as on the operating procedures at hydraulic fracturing sites and the sites where fracturing has been conducted.
If the agency does get the information, it would be a major step, citizen activists and environmentalists say. At present, hydraulic fracturing is exempted from federal regulation. But political pressure to reveal what's being pumped underground has produced congressional legislation not only to disclose data, but also to repeal the industry's exemption.
In a scramble to prevent repeal of its exemption, the industry now nominally supports the EPA study, several observers say. Industry spokesmen were circumspect.
"We believe the EPA study presents an important opportunity to demonstrate once again that fracturing technology is safely managed, efficiently used, and well regulated by the states," Chris Tucker, a spokesman for Energy in Depth, an industry public-relations group, said in a statement. "If EPA believes it needs specific information to ensure its study draws on the best science and data available, we're hopeful the agency can coordinate with our members to ensure it has everything it needs, and uses that information in an appropriate way."
The names that the EPA is sending letters to include a who's who list of gas-drilling companies: BJ Services, Complete Production Services, Halliburton, Key Energy Services, Patterson-UTI, PRC Inc., Schlumberger, Superior Well Services, and Weatherford.
Hydraulic-fracturing opponents in Texas and Pennsylvania, who say the process fouls the air (through diesel exhaust) as well as the ground water, were buoyed by the announcement but remain wary.
"At least the EPA is paying attention," says Don Young, founder of Fort Worth Citizens Against Neighborhood Drilling Operations. "Before they weren't even asking, and industry had carte blanche doing whatever they wanted. What the EPA is doing is good – but only if they take that information and use it to demand the industry stop pumping these chemicals underground."
Barbara Arrindell at Damascus Citizens, a group opposed to hydraulic fracturing in Damascus, Pa., agreed that it was "a good step" but that success could come only if the EPA can extract more specific information.
"The industry likes to say that the chemicals it uses can be found under the kitchen sinks of people’s homes," she says. "Well, I don't have sulfuric acid or benzene or glutaraldehyde or methanol under there. We need to know what they're putting into the ground at specific sites."
Specificity is crucial, agrees Scott Anderson, a senior policy adviser at the Environmental Defense Fund in Austin, Texas. And this time, he says, it may actually happen. The industry has at times listed chemicals it has used – but not at specific sites or with formulations or quantities, he says.
In its letter, EPA requests the companies to provide all that, as well as the Chemical Abstracts Service number for each chemical – a vital number that allows for analysis for health and environmental effects.
While Mr. Young worries whether EPA will really get the information voluntarily, the agency says in its statement that it "expects the companies to cooperate with these voluntary requests.” It continues, “If not, EPA is prepared to use its authorities to require the information needed to carry out its study."
"The industry has pitched such fierce resistance to the idea of disclosing these chemicals," Mr. Anderson says. "Now, we may finally get to see specifically what's been put into the ground."

Fracking for natural gas: EPA hearings bring protests

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a controversial process for extracting natural gas from shale. Critics of fracking question the environmental and health effects of pumping thousands of gallons of water and chemicals underground.

A Chesapeake Energy natural-gas well site near Burlington, Pa., photographed April 23, is one of many that sit atop vast reserves that could require 'fracking,' a controversial procedure, to tap.
Ralph Wilson/AP/File

By Mark Clayton, Staff writer / September 13, 2010
Public hearings over hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" brought hundreds of protesters to Binghamton, N.Y., Monday, carrying signs and shouting slogans either opposing or favoring expansion of the controversial process for extracting natural gas from shale. [Editor's note: Binghamton was misspelled in the original version.]
Skip to next paragraph
The Environmental Protection Agency's public hearings are part of a broad investigation, begun in March, into the human health and environmental effects of fracking – focusing on air pollution and water pollution. The chemical effects that fracking fluids may have on water supplies after being injected into the ground to extract gas are a special focus.
But a new study conducted for the American Public Power Association (APPA) suggests that if wider use of natural gas in electric power production comes to pass nationwide – as many analysts now expect – such controversies may be just beginning.
"Even if fracturing continues, serving a much larger market will require even more drilling that is already at record levels," the APPA study found.
In Pennsylvania, for instance, at least 1,600 fracking wells have been drilled with about 4,000 permits granted, the Associated Press reported Monday. But the new study suggests that as the flood of gas drives prices down, electric power generators will increasingly see it as a good alternative to burning coal. That, in turn, would mean vastly expanded fracking.
Lying beneath New York, Pennsylvania, and other parts of the Northeast, the rich Marcellus shale beds could supply the region with trillions of cubic feet of natural gas for decades, according to some estimates. But opponents say the process that involves pumping tons of toxic chemicals into the ground under pressure can pollute groundwater and greatly increase air pollution.
Thanks to expanded use of fracking, however, US natural-gas reserves have soared. Proven natural gas reserves have increased by more than enough to cover annual production for each of the last 15 or so years, the APPA report says. Natural-gas reserves now total 245 trillion cubic feet – enough to meet 2009-level demand for more than 10 years, it says.
The APPA study also recounts environmental impacts found by other groups. It said a recent study by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, for instance, found that fracturing a single well could involve “pumping three to eight million gallons of water and 80 to 300 tons of chemicals" into it at high pressure over several days.
"Half or so of the injected solution returns back up the well," the New York City study said. "The water that flows back up the well also tends to contain hydrocarbons and dissolved solids such that it must be disposed of via underground injection or industrial treatment." Conventional wastewater treatment was "not feasible," it said.
With injection water typically trucked in, the NYC study estimated "1,000 or more truck trips per well to haul in water and equipment and then haul out wastewater." But that's not the end of it, since as production falls off, the fracturing process is repeated on a well. Some shale gas wells need fracking every five years over a period of 20 to 40 years. The New York study calls fracturing "an ongoing process rather than something that occurs only when the wells are originally drilled."
The EPA hearings are likely to increase debate as more information about the chemistry of the fracking process emerges, environmentalists and energy analysts say.
"They have never done a hydraulic fracking study as comprehensive as the one now beginning," says Scott Anderson, a senior policy adviser for the Environment Defense Fund. "The results of this study will inform future congressional decisions on whether to continue to exempt hydraulic fracturing from the federal Safe Drinking Water Act."
Little is known about the chemical composition of fracking fluids – and the state of New York has held up permitting until more information emerges. While the natural-gas industry says many of the chemicals in such fluids can be found under a kitchen sink, the industry has long resisted identifying those chemicals. That could be changing soon, too.
That's because the EPA hearings could cause Congress to require that fracking fluid chemicals be identified, and could remove fracking's exemption from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, according to Kevin Book, an energy analyst with energy market research firm ClearView Energy Partners.
"On August 31, EPA quietly released interim results of its ongoing review of possible drinking water contamination at several sites near Pavilion, Wyoming," he writes in a new analysis. "Although EPA’s latest data did not conclusively link contamination to fracking, EPA’s guidance that residents should avoid drinking their water may offer Congressional fracking opponents a valuable sound bite to use when calling for mandatory disclosure rules."
While the Energy Policy Act of 2005 prevents the EPA from explicitly regulating fracking wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act, "the Agency already possesses considerable regulatory authority under other existing laws," writes Mr. Book. As a result, he contends, even without Congressional action, the EPA could, under other federal laws, "investigate other reports of fracking-linked contamination."

Coal power: TVA agrees to phase out 18 units, shift to cleaner fuels

Tennessee Valley Authority says it will phase out 18 older coal-fired generators at three power plants by 2020. Natural-gas and biomass units will replace the coal power as part of a TVA settlement over clean-air violations.

This March 16 photo shows piles of coal at NRG Energy's W.A. Parish Electric Generating Station in Thompsons, Texas. The plant, which operates natural gas and coal-fired units, is one of the largest power plants in the United States. The Tennessee Valley Authority said Thursday it plans to close 18 older coal-fired power generators at three plants by 2020.
David J. Phillip/AP/File

By Mark Clayton, Staff writer / April 14, 2011
The Tennessee Valley Authority, one of America's largest utilities, said Thursday it plans to close 18 older coal-fired power generators at three plants as part of a court settlement in which it will pay $10 million in fines for violations of the federal Clean Air Act.
Skip to next paragraph
When completed, the shutdowns will be one of the largest single closures of coal-fired units since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began, in the 1990s, to require emissions controls on older plants, observers say. The plan also marks a shift toward cleaner forms of energy, company officials said.
As it phases out the coal generators by 2020, TVA will replace them with modern natural-gas and biomass-fired power plants, cutting emissions of smog and acid-rain forming gases and slashing greenhouse-gas emissions. The company also will pay to improve energy efficiency across the region.
The impact of the closures will be felt in a number of states and national parks. Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and North Carolina had supported the EPA lawsuit, along with the National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club, and Our Children’s Earth Foundation. Thursday's announcement ends a decade-long court battle.
"For decades, the Smoky Mountains [National Park] has suffered from a slow motion crisis," said Don Barger, senior regional director for the National Parks Conservation Association. "Air pollution from TVA’s coal-fired power plants has degraded scenic vistas, damaged plant species, and impaired human health. Today’s settlement halts that trend and sends us in the right direction."
In its announcement, TVA said the closures – at two plants in Tennessee and one in Alabama – will help it reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, a component of acid rain, by 97 percent from 1977 levels. It will also curb nitrogen-oxide emissions that help form smog by 95 percent from 1995 levels.
About 2,700 megawatts of coal-fired electricity generation will be permanently retired, and in its place will come low-emission or zero-emission electricity sources, including renewable energy, natural gas, nuclear power, and energy efficiency.
"Diversity proved to be the most prudent course in meeting future energy needs in all the various future scenarios we studied," said Tom Kilgore, TVA president and CEO, said in a statement. "A variety of electricity sources, rather than heavy reliance on any single source, reduces long-term risks and helps keep costs steady and predictable."
The shift is not expected to significantly increase electric rates, he indicated.
"In the longer term, these actions reinforce our vision to keep bills low, keep our service reliability high and further improve air quality as we modernize the TVA power system," Mr. Kilgore said.
The settlement is a big win for the EPA, which led the charge in court against clean air violations at 11 of TVA's coal-fired plants in Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The shift by TVA could be a national bellwether, say environmentalists.
"Today's landmark agreement is a game changer for how we power our homes and businesses in the Southeast," Mary Anne Hitt, director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign, said in a statement. "By phasing out the most dangerous coal plants and charting a course focused on less pollution and more clean energy, TVA is demonstrating that we don’t have to choose between clean air and affordable energy – we can and must have both."
QUIZ: An 'Are you smarter than Al Gore' energy quiz

Solar power: breakthrough could herald big drop in costs

Solar power is generated by photovoltaic cells, but two scientists are exploring different materials that could foster voltage from light's magnetic effects.

By Mark Clayton, Staff writer / April 15, 2011
Scientists at the University of Michigan have discovered a new effect from an old property of light, which they say could lead to an "optical battery" that converts sunlight to electricity at a fraction of the cost of today's photovoltaic cells.
Skip to next paragraph
Light has electric and magnetic qualities. Scientists had long thought, however, that the effects of light's magnetic field were so weak as to be irrelevant.
No so, says Stephen Rand, a professor of physics. Along with doctoral student William Fisher, he persisted in probing the long-ignored weak magnetic field that light produces when traveling through a nonconductive material, such as glass.
The breakthrough – unveiled Friday in a scientific paper in the Journal of Applied Physics – shows that if light is intense enough, it can, when traveling through nonconductive material, generate voltage from magnetic effects 100 million times stronger than earlier expected. Such magnetic effects produce a strong electric field that can be harnessed for electric power production, Dr. Rand and Mr. Fisher say.
“This could lead to a new kind of solar cell without semiconductors and without absorption to produce charge separation,” Rand said in a statement. “In solar cells, the light goes into a material, gets absorbed and creates heat. Here, we expect to have a very low heat load. Instead of the light being absorbed, energy is stored in the magnetic moment.”
He continues, “Intense magnetization can be induced by intense light and then it is ultimately capable of providing a capacitive power source.”
Of course with every scientific breakthrough, there's the challenge of how to make it practical. In this case, the problem is that the intensity of the light must be about 10 million watts per square centimeter. Ordinary sunlight is much less than even one watt per square centimeter.
But that doesn't deter Fisher, who says that new materials (transparent ceramics, perhaps), when combined with focused sunlight, could work at lesser intensities.
“We show that sunlight is theoretically almost as effective in producing charge separation as laser light is,” says Fisher in a phone interview. "It turns out we can in principle develop a voltage along the direction of the beam of light.”
He adds, “Enough sunlight, focused into an optical fiber, could generate electricity – that’s is a simple way to think about it."
In experiments planned for this summer, the two scientists plan to harness this power using laser light and – after that – sunlight. Fisher says that with improved materials (various kinds of glass, for example), sunlight could produce electricity at perhaps 10 percent efficiency – roughly equal to the rate at which commercial solar cells today convert sunlight to electricity.
"The breakthrough is really on the cost side," Fisher says. “All we need are lenses to focus the light and a fiber to guide it. Glass is made in bulk, and it doesn’t require much processing, either.”
But the breakthrough is unlikely to be implemented in solar power production for several years, perhaps even a decade, Fisher cautions. Yet he does not foresee any hurdles that can't be overcome.
"It's doable," he says.

 

EPA to natural gas companies: Give details on 'fracking' chemicals

The natural-gas production industry has resisted providing information about fracking or hydraulic fracturing chemicals, which some say have fouled drinking-water wells.

Oil Shale and raw extract oil held by a Shell Oil spokesman on July 29, 2008.
Noah Rabinowitz/The Denver Post/Newscom/File

By Mark Clayton, Staff writer / September 9, 2010
The Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday said it would ask nine big natural-gas production companies to volunteer what the industry has staunchly resisted: details about what hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" chemicals they inject into the ground.
Skip to next paragraph
Fracking for natural gas involves pumping a slurry of sand, water, and chemicals deep underground at high pressure – cracking open natural-gas-bearing shale deposits and allowing the gas embedded there to emerge. The process has been hailed as a boon for US energy supplies and has single-handedly boosted US natural-gas reserves in recent years.
But a growing number of residents in Texas, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and other states say the technique has fouled their drinking-water wells and even caused the tap water coming out of their faucets to smell like industrial chemicals.
In March, the EPA announced it would study the "potential adverse impact" that hydraulic fracturing might have on drinking water. The agency is holding public meetings in major oil and gas production regions to get citizen, industry, and expert input. First results of the study are expected in late 2012.
Remarkably little is known about the composition of fracking fluids. While a public-relations campaign by the natural-gas industry indicated that many of the chemicals used can be found under a kitchen sink, the industry has long resisted efforts to identify those chemicals. Some lists have emerged, but without crucial details needed to determine impacts on health and the environment, experts say. No comprehensive national study of the practice has been conducted.
"Natural gas is an important part of our nation’s energy future, and it’s critical that the extraction of this valuable natural resource does not come at the expense of safe water and healthy communities," EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson said in a statement. "EPA will do everything in its power, as it is obligated to do, to protect the health of the American people and will respond to demonstrated threats while the study is underway.”
The EPA says its study will focus on the impacts of the chemicals on human health and the environment, as well as on the operating procedures at hydraulic fracturing sites and the sites where fracturing has been conducted.
If the agency does get the information, it would be a major step, citizen activists and environmentalists say. At present, hydraulic fracturing is exempted from federal regulation. But political pressure to reveal what's being pumped underground has produced congressional legislation not only to disclose data, but also to repeal the industry's exemption.
In a scramble to prevent repeal of its exemption, the industry now nominally supports the EPA study, several observers say. Industry spokesmen were circumspect.
"We believe the EPA study presents an important opportunity to demonstrate once again that fracturing technology is safely managed, efficiently used, and well regulated by the states," Chris Tucker, a spokesman for Energy in Depth, an industry public-relations group, said in a statement. "If EPA believes it needs specific information to ensure its study draws on the best science and data available, we're hopeful the agency can coordinate with our members to ensure it has everything it needs, and uses that information in an appropriate way."
The names that the EPA is sending letters to include a who's who list of gas-drilling companies: BJ Services, Complete Production Services, Halliburton, Key Energy Services, Patterson-UTI, PRC Inc., Schlumberger, Superior Well Services, and Weatherford.
Hydraulic-fracturing opponents in Texas and Pennsylvania, who say the process fouls the air (through diesel exhaust) as well as the ground water, were buoyed by the announcement but remain wary.
"At least the EPA is paying attention," says Don Young, founder of Fort Worth Citizens Against Neighborhood Drilling Operations. "Before they weren't even asking, and industry had carte blanche doing whatever they wanted. What the EPA is doing is good – but only if they take that information and use it to demand the industry stop pumping these chemicals underground."
Barbara Arrindell at Damascus Citizens, a group opposed to hydraulic fracturing in Damascus, Pa., agreed that it was "a good step" but that success could come only if the EPA can extract more specific information.
"The industry likes to say that the chemicals it uses can be found under the kitchen sinks of people’s homes," she says. "Well, I don't have sulfuric acid or benzene or glutaraldehyde or methanol under there. We need to know what they're putting into the ground at specific sites."
Specificity is crucial, agrees Scott Anderson, a senior policy adviser at the Environmental Defense Fund in Austin, Texas. And this time, he says, it may actually happen. The industry has at times listed chemicals it has used – but not at specific sites or with formulations or quantities, he says.
In its letter, EPA requests the companies to provide all that, as well as the Chemical Abstracts Service number for each chemical – a vital number that allows for analysis for health and environmental effects.
While Mr. Young worries whether EPA will really get the information voluntarily, the agency says in its statement that it "expects the companies to cooperate with these voluntary requests.” It continues, “If not, EPA is prepared to use its authorities to require the information needed to carry out its study."
"The industry has pitched such fierce resistance to the idea of disclosing these chemicals," Mr. Anderson says. "Now, we may finally get to see specifically what's been put into the ground."

Fracking for natural gas: EPA hearings bring protests

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a controversial process for extracting natural gas from shale. Critics of fracking question the environmental and health effects of pumping thousands of gallons of water and chemicals underground.

A Chesapeake Energy natural-gas well site near Burlington, Pa., photographed April 23, is one of many that sit atop vast reserves that could require 'fracking,' a controversial procedure, to tap.
Ralph Wilson/AP/File

By Mark Clayton, Staff writer / September 13, 2010
Public hearings over hydraulic fracturing or "fracking" brought hundreds of protesters to Binghamton, N.Y., Monday, carrying signs and shouting slogans either opposing or favoring expansion of the controversial process for extracting natural gas from shale. [Editor's note: Binghamton was misspelled in the original version.]
Skip to next paragraph
The Environmental Protection Agency's public hearings are part of a broad investigation, begun in March, into the human health and environmental effects of fracking – focusing on air pollution and water pollution. The chemical effects that fracking fluids may have on water supplies after being injected into the ground to extract gas are a special focus.
But a new study conducted for the American Public Power Association (APPA) suggests that if wider use of natural gas in electric power production comes to pass nationwide – as many analysts now expect – such controversies may be just beginning.
"Even if fracturing continues, serving a much larger market will require even more drilling that is already at record levels," the APPA study found.
In Pennsylvania, for instance, at least 1,600 fracking wells have been drilled with about 4,000 permits granted, the Associated Press reported Monday. But the new study suggests that as the flood of gas drives prices down, electric power generators will increasingly see it as a good alternative to burning coal. That, in turn, would mean vastly expanded fracking.
Lying beneath New York, Pennsylvania, and other parts of the Northeast, the rich Marcellus shale beds could supply the region with trillions of cubic feet of natural gas for decades, according to some estimates. But opponents say the process that involves pumping tons of toxic chemicals into the ground under pressure can pollute groundwater and greatly increase air pollution.
Thanks to expanded use of fracking, however, US natural-gas reserves have soared. Proven natural gas reserves have increased by more than enough to cover annual production for each of the last 15 or so years, the APPA report says. Natural-gas reserves now total 245 trillion cubic feet – enough to meet 2009-level demand for more than 10 years, it says.
The APPA study also recounts environmental impacts found by other groups. It said a recent study by the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, for instance, found that fracturing a single well could involve “pumping three to eight million gallons of water and 80 to 300 tons of chemicals" into it at high pressure over several days.
"Half or so of the injected solution returns back up the well," the New York City study said. "The water that flows back up the well also tends to contain hydrocarbons and dissolved solids such that it must be disposed of via underground injection or industrial treatment." Conventional wastewater treatment was "not feasible," it said.
With injection water typically trucked in, the NYC study estimated "1,000 or more truck trips per well to haul in water and equipment and then haul out wastewater." But that's not the end of it, since as production falls off, the fracturing process is repeated on a well. Some shale gas wells need fracking every five years over a period of 20 to 40 years. The New York study calls fracturing "an ongoing process rather than something that occurs only when the wells are originally drilled."
The EPA hearings are likely to increase debate as more information about the chemistry of the fracking process emerges, environmentalists and energy analysts say.
"They have never done a hydraulic fracking study as comprehensive as the one now beginning," says Scott Anderson, a senior policy adviser for the Environment Defense Fund. "The results of this study will inform future congressional decisions on whether to continue to exempt hydraulic fracturing from the federal Safe Drinking Water Act."
Little is known about the chemical composition of fracking fluids – and the state of New York has held up permitting until more information emerges. While the natural-gas industry says many of the chemicals in such fluids can be found under a kitchen sink, the industry has long resisted identifying those chemicals. That could be changing soon, too.
That's because the EPA hearings could cause Congress to require that fracking fluid chemicals be identified, and could remove fracking's exemption from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, according to Kevin Book, an energy analyst with energy market research firm ClearView Energy Partners.
"On August 31, EPA quietly released interim results of its ongoing review of possible drinking water contamination at several sites near Pavilion, Wyoming," he writes in a new analysis. "Although EPA’s latest data did not conclusively link contamination to fracking, EPA’s guidance that residents should avoid drinking their water may offer Congressional fracking opponents a valuable sound bite to use when calling for mandatory disclosure rules."
While the Energy Policy Act of 2005 prevents the EPA from explicitly regulating fracking wells under the Safe Drinking Water Act, "the Agency already possesses considerable regulatory authority under other existing laws," writes Mr. Book. As a result, he contends, even without Congressional action, the EPA could, under other federal laws, "investigate other reports of fracking-linked contamination."

Coal power: TVA agrees to phase out 18 units, shift to cleaner fuels

Tennessee Valley Authority says it will phase out 18 older coal-fired generators at three power plants by 2020. Natural-gas and biomass units will replace the coal power as part of a TVA settlement over clean-air violations.

This March 16 photo shows piles of coal at NRG Energy's W.A. Parish Electric Generating Station in Thompsons, Texas. The plant, which operates natural gas and coal-fired units, is one of the largest power plants in the United States. The Tennessee Valley Authority said Thursday it plans to close 18 older coal-fired power generators at three plants by 2020.
David J. Phillip/AP/File

By Mark Clayton, Staff writer / April 14, 2011
The Tennessee Valley Authority, one of America's largest utilities, said Thursday it plans to close 18 older coal-fired power generators at three plants as part of a court settlement in which it will pay $10 million in fines for violations of the federal Clean Air Act.
Skip to next paragraph
When completed, the shutdowns will be one of the largest single closures of coal-fired units since the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began, in the 1990s, to require emissions controls on older plants, observers say. The plan also marks a shift toward cleaner forms of energy, company officials said.
As it phases out the coal generators by 2020, TVA will replace them with modern natural-gas and biomass-fired power plants, cutting emissions of smog and acid-rain forming gases and slashing greenhouse-gas emissions. The company also will pay to improve energy efficiency across the region.
The impact of the closures will be felt in a number of states and national parks. Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, and North Carolina had supported the EPA lawsuit, along with the National Parks Conservation Association, Sierra Club, and Our Children’s Earth Foundation. Thursday's announcement ends a decade-long court battle.
"For decades, the Smoky Mountains [National Park] has suffered from a slow motion crisis," said Don Barger, senior regional director for the National Parks Conservation Association. "Air pollution from TVA’s coal-fired power plants has degraded scenic vistas, damaged plant species, and impaired human health. Today’s settlement halts that trend and sends us in the right direction."
In its announcement, TVA said the closures – at two plants in Tennessee and one in Alabama – will help it reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, a component of acid rain, by 97 percent from 1977 levels. It will also curb nitrogen-oxide emissions that help form smog by 95 percent from 1995 levels.
About 2,700 megawatts of coal-fired electricity generation will be permanently retired, and in its place will come low-emission or zero-emission electricity sources, including renewable energy, natural gas, nuclear power, and energy efficiency.
"Diversity proved to be the most prudent course in meeting future energy needs in all the various future scenarios we studied," said Tom Kilgore, TVA president and CEO, said in a statement. "A variety of electricity sources, rather than heavy reliance on any single source, reduces long-term risks and helps keep costs steady and predictable."
The shift is not expected to significantly increase electric rates, he indicated.
"In the longer term, these actions reinforce our vision to keep bills low, keep our service reliability high and further improve air quality as we modernize the TVA power system," Mr. Kilgore said.
The settlement is a big win for the EPA, which led the charge in court against clean air violations at 11 of TVA's coal-fired plants in Alabama, Kentucky, and Tennessee. The shift by TVA could be a national bellwether, say environmentalists.
"Today's landmark agreement is a game changer for how we power our homes and businesses in the Southeast," Mary Anne Hitt, director of the Sierra Club's Beyond Coal Campaign, said in a statement. "By phasing out the most dangerous coal plants and charting a course focused on less pollution and more clean energy, TVA is demonstrating that we don’t have to choose between clean air and affordable energy – we can and must have both."
QUIZ: An 'Are you smarter than Al Gore' energy quiz

Solar power: breakthrough could herald big drop in costs

Solar power is generated by photovoltaic cells, but two scientists are exploring different materials that could foster voltage from light's magnetic effects.

By Mark Clayton, Staff writer / April 15, 2011
Scientists at the University of Michigan have discovered a new effect from an old property of light, which they say could lead to an "optical battery" that converts sunlight to electricity at a fraction of the cost of today's photovoltaic cells.
Skip to next paragraph
Light has electric and magnetic qualities. Scientists had long thought, however, that the effects of light's magnetic field were so weak as to be irrelevant.
No so, says Stephen Rand, a professor of physics. Along with doctoral student William Fisher, he persisted in probing the long-ignored weak magnetic field that light produces when traveling through a nonconductive material, such as glass.
The breakthrough – unveiled Friday in a scientific paper in the Journal of Applied Physics – shows that if light is intense enough, it can, when traveling through nonconductive material, generate voltage from magnetic effects 100 million times stronger than earlier expected. Such magnetic effects produce a strong electric field that can be harnessed for electric power production, Dr. Rand and Mr. Fisher say.
“This could lead to a new kind of solar cell without semiconductors and without absorption to produce charge separation,” Rand said in a statement. “In solar cells, the light goes into a material, gets absorbed and creates heat. Here, we expect to have a very low heat load. Instead of the light being absorbed, energy is stored in the magnetic moment.”
He continues, “Intense magnetization can be induced by intense light and then it is ultimately capable of providing a capacitive power source.”
Of course with every scientific breakthrough, there's the challenge of how to make it practical. In this case, the problem is that the intensity of the light must be about 10 million watts per square centimeter. Ordinary sunlight is much less than even one watt per square centimeter.
But that doesn't deter Fisher, who says that new materials (transparent ceramics, perhaps), when combined with focused sunlight, could work at lesser intensities.
“We show that sunlight is theoretically almost as effective in producing charge separation as laser light is,” says Fisher in a phone interview. "It turns out we can in principle develop a voltage along the direction of the beam of light.”
He adds, “Enough sunlight, focused into an optical fiber, could generate electricity – that’s is a simple way to think about it."
In experiments planned for this summer, the two scientists plan to harness this power using laser light and – after that – sunlight. Fisher says that with improved materials (various kinds of glass, for example), sunlight could produce electricity at perhaps 10 percent efficiency – roughly equal to the rate at which commercial solar cells today convert sunlight to electricity.
"The breakthrough is really on the cost side," Fisher says. “All we need are lenses to focus the light and a fiber to guide it. Glass is made in bulk, and it doesn’t require much processing, either.”
But the breakthrough is unlikely to be implemented in solar power production for several years, perhaps even a decade, Fisher cautions. Yet he does not foresee any hurdles that can't be overcome.
"It's doable," he says.

 

Is coal power headed for a downsizing in US?

Utilities may close up to 1 in 5 coal-fired power plants after tougher EPA air pollution rules go into effect next year, Wall Street investment banker Credit Suisse recently reported. Coal power is losing its price edge to natural gas, too.

The Kentucky Utilities Electric power pant, pictured here, is one of many coal fired power plants in the US.
Ken Stewart/ZUMA Press/File

By Mark Clayton, Staff writer / October 20, 2010
Tougher federal air pollution rules coming next year could prompt electricity companies to close as many as 1 in every 5 coal-burning power plants in America, primarily facilities more than 40 years old that lack emissions controls, according to a recent Wall Street analysis.
Skip to next paragraph
The regulations now being crafted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), expected to go into force next April and November in accordance with the Clean Air Act, are part of a long ratcheting back of mercury, acid-rain, and smog-forming emissions from utility smokestacks.
What's surprising is the extent to which those EPA rules – combined with a recent drop in the price of natural gas – could over the next four to five years cause the utility industry to accelerate retirement of old coal-fired power plants rather than spend to upgrade the plants' emissions controls, says the study by Credit Suisse, a Wall Street investment banking firm.
"If the EPA rules were not bad enough for coal generators, we think a large chunk of the US coal fleet is vulnerable to closure simply due to crummy economics where we see coal pricing at a premium to natural gas," says the study, released late last month. "We see the company specific implications of EPA policy as interesting when considering that 15-30 percent of the US coal fleet is at risk of either closure or needing significant [capital expenditure] to stay in operation."
Entitled "Growth From Subtraction: Impact of EPA Rules on Power Markets," the 86-page study sees positive long-term outcomes for investors as big utility companies are forced by 2016 to shed older, inefficient equipment. Yet the study notes that the "EPA rules simply accelerate an inevitable market tightening by 4-5 years" as coal, which for decades has been the low-cost fuel for producing electricity, takes a back seat to natural gas.

Small, old coal plants at high risk of closure

Coal power, with about 340,000 megawatts of generating capacity, today produces about half of US electricity. After expected emissions upgrades, the coal fleet will continue to have plants, producing about 103,000 megawatts, that are still "lacking any major emission controls," the study says. The oldest, smallest coal plants with few emissions controls make up an "at-risk" (of closure) portion that account for about 20 percent of total US coal-fired generating capacity, or 69,000 megawatts.
The cost to cut sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and mercury emissions could run $50 billion to $70 billion, not counting the oldest plants. Upgrading those would cost another $80 billion to $110 billion. It's that last chunk of change that may mean hundreds of power plants get boarded up – and new gas turbines and wind farms and other lower-cost power-fuel options get built instead, the report authors say.
Utility industry executives are keenly aware of this scenario, even if the public generally is not, said Jim Owen, a spokesman for the Edison Electric Institute, a Washington trade group that represents investor-owned utilities. (Investor-owned utilities supply about 70 percent of US electric power.)

"There is little doubt that coal-based generation will continue to come under increasing regulatory pressure in the next few years at a time when natural gas is very likely to continue capturing a larger slice of the generation portfolio," he writes in an e-mail. He had no comment on the merits of the Credit Suisse report, however.
Skip to next paragraph
Environmentalists were buoyed by the Wall Street study, but they worried that the report's projection of plant closures – even though regarded as good for investors – would prompt members of Congress to intensify their attacks on EPA clean-air regulations. Some 41 congressmen, including 17 Democrats, last month sent a letter to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson opposing new pollution regulations limiting emissions of industrial boilers. The Council of Industrial Boiler Owners released a study last month that claimed more than 300,000 jobs were at risk. The Credit Suisse report, in fact, didn't get much media attention until the blog of Sen. Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, posted it under the alarm-ringing headline "EPA hits the Heartland."

EPA's greenhouse-gas rules yet to come

That may be only an opening salvo, however. New EPA regulations restricting greenhouse-gas emissions – mainly carbon dioxide – for large emitters such as power plants are due to be implemented in January. Those rules are expected to produce fireworks.
"We anticipate that the new Congress may unleash a full-scale attack on virtually every EPA air regulation – not just those proposing reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions," says Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, a Washington-based environment group.
The EPA rule changes projected by the Credit Suisse study would remove from the air tons of pollutants that health officials blame for breathing problems and thousands of premature deaths. The Credit Suisse study projects that the amount of coal burned each year would drop by 157 million tons to 324 million tons.

Limited reduction of carbon emissions?

If that really did happen, it would greatly cut greenhouse gases. But only a fraction of that reduction may come to pass, says John Thompson, director of the coal transition project for the Clean Air Task Force, a Boston-based environmental group.
"It's our view that these EPA rules make a tremendous environmental impact and improvement on mercury, NOx, and SO2, but not much on greenhouse gases," says Mr. Thompson.
Most of the electricity and carbon-dioxide emissions, he says, come from big coal plants that are usually in operation. The plants that would be retired are generally smaller plants called on to generate power only a few times a year – responsible for providing about 10 percent of America's electricity load, he says. Even if a large number of these low-production units are closed, overall greenhouse-gas emissions will not drop that much, he says.
Natural-gas turbines, which also generate greenhouse gases, would likely replace the older plants. That means "the benefits on climate from plant closures are pretty small," Thompson says.


Controversial path to possible glut of natural gas

Water and chemicals injected at high pressure can extract more gas – and possibly pollute drinking water.

In my backyard: Gas drilling rig sprouts in Remuda Ranch Estates, near Fort Worth, Texas.
Courtesy of Kathy Chruscielski

By Mark Clayton, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor / September 17, 2008

 
After decades of declining US natural-gas production, an advanced drilling system so powerful it fractures rock with high-pressure fluid is opening up vast shale-gas deposits.
Instead of falling, US gas production is rising, with up to 118 years’ worth of “unconventional” natural gas reserves in 21 huge shale basins, an industry study in July reported. Such reserves could make the nation more energy self-sufficient and provide more of a cleaner “bridge fuel” to help meet carbon-reduction goals urged by environmentalists.
Shale gas reserves have a powerful economic lure. Companies, states, and landowners could all reap a windfall in the tens of billions. Some also predict lower heating costs for residential gas users as production increases.
Now, scores of natural gas companies are fanning out from Fort Worth, Texas, where hydraulic fracturing of shale has been done for at least five years, to lease shale lands in 19 states, including Pennsylvania and New York.
But some warn that by expanding “hydraulic fracturing” of shale, America strikes a Faustian bargain: It gains new energy reserves, but it consumes and quite possibly pollutes critical water resources.
“People need to understand that these are not your old-fashioned gas wells,” says Tracy Carluccio, special projects director for Delaware Riverkeeper, a watchdog group worried about a surge in new gas drilling from New York to Pennsylvania and from Ohio to West Virginia. “This technology produces tremendous amounts of polluted water and uses dangerous chemicals in every single well that’s developed.”
Traditional gas wells bore straight into porous stone, using a few thousand gallons of water during drilling. But dense shale has gas locked inside.
Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” and horizontal drilling unlock it.
Each hydraulically fractured horizontal well can require from 2 million to 7 million gallons of fresh water mixed with sand and thousands of gallons of industrial chemicals to make the water penetrate more easily.
This frac-water mixture is blasted at high pressure into shale deposits up to 10,000 feet deep, fracturing them. The sand lodges in the cracks, propping them open and providing a path for the gas to exit after external pressure is released.
Besides using vast amounts of groundwater, scientists and environmentalists worry that toxic frac water – 30 percent or more – remains underground and may years later pollute freshwater aquifers.
Millions of gallons of frac water come back to the surface. It could be treated, but in Texas it is most often reinjected into the ground.
Millions more gallons of “produced” water flow out later during gas production. This flow, too, is often tainted with radioactivity and poisons from the shale. Often stored in pits, that waste can leak or overflow while awaiting reinjection.
Simply put: “Each of these wells uses millions of gallons of fresh water, and all of it is going to be contaminated,” Ms. Carluccio says.
Industry spokesmen say such fears are overblown.
“The wells we drill ... are insulated with concrete,” says Chip Minty, a spokesman for Devon Energy, an Oklahoma City-based gas company that pioneered hydraulic fracturing in the Barnett shale formation beneath Fort Worth, Texas. “The purpose is to protect any kind of aquifer or ground water layer. Those processes are controlled by regulatory agencies, and that keeps us safe from any kind of aquifer pollution.”
A pioneer in “best practices,” Devon has also developed a way to purify and reuse frac water. But those techniques are costly and not widely used at present. Whether such practices will be required elsewhere is an open question.
Targets for this new kind of drilling
One huge target is the Marcellus shale basin that spans large parts of New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. States are eager to get to get new revenues – and so are many landowners lining up to sign leases.
“I’ll be glad to welcome the crews with open arms,” writes Al Czervic in the Catskill Commentator, an online publication. “Drill here, my friends,” he writes, “Drill here. And then, drill some more.”

But amid this gold-rush-type fever in the Delaware and Susquehanna River Basins, voices warn that environmental safeguards and industry standards need to be beefed up before drill bits hit – or the great gas boom could exact a steep price in polluted water.
“Decades ago, we weren’t careful with coal mining,” wrote Bryan Swistock, a water resources specialist with the Penn State Cooperative Extension, in a recent statement. “As a result, we are still paying huge sums to clean up acid mine drainage. We need to be careful and vigilant or we could see lasting damage to our water resources from so many deep gas wells.”
State environmental agencies and industry experts say multiple systems will be in place to safeguard water.
“The current balanced management approach works – allowing for effective state regulatory programs that appropriately protect the environment while providing for the essential development of oil and gas,” wrote Steph­­anie Meadows, a senior policy adviser at the American Pet­rol­eum Institute, a Wash­ington trade group, in an e-mail response to Monitor questions on hydraulic fracturing.
Where safeguards failed
Still, one can point to examples where those safeguards did not work. New Mexico and Colorado, which have struggled with leakage from frac-water waste pits involving gas exploration, are now moving forward with legislation.
“There are numerous instances in various states of surface water and drinking water contamination from hydraulic frac­­turing,” says Kate Sinding, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources De­­fense Council in New York. “Nobody, including the industry, has done any in-depth examination to find out the impact on ground water. We are seeing some bad stuff coming out of individual wells and taps.”
The nation’s shale-gas guinea pigs reside in 15 counties around Fort Worth, where shale-gas extraction using hydraulic fracturing has been validated in recent years. The results have brought wealth to some, but infuriated others.
Charlotte Harris and her husband signed a mineral lease last year. But she’s upset now. She sharply recalls a day last November when her drinking-water well died and a new gas well 100 yards from her Grandview, Texas, home was born.
She washed dishes that morning as usual, she says in an phone interview. But after a shower, her skin itched terribly and she realized the water had a sulfurous odor. Later that day, without warning, her toilet erupted. Water shot out of it “like Niagara Falls.”
About that time, she learned, powerful pump trucks at the nearby well site were sending pulses of water mixed with sand and chemicals thousands of feet down into solid shale to fracture it to increase the flow of gas. She and her husband now believe some of that fluid escaped under pressure much nearer the surface.
After the Harrises complained, the drilling company had the water tested but found no problem. Harris’s next-door neighbor, John Sayers, had a lab test his well water. The lab found toluene, a chemical used in explosives, paint stripper – and often in drilling fluids.
Almost a year later, the Harris family well water, once clear and sweet, is murky and foul-smelling. Ms. Harris’s husband, Stevan, trucks in about 1,500 gallons twice a week, at 15 cents a gallon.
“We’re not using that [well] water for anything at all,” Mr. Sayers says. “I was told not to drink, wash, or anything. Not even water my grass with it.”
Is New York City drinking water at risk?
In July, New York’s governor signed a bill to expand shale-gas drilling using fracturing technology, which could bring the state $1 billion in annual revenues. But the state is first requiring an updated environmental assessment and may yet require companies to reveal the type of chemicals they mix with the water they shoot down the wells – something that Texas does not require.
New York City is one of only four large cities in the nation with unfiltered drinking water. It flows from the northern Catskill region. That’s the same basin in which gas companies want to drill.

Drilling “is completely and utterly inconsistent with a drinking water supply,” said New York City Councilman James Gennaro at a press conference last month. “This would destroy the New York City watershed, and for what? For short-term gains on natural gas.”
But while New York has a drilling freeze pending its environmental review, a gas-drilling rush is on in Pennsylvania’s Susquehanna River region. Scores of wells are being drilled, with applications pending to drill hundreds more. In the long run, some say there may be 10,000 new gas wells across the region.
“We’re hearing various stories ... about flow backwater,” says Susan Obleski, a spokeswoman for the Susquehanna River Basin Commission, which oversees water usage. “We could eventually be seeing 29 million gallons a day usage by this industry. That sounds like a lot, but golf courses use double that.”
The concern, however, is that the most productive gas drilling areas tend to be in remote, forested areas, with forested streams – headwaters areas. If water is removed in significant amounts from there, it could damage ecosystems and Susquehanna watershed water quality.
The SBRC has issued two cease-and-desist orders to companies illegally re­­moving water. It has told 23 others to clarify requirements, and found that about 50, in all, are vying for water, leases, and drilling permits in the region.
Tiny Nockamixon Township, which has resisted gas drilling, is being sued by natural-gas drillers. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case in which some towns are seeking to overturn lower court decisions that keep municipalities from having laws regulating gas drilling inside their borders.
Back in Texas, some are fighting the practice of reinjecting frac water into the earth. In Erath County, near Fort Worth, Bill Gordon has successfully protested several new commercial injection wells that, according to him, would have pumped as much as 30,000 barrels a day of untreated frac water underground.
A recent lightning strike set one such well on fire, proving to Mr. Gordon that volatile chemicals remain in the fluid.
“Nobody knows what’s in this drilling fluid,” he says. “I think we need to know.”

What’s being injected deep underground?

Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling are not new. Both date back decades. But their combined use to get gas from shale formations is new within the past decade.
Hydraulic fracturing has long been used to get gas from coal beds, a process some say is similar to shale-gas fracturing.
An Environmental Protection Agency study in 2004 concluded that hydraulic fracturing to get methane gas from coal  beds “poses little or no threat” to drinking water supplies. But several EPA scientists have challenged that finding.
“EPA produced a final report ... that I believe is scientifically unsound and contrary to the purposes of law,” Weston Wilson, a 30-year EPA veteran, wrote in a whistle-blower petition in 2004. “Based on the available science and literature, EPA’s conclusions are unsupportable.”
Today, chemicals used in fracturing are considered by the companies to be trade secrets. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempts companies from being forced by the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and other federal laws to reveal what chemicals are in their fracturing fluids.
But some say that it’s critical to know what’s being injected deep underground.
“We’re very concerned about this toxic drilling and hydraulic fracturing,” says Gwen Lachelt, director of the Oil and Gas Accountability Project in Durango, Colo. “We need to know what’s in what they’re putting into the ground.”
[ Editor's Note: The original version of this article described a New York bill as a way to “permit” shale-gas drilling using fracturing technology. In fact, fracturing was already permitted. The new bill changes “well-unit spacing” in a way that opens the way for greatly expanded use of hydraulic fracturing in tandem with horizontal drilling. ]


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

dg3