Fracking for natural gas in Merced County, March 2010

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on Monday, 18 February 2013

v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}

800x600

Normal
0
false

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}

The Badlands Journal editoral board has been deeply concerned about fracking since it appeared in the guise of a permit application before the Merced County Planning Commission to drill four "exploratory" natural gas wells near Sandy Mush Road on March 10, 2010. Since then our newspaper clipping service, "Lowmac." has followed the stories of fracking in the rest of the nation: the lack of regulation and lack of enforcement of what regulation exists; the water pollution; water from kitchen faucets that can be ignited in flame; and the increase of earthquake activity in areas where fracking is applied.
Predictably, the Planning Commission did not listen to our criticisms of the review of these linked projects. Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing by injecting water and other chemicals thousands of feet down to break up rock that contains pockets of natural gas and oil, is not well regulated anywhere in the country and this state's slothful response to it reminds us that California is the third largest oil producer in the country, which means oil companies have great political power.
So, as part of our ongoing coverage of the rapid rise of fracking for gas and oil in the Valley and the adjacent Monterey Shale formation, we resubmit our comment letter, this time to the real public hearing instead of the rigged government process to which it was originally submitted.
Is the public hearing yet?
Badlands Journal editorial board
 
 
Lydia Miller                                                                 
San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center  

Steve Burke 

 

Protect Our Water (POW)                      

 

 

 

 
 

 


 
 

 

               

 
 

 
 
 
 
Merced County Planning Commissioners
Robert A Lewis, Dev. Service Director
Dave Gilbert, Senior Planner,
Merced County Planning Department
 

 

2222 M Street                                                                                                   

 
Merced, California 95340
Ph: 209- 385-7654
 

 

Fax:209-726-1710                                                                                

 

 
 
 

 

Date: March 9, 2010                                        Via- Emailed

 
 

 
  Re: V. PUBLIC HEARING(S) March 10, 2010                                    A. ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION No. AA09-023 - Panther Energy Company - To construct an exploratory natural gas well and if successful to construct a natural gas production well within a 62,500 square foot enclosed drilling pad on 312 acres. The project is located on the south side of Rahilly Road, two miles west of Highway 59 in the Merced area. The property is designated Agricultural land use in the General Plan and zoned A-1 (General Agricultural). DG Recommendation: The actions requested are to: 1) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and 2) Approve Administrative Application No. AA09-023 based on the project findings, and subject to the conditions of approval and mitigation measures. B. ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION No. AA09-024 - Panther Energy Company - To construct an exploratory natural gas well and if successful to construct a natural gas production well within a 62,500 square foot enclosed drilling pad on 278 acres. The project is located on the south side of Sandy Mush Road, 4,000 feet east of Combs Road in the Merced area. The property is designated as Agricultural land use in the General Plan and zoned A-1 (General Agricultural). DG Recommendation: The actions requested are to: 1) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and 2) Approve Administrative Application No. AA09-024 based on the project findings, and subject to the conditions of approval and mitigation measures. C. ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION No. AA09-031 - Panther Energy Company - To construct an exploratory natural gas well and if successful to construct a natural gas production well within a 62,500 square foot drilling pad on 529.4 acres. The project is located on the north side of Rahilly Road, two miles west of Highway 59 in the Merced area. The property is designated Agricultural land use in the General Plan and zoned A-1 (General Agricultural). DG Recommendation: The actions requested are to: 1) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and 2) Approve Administrative Application No. AA09-031 based on the project findings, and subject to the conditions of approval and mitigation measures. D. ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATION No. AA09-032 - Panther Energy Company - To construct an exploratory natural gas well and if successful to construct a natural gas production well within a 62,500 square foot drilling pad on 160 acres. The project is located at the southeast corner of Sandy Mush Road and Combs Road in the Merced area. The property is designated Agricultural land use and zoned A-1 (General Agricultural). DG Recommendation: The actions requested are to: 1) Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and 2) Approve Administrative Application No. AA09-032 based on the project findings, and subject to the conditions of approval and mitigation measures.   Merced County Planning Commissioners
 
Robert A Lewis, Dev. Service Director
Dave Gilbert, Senior Planner,:
 
We find the staff reports, the initial study, environmental check list, mandatory findings of significance, the environmental determination, conditions of approval, and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program of these four gas-well projects to be flawed and inadequate. These project should be sent back and rather than a virtual mitigated negative declaration, be required to do a real and complete environmental impact report.
 
Our comments are as follows:
 

  • No analysis of environmental impacts from hydrological fracturing technology, which is indicated by use of methanol, glycol and frac tanks
  • No analysis of project impact to groundwater
  • No analysis  of impact on surrounding wetlands from breaking the hardpan.
  • No analysis of the biological sensitivity of the whole area in terms of possibly contamination of whatever chemicals and other toxic substances injected
  • No analysis or identification of conservation easements in the vicinity, such as the Vander Woude/City of Merced conservation easement, US Fish and Wildlife Service Grasslands Conservation Area, and the state and federal wildlife refuges near the project, including but not limited to the state Fish and Game Department preserve adjacent to the City of Merced Sewer Treatment Plant and the Bloss Ranch (one of the last native grasslands preserves in the area).
  • No analysis of potential contamination transported through the various creeks in the area to the Merced Wildlife Refuge.
  • There is no emergency evacuation plan arising from dangers from gas leaks, chemical spills or any other dangers that might arise from construction or operation of the wells adjacent to the Merced County Correctional Facility and Juvenile Hall.
  • The analysis fails to consider the impact of large numbers of duck hunters near the wells, not to mention bushwhacking west side bird dogs. There is a shooting and a police gun-training range in the vicinity.
  • Mitigation is deferred. Due to failure of Merced County to approve a grading ordinance, more than 10,000 acres of grassland/rangeland important biological habitat was illegally converted without federal or state resource agency consultation. This deferral of consultation with resource agencies is illegal.
  • The Homen and Pimentel dairies are located across Sandy Mush Road from the densely populated area of the Merced County Correctional Facility and Juvenile Hall. There is no analysis of the dangers to this population from these wells in the case of emergency.
  • Merced County failed to provide proper notification that the circulated document was both an Initial Study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration. This continues Merced County’s horrible reputation for attempting to circumvent environmental law and regulation by various document-bootlegging strategies.
  • No analysis of the impact to traffic on Highway 59 of 722 daily trips for “15 days” regarding emergencies, wear and maintenance to the highway. There is no explanation in the IS of the need for 722 daily truck trips. The public has no idea of what the trucks will contain or of the entire “drilling” process to be done from this IS.
  • Inadequate analysis of treatment of drill “mud.”
  • There is no analysis of how the project would develop depending on the size of the find, i.e. if it is large, larger well equipment.
  • After the wells are drilled, if successful, there is no more environmental analysis required by the County on a project the length of which is not mentioned.
  • The resources agencies have had no opportunity to review the mitigation measures because no Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated. The document circulated to the resource agencies was a Initial Study without notice that it contained an MND.
  • The project cannot proceed without guarantees to adjacent landowners that groundwater quality will not be adversely impacted by this project.
  • There is inadequate analysis of the cumulative impacts if test wells are productive and the field is more fully developed.

 

  • We find the environment checklist flawed in the following areas:

o   Aesthetics: This is one of the premiere areas in the state for viewing migratory water fowl and where both mountain ranges can frequently be viewed. Unsightly gas wells will add to the significant cumulative visual impacts, which cannot be mitigated, of mega-dairies on the grasslands viewscape.
o   Air Quality: If test wells are productive, the public has no way of knowing the future air quality impacts from a number of wells that might be sited in this area. The assumption of four wells may not be valid.
o   Biological Resources: No analysis of impacts on nearby conservation easements, on the federal Grasslands Preserve, or state and federal wildlife refuges; what is presented as “mitigation” is in fact deferred mitigation; no consideration of impacts to terrestrial wildlife movement corridor; in lieu of any updated inventories of wildlife in this area, which has been heavily impacted by urban and agricultural development, the data on which the analysis is based is flawed and issues such as habitat connectivity, species movement, and loss and degradation of vernal pools, wetlands and grasslands are not adequately analyzed; failure to even consider effects of fracture drilling on dewatering vernal pools. Failure to mention the Giant Garter Snake, which the City of Merced recently had to mitigate for $388,000 on a project within five mines of this project.
o   Geology and soils: Without clear description of the drilling technique to be used, in a moment when Congressional hearings are considering the immense damage being done to geology soils by hydraulic fraction gas-well drilling technology, the public has no way of knowing what impacts there will be.
o   Greenhouse Gas Emission: The analysis is not legally compliant because this Initial Study, as presented, is the only environmental document required for the project, therefore the public has no means of measuring the impacts of full development of the gas field if the test wells are successful;
o   Hazards and hazardous Materials: Gas-well drillers are federally exempted from revealing what chemicals they actually use, therefore this analysis does not represent the facts.
o   Hazardous Fire Area: The analysis misspeaks – grasslands are wildlands; not all the pasture is irrigated; dry summer grasslands are a constant danger in Merced County. Three of the four sites surround the Merced County Correctional Facility and Juvenile Hall.
o   Hydrology and Water quality: No analysis of the fundamental problem of the project – contamination of groundwater with unspecified chemicals. The IS fails to mention proximity to Merced County Correctional Facility and Juvenile Hall and includes no analysis on potential impacts to the facilities’ groundwater supplies.
o   Floodplains: The area historically floods. There is no analysis of hazardous materials from the wells adding contamination to flood waters spreading far beyond the location of the wells. The analysis is inadequate because it does not consider 200-year floods.
o   Land Use and Planning: The analysis fails for lack of consideration of the proposed High-Speed Rail, the Mission-Gurr Road Beltway, future upgrades to Highway 59, a new school in the area, numerous new homes, as well as other urban development projects proposed and in some state of temporary extension;  This project would have a higher threshold if the General Plan update was complete and legally compliant. The exploitation of subsurface mineral rights (including gas and oil) conflicts with potential uses of surface land rights.
o   Noise: The argument that “a variety of noise sources exist throughout Merced County” raises the issue of cumulative impacts, which the analysis does not consider. Traffic from highways 99, 59, Sandy Mush and the Union Pacific RR and the nearby biomass burner are all audible to residents in the project area.
o   Population and Housing: Three of the four projects surround the Merced County Correctional Facility and Juvenile Hall yet these densely populated facilities are not even mentioned.
o   Public Services: By ignoring the existence of the correctional facilities (senior and juvenile) adjacent to the project sites, the analysis states absurdly that the nearest sheriff’s office is at 700 W. 22nd St., Merced.
o   Recreation: There is no analysis of the strong movement of influential naturalists and farmers to establish Merced County as a revenue-generated destination for natural resource and agricultural tourism, in addition to the world-class hunting venue the county has been for a century. There is no mention in the analysis of the extensive state and federal wildlife refuges in the area of the project.
o   Transportation/Traffic:We disagree with this analysis. This area is recognized as an important biological area in the entire state. Since construction of the correctional facilities on Sandy Mush Road in the 1980s, traffic has increased due to jail personnel, dairy, poultry and biomass-burner workers. Because Highway 59 has not been upgraded, the Sandy Mush/Turner Island/Henry Miller roads are used by increasing number of motorists as a shortcut to the west side. The analysis presented here does not make contact with the actual transportation/traffic issues of the area.
 
We find the staff reports, the initial study, environmental check list, mandatory findings of significance, the environmental determination, conditions of approval, and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program of these four gas-well projects to be flawed and inadequate. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was improperly noticed and circulated, and was inadequate. These projects should be sent back and, rather than a virtual mitigated negative declaration, require a real and complete environmental impact report.
 
We are submitting articles that deepen public concern about hydraulic fracturing gas-well technology.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 
Lydia M. Miller                                                      Steve Burke
 
 

 

                                               

 

 
2-19-10
Sacramento Bee
House panel to investigate hydraulic fracturing...MATTHEW DALY, Associated Press Writer
 

http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/v-print/story/2547389.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
WASHINGTON -- An oil and gas drilling technique that is becoming more widespread is drawing scrutiny from lawmakers concerned that it may pose a hazard to human health by tainting drinking water and harming the environment.

 

 

 
 
Top Democrats on the House Energy and Commerce Committee sent letters Thursday to eight oil and gas companies seeking more information about chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing, also known as "fracking." The process injects vast quantities of water, sand and chemicals underground to force open channels in sand and rock formations so that oil and natural gas will flow.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., the panel's chairman, said hydraulic fracturing could help unlock vast supplies of domestic natural gas once thought unattainable, but he added that lawmakers need to weigh the risks.
"As we use this technology in more parts of the country on a much larger scale, we must ensure that we are not creating new environmental and public health problems," Waxman said in a statement.
Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., who chairs an energy subcommittee, worked with Waxman last year on a landmark bill to impose limits on climate-changing greenhouse gases. Markey said natural gas can play an important role in developing so-called clean energy, but must be obtained in a way that does not harm the environment.
Fracking has been around for decades and has come under increasing scrutiny as drilling crews flock to the Marcellus Shale, a rock bed the size of Greece that lies about 6,000 feet beneath New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio. The technique also is used in Colorado, Wyoming, New Mexico and other Western states.
Waxman and Markey said they hope to find more information on some of the chemicals used in the process, including benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene.
A 2004 study by the Environmental Protection Agency said there was no evidence that fracking threatens drinking water. Critics, including a veteran engineer in the regional EPA office in Denver, argued that the report's methodology was flawed.
A provision in the 2005 energy bill that prevented the EPA from regulating fracking was called the "Halliburton loophole" by foes. Halliburton Co., an oilfield services company, pioneered hydraulic fracturing.
Houston-based Halliburton was among those receiving letters Thursday, along with several other large hydraulic fracking companies, including BJ Services Co. and Schlumberger, both of Houston.
 

 

 

 

2-2-10

 
 

 

 

 

Washington Post

 
Gas drilling in Appalachia yields a foul byproduct...MARC LEVY and VICKI SMITH, The Associated Press. Vicki Smith reported from Morgantown, W.Va.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/02/AR2010020201770_pf.html
HARRISBURG, Pa. -- A drilling technique that is beginning to unlock staggering quantities of natural gas underneath Appalachia also yields a troubling byproduct: powerfully briny wastewater that can kill fish and give tap water a foul taste and odor.
With fortunes, water quality and cheap energy hanging in the balance, exploration companies, scientists and entrepreneurs are scrambling for an economical way to recycle the wastewater.
"Everybody and his brother is trying to come up with the 11 herbs and spices," said Nicholas DeMarco, executive director of the West Virginia Oil and Natural Gas Association.
Drilling crews across the country have been flocking since late 2008 to the Marcellus Shale, a rock bed the size of Greece that lies about 6,000 feet beneath New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio. Geologists say it could become the most productive natural gas field in the U.S., capable of supplying the entire country's needs for up to two decades by some estimates.
Before that can happen, the industry is realizing that it must solve the challenge of what to do with its wastewater. As a result, the Marcellus Shale in on its way to being the nation's first gas field where drilling water is widely reused.
The polluted water comes from a drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," in which millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals are blasted into each well to fracture tightly compacted shale and release trapped natural gas.
Fracking has been around for decades. But the drilling companies are now using it in conjunction with a new horizontal drilling technique they brought to Appalachia after it was proven in the 1990s to be effective on a shale formation beneath Texas.
Fracking a horizontal well costs more money and uses more water, but it produces more natural gas from shale than a traditional vertical well.
Once the rock is fractured, some of the water - estimates range from 15 to 40 percent - comes back up the well. When it does, it can be five times saltier than seawater and laden with dissolved solids such as sulfates and chlorides, which conventional sewage and drinking water treatment plants aren't equipped to remove.
At first, many drilling companies hauled away the wastewater in tanker trucks to sewage treatment plants that processed the water and discharged it into rivers - the same rivers from which water utilities then drew drinking water.
But in October 2008, something happened that stunned environmental regulators: The levels of dissolved solids spiked above government standards in southwestern Pennsylvania's Monongahela River, a source of drinking water for more than 700,000 people.
Regulators said the brine posed no serious threat to human health. But the area's tap water carried an unpleasant gritty or earthy taste and smell and left a white film on dishes. And industrial users noticed corrosive deposits on valuable machinery.
One 11-year-old suburban Pittsburgh boy with an allergy to sulfates, Jay Miller, developed hives that itched for two weeks until his mother learned about the Monongahela's pollution and switched him to bottled or filtered water.
No harm to aquatic life was reported, though high levels of salts and other minerals can kill fish and other creatures, regulators say.
Pennsylvania officials immediately ordered five sewage treatment plants on the Monongahela or its tributaries to sharply limit the amount of frack water they accepted to 1 percent of their daily flow.
"It is a very great risk that what happened on the Monongahela could happen in many watersheds," said Ronald Furlan, a wastewater treatment official for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. "And so that's why we're trying to pre-empt and get ahead of it to ensure it doesn't happen again."
Regulators in Pennsylvania are trying to push through a new standard for the level of dissolved solids in water released from a treatment plant.
West Virginia authorities, meanwhile, have asked sewage treatment plants not to accept frack water while the state develops an approach to regulating dissolved solids.
And in New York, fracking is largely on hold while companies await a new set of state permitting guidelines.
For now, the Marcellus Shale exploration is in its infancy. Terry Engelder, a geoscientist at Penn State University, estimates the reserve could yield as much as 489 trillion cubic feet of gas. To date, the industry's production from Pennsylvania, where drilling is most active, is approaching 100 billion cubic feet.
Wastewater from drilling has not threatened plans to develop the nation's other gas reserves. Brine is injected into deep underground wells in places such as Louisiana, Texas and Oklahoma, or left in evaporation ponds in arid states such as Colorado and Wyoming.
However, many doubt the hard Appalachian geology is porous enough to absorb all the wastewater, and the climate is too humid for evaporating ponds. That leaves recycling as the most obvious option.
Entrepreneurs are marketing portable systems that distill frack water at the well site.
Also, in southwestern Pennsylvania, Range Resources Corp., one of the gas field's most active operators, pipes wastewater into a central holding pond, dilutes it with fresh water and reuses it for fracking. Range says the practice saves about $200,000 per well, or about 5 percent.
In addition, a $15 million treatment plant that distills frack water is opening in Fairmont, W.Va. The 200,000 gallons it can treat each day can then be trucked back for use at a new drilling site.
For years, regulators let sewage treatment plants take mining and drilling wastewater under the assumption that rivers would safely dilute. But fracking a horizontal well requires huge amounts of water - up to 5 million gallons per well, compared with 50,000 gallons in some conventional wells.
"In this case," said John Keeling of MSES Consultants, which designed the Fairmont plant, "dilution is not the solution to pollution."
 

 

 

 

12-8-09

 
 

 

 

 

New York Times

 
 

 

 

Dark Side of a Natural Gas Boom...JAD MOUAWAD and CLIFFORD KRAUSS

 
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/business/energy-environment/08fracking.html?_r=1&sq=conservation&st=cse&scp=12&pagewanted=print
DIMOCK, Pa. — Victoria Switzer dreamed of a peaceful retirement in these Appalachian hills. Instead, she is coping with a big problem after a nearby natural gas well contaminated her family’s drinking water with high levels of methane.
Through no design of hers, Ms. Switzer has joined a rising chorus of voices skeptical of the nation’s latest energy push. “It’s been ‘drill, baby, drill’ out here,” Ms. Switzer said bitterly. “There is no stopping this train.”
Across vast regions of the country, gas companies are using a technology called hydraulic fracturing to produce natural gas from previously untapped beds of shale. The push has been so successful that the country’s potential gas reserves jumped by 35 percent in two years. The new supplies have driven down natural gas prices for consumers and might help the global environment by allowing more production of electricity from natural gas, which emits fewer global warming emissions than coal.
What the drilling push will do to local environments is another matter.
The drilling boom is raising concern in many parts of the country, and the reaction is creating political obstacles for the gas industry. Hazards like methane contamination of drinking water wells, long known in regions where gas production was common, are spreading to populous areas that have little history of coping with such risks, but happen to sit atop shale beds.
And a more worrisome possibility has come to light. A string of incidents in places like Wyoming and Pennsylvania in recent years has pointed to a possible link between hydraulic fracturing and pollution of groundwater supplies. In the worst case, such pollution could damage crucial supplies of water used for drinking and agriculture.
So far, the evidence of groundwater pollution is thin. Environmental groups contend that is because governments have been slow to react to the drilling boom and are not looking hard for contamination. Gas companies acknowledge the validity of some concerns, but they claim that their technology is fundamentally safe.
The debate is becoming more urgent as gas companies move closer to more populated areas, especially in the Northeast, where millions of people are likely to find themselves living near drilling operations in coming years.
“To be able to scale up our drilling, clearly we have to be in sync with people’s concerns about water,” said Aubrey K. McClendon, chief executive of the Chesapeake Energy Corporation, a leading gas company. “It’s our biggest challenge.”
Hydraulic fracturing consists of injecting huge volumes of water at high pressure to break shale rocks and allow natural gas to flow out more easily. The water is mixed with sand, chemicals and gels to lubricate the process and help keep the rocks open.
After refining the technique in Western states in recent years, gas companies are moving to tap the nation’s largest shale structure, the Marcellus shale, which stretches from Virginia to New York.
“It’s a very reliable, safe, American source of energy,” said John Richels, president of the Devon Energy Corporation.
Environmental activists, however, say there is at least scattered evidence that fracturing operations can pose risks to groundwater sources, particularly when mistakes are made in drilling operations. They have also questioned how some companies deal with the wastewater produced by their operations, warning that liquids laced with chemicals and salt from drilling can overload public sewage treatment plants or pollute surface waters.
Deborah Goldberg, a lawyer for the nonprofit environmental group Earthjustice who is fighting to toughen Pennsylvania’s discharge rules, said the state “is facing enormous pressure from gas drillers, who are generating contaminated water faster than the state’s treatment plants can handle it.”
According to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which is going through a public review of its new rules on hydraulic fracturing, gas companies use at least 260 types of chemicals, many of them toxic, like benzene. These chemicals tend to remain in the ground once the fracturing has been completed, raising fears about long-term contamination.
The most immediate hazard from the national drilling bonanza, it is clear, involves contamination of residential drinking water wells by natural gas. In Bainbridge, Ohio, an improperly drilled well contaminated groundwater in 2007, including the water source for the township’s police station, according to a complaint filed this year. After building to high pressures, gas migrated through underground faults, and blew up one house.
Here in Dimock, about 30 miles north of Scranton, Pa., 13 water wells, including that of Ms. Switzer, were contaminated by natural gas. One of the wells blew up.
Under prodding, environmental regulators are stepping up the search for groundwater contamination. In Pavilion, Wyo., for instance, the Environmental Protection Agency has begun an investigation into contamination of several drinking water wells.
Luke Chavez, an E.P.A. investigator, said that traces of methane and 2-butoxyethanol phosphate, a foaming agent, had been found in several wells near an area where the EnCana Corporation, a Canadian gas company, had used hydraulic fracturing in recent years.
He said the compounds could have come from cleaning products or oil and gas production, but “it tells us something is happening here that shouldn’t be here.”
An EnCana spokesman, Doug Hock, said the company was “committed to working with E.P.A. to resolve this issue.” But he added, “At this point, no specific connection has been made between the tentatively identified compounds and oil and gas activities.”
In a 2004 study, the E.P.A. decided that hydraulic fracturing was essentially harmless. Critics said the analysis was politically motivated, but it was cited the following year when the Republican-led Congress removed hydraulic fracturing from any regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The current Democratic Congress recently enacted a law requiring the E.P.A. to review the study. Lawmakers from Colorado and New York have also introduced legislation to end the water act exemption and require gas companies to disclose all chemicals used in fracturing operations.
The agency has begun an analysis of whether hydraulic fracturing requires tighter federal regulation.
“E.P.A. is reviewing available information to determine whether hydraulic fracturing fluids have contaminated drinking water and has dedicated resources to properly studying this issue,” the agency said in a statement.
The political situation has put the gas companies on the defensive. “It’s not going to stop us, but we do have to solve the problem in a prudent manner,” said Rodney L. Waller, a senior vice president at the Range Resources Corporation, a major gas producer in the Marcellus shale.
Partly in response to opposition it has encountered in New York, Chesapeake recently indicated that it would not drill in the New York City watershed, a region that supplies drinking water to nearly 10 million people. Schlumberger, a service company that performs fracturing operations on behalf of gas companies, said it was working on “green” fracturing fluids, including safer substitutes for hazardous chemicals.
In the Barnett shale gas field in Texas, Devon Energy and Chesapeake are trying various treatment techniques for disposing of contaminated drilling water. Gas executives hope that wider use of such techniques will damp public opposition in some regions. Several companies are starting a joint water treatment effort in Pennsylvania in the next few weeks.
Still, around Dimock, the gas boom is viewed with mixed feelings. Many public officials support drilling. Governor Edward G. Rendell has called the surge “a great boon” to Pennsylvania. Many people have leased their land here and are collecting royalty checks from gas production.
The hills around Dimock have been bulldozed to clear the ground for dozens of drilling pads the size of football fields. Eighteen-wheelers thunder down narrow country roads, kicking up dust and fumes. Recently, a helicopter buzzed overhead while dangling heavy cables used for seismic tests.
In September, the Cabot Oil and Gas Corporation, a Houston energy company, was required to suspend its fracturing operations for three weeks after causing three spills in the course of nine days. Cabot, which was fined $56,650 by the state, said the spills consisted mainly of water, with only 0.5 percent chemicals. This month, Cabot was fined an additional $120,000 by Pennsylvania for the contamination of homeowners’ wells. It must now submit strict drilling plans to the state.
A company spokesman, Kenneth S. Komoroski, said it was too early to blame hydraulic fracturing — the technology at the heart of the boom — for pollution of water wells. He said Cabot was still investigating the causes of last January’s contamination incidents.
“None of the issues in Dimock have anything to do with hydraulic fracturing,” he said.
The fines were little consolation to Ms. Switzer, the woman who can no longer draw drinking water from her well.
After moving here in 2005, she sold drilling rights on her property for a mere $180 after, as she recalled it, a gas company representative convinced her only one well might be drilled. In fact, no well was drilled, but three were on surrounding properties. Her well was contaminated at the beginning of the year after gas leaked from a well drilled by Cabot.
Her family now uses bottled water supplied by Cabot every week. She fears that if she tried to sell her home, which sits in the middle of a drilling zone, no one would buy it.
“Can you imagine the ad? ‘Beautiful new home. Bring your own water,’ ” Ms. Switzer said. “We’re like a dead zone here.”
 

 

 

 

11-25-09

 
 

 

 

 

San Francisco Chroncile

 
What the frack? Poisoning our water in the name of energy profits...Dr. Peter Gleick
 

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/gleick/detail?entry_id=52322

 

 

 

 

 
Here is your word for the day: Fracking or fraccing. [No, fellow Battlestar Galactica fans, this is a different use of the word "frack," although for some, the sentiment is the same.]

 

 
 
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, is a technique that releases natural gas trapped in underground shale formations by injecting water, chemicals, and sand to "frack" the rock structures and release the gas. Often, large quantities of groundwater contaminated by chemicals, radioactive elements, or other minerals are produced in the process. Unless great care is taken, this "produced water" mixed with water used for fracturing can flow to the surface or into groundwater systems and contaminate land, drinking water supplies, and natural waterways.
Water Number: 77 billion barrels of contaminated "produced water" were generated worldwide in 2000 by oil and gas operations. This estimate comes from a 2003 Journal of Petroleum Technology article by Z. Khatib and P. Verbeek. In recent years this volume has increased as more and more gas is produced from marginal fields like the Marcellus Shales in Pennsylvania and the Barnett Shales in Texas and the Hilliard-Baxter-Mancos Shales in Wyoming. This water has begun to cause more and more health and environmental problems.
In 1990 in the United States, unconventional gas produced from shales, coal-bed methane, and similar formations made up about 10% of total U.S. production. Today it is around 40% and increasing rapidly, mostly from gas produced in shale formations. And as unconventional gas volumes grow, so do the volumes of produced water and the problems this produced water causes.
In a scary piece describing serious water contamination problems in Dimock, Pennsylvania, Adam Federman describes a wide range of environmental and human health problems associated with the efforts of a Houston-based energy company, Cabot Oil and Gas, to produce natural gas through extensive hydraulic fracturing of a gas-rich shale formation called the Marcellus Shales. As unconventional gas production has grown, drinking water wells have been contaminated; toxic wastewater, fracking fluids, and diesel fuel have been spilled into local watersheds; residents have been exposed to poisonous chemicals; and one homeowner's water well actually exploded when natural gas accumulated in it and was ignited.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, produced water is by far the largest volume of waste -- around 98% -- associated with oil and gas production. They also note that produced water from gas operations, such as in Dimock, Pennsylvania, is often ten times more toxic than water produced from petroleum production, and can contain high concentrations of salts, acids, benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylene, radioactive materials, and other nasty chemicals. Sometimes, an oil or gas field will produce 20-to-50 times as much water as oil or gas.
There is no doubt that produced water needs to be better regulated, that existing regulations need to be better enforced, and that monitoring of water contamination from fracking and disposal of produced water needs to be expanded. Current regulations are a complicated mix of federal control, state control, and no control. For example, the federal government has exempted produced water from regulation under the hazardous waste requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Regulation under other federal and state pollution laws is inconsistently applied and weakly enforced. And for the residents of Dimock, or other towns with major shale gas operations, these fracking failures to protect water quality will lead to more and more impacts on community health and the local environment.
 

 

 

 

7-28-08

 
 

 

 

 

CNN Money

 
 

 

 

Shale gas holds great promise as a domestic energy source, but some say the rules covering the chemicals used to extract it are too lax...Steve Hargreaves

 
http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/28/news/economy/_shale_drilling/index.htm?postversion=2008072812 
-- New technology and higher prices have brought vast domestic oil and natural gas deposits within reach to a country desperate for new energy sources. But danger comes with this bounty: Chemicals used to extract this energy may contaminate the groundwater.
Striking the right balance between drilling and protecting the environment is in everyone's best interest and new questions are surfacing about whether regulators are up to the task.
New natural gas fields located in Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, New York, Pennsylvania and elsewhere have been heralded as something of a godsend for the U.S. energy picture.
Not only are they big, possibly boosting the nation's natural gas output by 20% - they are also domestic and burn relatively clean - natural gas produces about half the greenhouse gas emissions of coal.
But these shales are close to major population centers including New York City, Dallas, Houston, Cleveland and Pittsburgh. Environmentalists are pushing for stricter regulations to protect the groundwater but experts say these concerns shouldn't delay the development of the fields.
 

 

 

Chemically intense

 
Although these fields are new to development, oil and gas companies have known about them for years. But only now - with a four-fold increase in natural gas prices over the last four years - have they become profitable enough to tap.
Companies active in shale development include Chesapeake (CHK, Fortune 500), Anadarko (APC, Fortune 500), Range (RRC), XTO (XTO, Fortune 500) and Devon (DVN, Fortune 500).
The fields are more expensive to develop because they deep lie in shale rock, which is less porous than sandstone or other rock in conventional fields and thus harder to pump oil or gas through.
To bring the gas to the surface, companies often have to fracture the rock, a process known as fracing (pronounced "fracking"). This is done by injecting millions of gallons of water - and lots of chemicals - into the ground.
Last week, a report from WNYC public radio and ProPublica, an independent, non-profit newsroom, accused New York state environmental officials of glossing over the dangers of using these chemicals in the Marcellus Shale, part of which sits close to the drinking water for New York City.
The state officials, the report said, gave the drilling a green light, even though they have no idea what chemicals are being used. That's because in 2005, Congress passed a law that made the chemicals proprietary business information, and said they do not need to be made public.
Moreover, the report said the thumbs up from regulators came despite hundreds of cases of groundwater contamination in other states where these chemicals are used - contamination that included chemicals known to cause birth defects and evidence of naturally occurring radiation making its way to the earth's surface.
"Obviously, natural gas is important and we don't have any interest in shutting down the operations," said Amy Mall, a policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council. "But all the right policies might not be in place."
Mall confirmed the reports of hundreds of cases of contamination in places like Texas and Colorado. Mall said regulation nationwide is not up to the task of protecting the groundwater.
She called for the gas companies to let state officials know what chemicals they are using, disclosures that did not have to be made public, she said. That way, a proper assessment of the risks could be made without jeopardizing the competitive position of individual companies, she said.
She also said the drilling has other environmental issues - like air pollution from both venting gas and the drilling equipment, disruptions to land surface areas, and issues of waste management.
The industry says proper regulations are in place, and that most of the reports of contamination come from collapsed wells - not the fracing that takes place in shale drilling.
"I'm not saying there has never been a problem with an oil and gas well, but the case against hydraulic fracing has been notoriously poor," said Lee Fuller, a spokesman the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
Fuller also said to put the number of contaminated sites into perspective: There may be hundreds of cases of contamination, but the country has some 80,000 oil and gas wells.
Industry analysts did not see these environmental concerns as a big obstacle to bringing this gas to market.
"I hear these arguments, and I think they create fear among the public," said Kevin Petak, a natural gas analyst at the consultancy ICF International and a former petroleum industry engineer. "For every hundred cases where there is contamination, there are 10,000 that are fine. And we have real energy issues."
Petak said drilling technology has come a long way - they now use more advanced plugs made of better concrete to contain the chemicals.
"This isn't going to derail shale development," said Petak.
Plus, the chemical injections are happening thousands of feet below the surface, whereas groundwater is usually just hundreds of feet deep, said Phani Gadde, a gas supply analyst at the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie.
Gadde also said the industry has a huge incentive to keep the chemicals out of the groundwater - to breach the two would kill production in the well.
Even Natural Resources' Mall said most of the time there isn't a problem.
"If they do everything absolutely right, the risks could be small," she said. "But there's always the possibility for human error."
"The industry has a lot of sustainable technology available to it, and they are using it in some places," Mall said. "But only where they are required to."
She said the regulation should be more uniform from state to state
 
 
 

 

 

 

2-18-10

 
 

 

 

 

switchboard.nrdc.org

 
Confirmed use of diesel in hydraulic fracturing fluids...Amy Mall, Senior Policy Analyst, Boulder, Colorado
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/confirmed_use_of_diesel_in_hyd.html
Today Congressmen Henry Waxman and Edward Markey of the House Energy and Commerce Committee announced that they have sent letters to eight oil and gas service companies regarding the health risks of hydraulic fracturing.
The Congressmen issued a detailed memo explaining why they were sending these letters. They note that a consulting firm hired by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that 12 contaminant cases “may have a possible link to hydraulic fracturing, but, to date, EPA has insufficient information on which to make a definitive decision.”
Shocking news coming out of today’s memo is that two hydraulic fracturing companies have used diesel in hydraulic fracturing fluid since the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The Waxman/Markey memo notes  EPA’s concern that the “use of diesel fuel in fracturing fluids poses the greatest threat” to underground sources of drinking water.
The 2005 Energy Policy Act contains the “Halliburton Loophole,” which exempted hydraulic fracturing from federal regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act….unless diesel is being used in the hydraulic fracturing.
The 2005 law requires that, if diesel is used in hydraulic fracturing, it is regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Chairmen Waxman and Markey state that “it could be a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act if the fluids contain diesel fuel.” If these companies were using diesel, and knew it was subject to the Safe Drinking Water Act, but didn't notify authorities--can communities trust them to do what's necessary to best protect drinking water?
Acknowledging the need for more investigation into the risks of hydraulic fracturing, the EPA has budgeted funds to conduct research on the consequences of hydraulic fracturing for drinking water to ensure the protection of America’s drinking water aquifers.
We applaud Chairman Waxman, Chairman Markey, and the EPA for their efforts to shed light on the under-regulated practice of hydraulic fracturing, which injects a secret cocktail, potentially including harmful chemicals, through clean sources of drinking water throughout America. The public, especially in the communities where this is taking place, deserve to know more. Thanks to those in government who are working to protect the health and families of these communities.
Legislation has been introduced in both the House and Senate to close the Halliburton Loophole. To write to your Representative or Senator to ask them to co-sponsor the legislation, you can go to NRDC's Action Center.
 

 

 

 

energycommerce.house.gov

 
 

 

 

MEMORANDUM

 
 

 

 

February 18, 2010

 
 

 

 

To: Members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment

 
 

 

 

Fr: Chairman Henry A. Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Edward J. Markey

 
 

 

 

Re: Examining the Potential Impact of Hydraulic Fracturing

 
http://energycommerce.house.gov/Press_111/20100218/hydraulic_fracturing_memo.pdf
 
 
June 2009
EWG Project
Safe Drinking Water Act Should Cover Hydraulic Fracturing
Prepared by Earthworks/OGAP and Environmental Working Group
Contact:  Lauren Pagel 202-887-1872 x207, Dusty Horwitt 202-939-9133
www.ewg.org/Safe-Drinking-Water-Act-Should-Cover-Hydraulic-Fracturing
Myth:  States have adequate authority over hydraulic fracturing without federal oversight.
Fact:  While states are not prohibited from setting standards for hydraulic fracturing, only Alabama has adopted specific protections, and these were court-ordered in 1997. 
Other states merely address pieces of the fracturing process such as well casing requirements.  Colorado alone sets standards for chemical disclosure.  Ending the exemption for hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) would set a baseline standard that states could follow or strengthen to address local concerns.¹   A national baseline is especially important because water pollution does not respect state boundaries.
Myth:  Removing the Safe Drinking Water Act exemption would either shut down drilling for natural gas or mandate a burdensome permitting process.
Fact:  The oil and gas industry already complies with the SDWA when it injects fracturing fluids for disposal, but not when it injects those same fluids when drilling an oil or gas well. Under the act, the industry has already obtained approval for more than 150,000 injection wells including wells used to inject waste fluids from drilling such as fracturing fluids to ensure that these fluids do not pollute underground sources of drinking water (USDWs).²  Oil and gas injection wells under the SDWA must be tested to ensure that they do not leak and must be monitored to check for contamination.  Existing wells must not “initiate new fractures [or] propagate existing fractures in the confining zone adjacent to the USDWs.”  New wells “shall be…separated from any USDW by a confining zone that is free of known open faults or fractures.”³  Industry and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have operated with these standards for years.
Legislation to close the fracturing loophole would not require significant new federal standards, environmental impact statements, or additional individual permits for each well. EPA rules allow a state to incorporate hydraulic fracturing into the existing permitting process for each well.
If hydraulic fracturing were covered by the SDWA, operators who plan to fracture using nontoxic fluids or to fracture in formations isolated from drinking water sources would face little regulatory burden.  In some states, operators already have to provide information on whether fracturing will be used and a brief description of the fracturing process.  Where state regulations would have to be changed, it would take between 6 and 9 months for a rulemaking process.  New rules could be phased in over a period of months, as has been done for many other rules.
¹ Wiseman, H., “Untested Waters:  the Rise of Hydraulic Fracturing in Oil and Gas Production and the Need to Revisit Regulation”, 20 Fordham Env. L.Rev. 115 (Spring 2009).
 Professor Wiseman is a Visiting Assistant Professor at the University of Texas School of Law.  Currently, 33 states have primary enforcement authority for underground injections under the SDWA and could set their own standards for fracturing consistent with an EPA standard; in addition, Alaska, California, Colorado, Indiana, Montana and South Dakota have primary enforcement authority for oil and gas injection wells.  These states would also be able to set their own standards assuming that EPA considers fracturing to be a Class II oil and gas injection well.  EPA would have primary authority in other states. 
UIC Primacy Program.  Accessed June 10, 2009 at
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/primacy.html#what.
² Environmental Protection Agency.  Technical Program Overview:  Underground Injection
Control Regulations, Office of Water 4606, EPA 816-R-02-025, Revised July 2001, p. 7, 61.
 Personal communications with EPA and Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, June
3, 2009.
³ Id. at 14, 17; 40 CFR §§ 144-146.  EPA Inventory of Class II UIC Wells, 2009.
 
 

 

 

2008
One Petro
Title Northern California Gas Sands — Hydraulic Fracture Stimulation Opportunities and

 
 

 

 

Challenges
Authors N. El Shaari, SPE, BJ Services; and W.A. Minner, SPE, Pinnacle Technologies
Source SPE Western Regional and Pacific Section AAPG Joint Meeting, 29 March-2 April

 
 

 

 

2008, Bakersfield, California

 
http://www.onepetro.org/mslib/servlet/onepetropreview?id=SPE-114184-MS&soc=SPE

Hydraulic fracturing is a stimulation technique successfully applied in formations throughout the world to increase production rates and enhance hydrocarbon recovery. The process involves creating a crack by pumping fluids at pressures above formation fracturing pressures, and then filling the crack with proppant to create a high conductivity connection to a large formation area. Hydraulic fracturing stimulates production by overcoming restrictions imposed by formation permeability, drilling and completion damage, production-induced damage and, an incomplete reservoir connection across laminated intervals. The process has been applied to a large scale in many Central and Southern California fields to enable economic development and reasonable hydrocarbon recovery. Example formations include the Belridge Diatomite, Stevens Sands, Etchegoin, Antelope shale, McLure shale, McDonald shale, Point of Rocks sands, Kreyenhagen shale, Ranger sands, the UP Ford shale, and the Monterey shale. Despite the routine application of fracturing in many fields, there has been very little fracturing experience in the gas-producing formations of Northern California. Example formations such as the Martinez, Forbes, Winters, and the K-1 are generally laminated sand intervals with low to moderate permeability (less than 1 mD and up to 10 mD), that are easily damaged by completion and production operations. Despite the hydraulic fracturing potential for stimulating production rates, improving gas recovery, and increasing reserves by extending the economic development area, it has been only sparingly employed. General formation properties are reviewed – what are the implications for hydraulic fracture potential, treatment design and placement challenges? Several treatments are reviewed to provide examples of fracture treatment behavior and response. Based on the initial experience and formation properties, it is believed that hydraulic fracturing has a significant potential in many Northern California gas reservoirs.
Introduction
Conventional development of Northern California gas fields has been for the most part limited to non-stimulated vertical well drilling of intervals with low to moderate permeability and highly laminated beds. The nature of the formations and the geology of the basin lend itself to realizing greater recovery potential with the use of fracturing stimulation technique. Hydraulic fracturing is believed to have a significant positive impact potential – it can provide production acceleration from conventional reservoirs, and add new reserves from unconventional or problematic intervals. It would also provide similar benefits from interval damage by drilling, completion, and production operations.
The flow and reservoir deliverability potential as described by Darcy’s law (shown below for radial gas flow using average reservoir pressure) is directly proportional to reservoir properties such as formation permeability, zone height, reservoir pressure and pressure drawdown. On the inverse side, production rates and reserve recovery can be limited due to the presence of skin acting as a choke to the full production potential and limited reservoir drainage area.
 
3-28-09
Benzene Leukemia Law Blog
Oil and Gas Drilling Poses Threat To Humans and The Environment
by David Austin
http://www.benzeneleukemialawblog.com/tags/hydraulic-fracturing/
Oil and natural gas drilling companies have long maintained that the hydraulic fracturing process used in creating natural gas wells poses no threat of groundwater contamination.
The federal Government has overwhelmingly agreed with this assessment, allowing the industry waivers under many federal environmental laws.
The process, commonly known as “fracking,” involves injecting huge volumes of water laced with benzene and hundreds of other toxic chemicals, deep into the earth. Although the chemicals are injected well below the water table, as much as 60% of the fluid is later recovered and often stored above ground in open pits. There is growing evidence that hydraulic fracturing poses a great threat to groundwater quality and public health.
In recent years many groundwater contamination incidents have occurred raising serious questions regarding a 2004 EPA study which stated that hydraulic fracturing poses no threat to drinking water. Although The report took major fire from independent researchers, and government whistleblowers, it still caused congress to exempt hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water act.
Recently the Federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) documented benzene contamination in Sublette County, Wyoming ground water. Since 2000 the area has seen well over 3000 new oil and gas wells.
In San Juan County, New Mexico the New Mexico Oil Conservation Division (NMOCD) has cited over four hundred cases of ground water contamination. The area has seen almost 5000 new wells since 2000. The contamination is said to stem from oil and gas waste pits. These pits are lawful only because oil and gas companies are exempted from the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which sets standard for hazardous waste handling procedures.
Benzene, an organic solvent linked to several rare and debilitating blood disorders such as aplastic anemia, myelodysplastic syndromes, and acute myelogenous leukemia, is just one of the hundreds of chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing fluid. The exact compositions of these fluids are largely unknown to the public because Congress has all but completely exempted oil and gas exploration companies from the Federal Emergency Planning and Community Right To Know acts. Environmental experts believe that up to 90% of the chemicals used are toxic to humans.
The federal government should impose all of its environmental laws on all industries.
It’s difficult not to speculate that if oil and gas companies were not blatantly trampling these laws, they would not require so many legal loopholes and exemptions.
 
 

 

 

9-3-09
Democracy Now!
Fracking and the Environment: Natural Gas Drilling, Hydraulic Fracturing and Water

 
Contamination
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/3/fracking_and_the_environment_natural_gas
 
9-21-09
ProPublica.org
Energy & Environment
Frack Fluid Spill in Dimock Contaminates Stream, Killing Fish
by Abrahm Lustgarten
http://www.propublica.org/feature/frack-fluid-spill-in-dimock-contaminates-stream-killing-fish-921

A drill site entrance near the spill site in Dimock, Pa., taken this past winter. (Abrahm Lustgarten /ProPublica) Pennsylvania environment officials are racing to clean up as much as 8,000 gallons of dangerous drilling fluids after a series of spills at a natural gas production site near the town of Dimock last week.
The spills, which occurred at a well site run by Cabot Oil and Gas, involve a compound manufactured by Halliburton that is described as a "potential carcinogen" and is used in the drilling process of hydraulic fracturing, according to state officials. The contaminants have seeped into a nearby creek, where a fish kill was reported by the state Department of Environmental Protection. The DEP also reported fish "swimming erratically."
The incident is the latest in a series of environmental problems [2] connected to Cabot’s drilling in the Dimock area. Last winter, drinking water in several area homes [3] was found to contain metals and methane gas that state officials determined leaked underground from Cabot wells. And in the spring, the company was fined for several other spills, including an 800-gallon diesel spill from a truck that overturned.
 
Dimock, Penn.Neither Cabot Oil and Gas nor Halliburton immediately returned calls for comment on Monday. A Halliburton spokesperson sent an e-mail referring any questions to information on the company’s Web site.
DEP officials were also unavailable for interviews, but said through e-mail that faulty piping is suspected and that they have not confirmed the exact cause of the spill. A press spokesperson said to expect an announcement and actions toward Cabot by Tuesday.
ProPublica interviewed state officials several months ago about drilling problems in Dimock [2]. "Cabot has definitely had their share of problems out there," Craig Lobins, a regional oil and gas division director, said then. "Some of them is just being a little bit careless … or sloppy, or maybe a little bit of bad luck too."
The drilling fluid spill Wednesday may be the most serious yet, because it involves chemicals that are known to pose a risk to human health and has spread into the area’s surface water system.
According to a Material Safety Data Sheet provided to the state this week by Halliburton, the spilled drilling fluid contained a liquid gel concentrate consisting of a paraffinic solvent and polysaccharide, chemicals listed as possible carcinogens for people. The MSDS form – for Halliburton’s proprietary product called LGC-35 CBM – does not list the entire makeup of the gel or the quantity of its constituents, but it warns that the substances have led to skin cancer in animals and "may cause headache, dizziness and other central nervous system effects" to anyone who breathes or swallows the fluids.
It is not yet clear exactly what led to or caused the spill. State officials report that at least 1,000 gallons of fluid were spilled Wednesday afternoon, and another 5,900 gallons about 10 that night. The substance was reportedly a clay-like mixture, with the Halliburton gel mixed at about five gallons per 1,000 gallons of water. A DEP spokesperson said in an e-mail that the spills appear to be the result of supply pipe failures. In one case a pressurized line may have broken, and in another a seal may have given way. State officials said the fluids had spilled into Stevens Creek.
The contamination incident comes as the state faces increasing scrutiny for its handling of a natural gas drilling boom and dozens of instances of spills and water contamination related to it across the state. Earlier investigations by ProPublica found that methane had leaked into drinking water supplies from gas wells in at least seven Pennsylvania counties. And earlier this month the DEP began investigating a suspected chemical spill in the northwestern part of the state, hundreds of miles from Dimock, which decimated aquatic life along a 30-mile stretch of pristine river. No determination has been made in that case either, but waste fluids from drilling are among the possibilities being investigated.
Correction: This story has been updated. A description of the spill provided in the story by Vincent Fronda actually referred to a Sept. 3 discharge near the Cabot well site in question. It was several hundred feet away and separate from the fracturing fluid spill that occurred last Wednesday. The photograph that accompanied the story, which was sent to ProPublica by a Dimock resident, was also of that earlier spill. Both the photo and the descriptive passage have been removed.