Congressmen Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward Markey (D-Mass.) are asking for more information about the chemicals used to extract natural gas wells.

Urban gas well outside a mall in North Texas

Today, the two lawmakers sent letters to eight oil and natural gas companies requesting details of the ingredients used in hydraulic fracturing, a method of accessing natural gas deposits by blasting or fracturing the rock with a high pressure injection of water treated with chemicals.

The practice has come under scrutiny as natural gas drilling for shale deposits has encroached upon urban areas and watersheds in Texas (in the Barnett Shale region) and in the Northeast (the Marcellus Shale region). A  2005 law exempted oil companies from disclosure of the contents of their “fracking fluid” formulas after Halliburton convinced the Bush Administration the formulas should be proprietary and Congress slipped in an amendment to an energy bill.

This exemption to the Clean Drinking Water Act, known as the Halliburton loophole, has left the public in the dark about the current mix of chemicals used in fracturing, and in affected regions, many residents are concerned that natural gas operations could contaminate the air and underground water supplies. (A house bill has been introduced to repeal the loophole, The Natural Resources Defense Council is running a campaign where citizens can register their support for lifting the exemption.)

Benzene, a known carcinogen, is one chemical typically used in  fracking operations. Dozens of other toxic chemicals are employed. In an earlier request to Halliburton, BJ Service and Schlumberger, Waxman and Markey found that Halliburton and BJ were using toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene — all of which are considered environmentally harmful.

The response to that earlier request also revealed that the companies were using seven diesel-based fluids, potentially in defiance of a voluntary agreement with the EPA to not use those pollutants, according to a press release from Waxman’s office.

“Hydraulic fracturing could help us unlock vast domestic natural gas reserves once thought unattainable, strengthening America’s energy independence and reducing carbon emissions,” said Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, in a news release.

“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.  This investigation will help us better understand the potential risks this technology poses to drinking water supplies and the environment, and whether Congress needs to act to minimize those risks.”

“Natural gas can play a very important role in our clean energy future, provided that it is produced in a safe and sustainable way,” said Markey, chair of the subcommittee on Energy and the Environment.

The natural gas industry has argued that regulation of fracking fluids is not needed because the vast majority of fluids are removed from the well and systematically disposed of. A recent report by ProPublica, however, challenged that contention, citing  industry experts who told ProPublica that 85 percent of the fluids used remain in the ground.

The Congressional requests for additional information sent out today are going to Halliburton, BJ Service, Schlumberger and five other companies providing services in the natural gas field, Frac Tech Services, Superior Well Services, Universal Well Services, Sanjel Corporation, and Calfrac Well Services.

The Environmental Defense Fund praised Waxman and Markey for their efforts to drill for more info.

“We commend Chairman Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Markey for this important step. There is no reason that gas producers need to run roughshod over the environment in order to increase natural gas supplies,” said EDF Senior Policy Advisor Scott Anderson.

“Because the problem of global warming is so severe and the time for action so short, all low and lower carbon energy options, including natural gas, should be considered as part of the nation’s energy mix, but only if such options can be accomplished without significant adverse health or environmental impacts.”

Copyright © 2010 Green Right Now | Distributed by GRN Network

A version of this story appeared in the Albany Times-Union [1] on Oct. 8, 2009.

A preliminary report [2] from a consultant hired by New York City warns that “nearly every activity” associated with natural gas drilling could potentially harm the city’s drinking water supply and that while the risk can be reduced with strict regulations, “the likelihood of water quality impairment…. cannot be eliminated [2].”

That assessment contrasts sharply with the picture presented by an environmental review released by state officials last week [3]. Aside from clauses that ban some waste pits and promise additional consideration for drilling within 1,000 feet of the city’s reservoirs and water infrastructure in upstate New York, the environmental review does little to respond to New York City’s long-standing concerns [4] that the watershed deserves special environmental consideration and instead paves the way for drilling to proceed throughout the watershed.

The issue appears to be emerging as a point of controversy in New York City’s mayoral election.

City comptroller and mayoral candidate William Thompson criticized the state’s environmental review in a news release and said Mayor Bloomberg should be more outspoken. “I am also concerned that the City and the Water Board have been extremely lax in responding to this threat,” he said.

Marc LaVorgna, a spokesman for Bloomberg’s office, said the mayor will withhold judgment until he sees the final version of the report the city commissioned from Hazen and Sawyer, a New York City-based environmental engineering firm. The full report isn’t expected to be delivered until December, after the public comment period for the state environmental review has ended.

LaVorgna emphasized that the Bloomberg administration has invested heavily in the city’s water system and would not rule out a protracted fight to protect it.

“This is not a fringe issue for this administration,” LaVorgna said. “This is a mayor that adamantly orders tap water every night he dines out.”

In one of his few statements on the subject, Bloomberg, who has generally supported the idea of energy development, told WNYC radio Thursday [5] that “if this has the danger of polluting, we will fight it.”

The clashing reports seem poised to reignite long standing tensions between upstate New York and New York City, which depends almost entirely on water delivered from rural, upstate areas.

“The stakes are very high based on the conclusions of this report,” Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer said in an interview with ProPublica. The report, he said, “suggests that city elected officials have a role to play here and a responsibility to step up and say, ‘What does frack drilling mean to New York City residents?’”

Last week Stringer announced he was launching a Kill the Drill campaign.

New York is one of four major cities in the United States with a special permit from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency allowing its drinking water to go unfiltered. That pristine water comes from a network of upstate reservoirs and rivers spread across 1,600 square miles in five upstate counties. Those reservoirs – which all lie west of the Hudson River – supply 90 percent of the drinking water for 9 million downstate residents, nearly half the state’s population. If the EPA were to rescind the city’s special permit, New York City would have to build a treatment facility that could cost between $10 billion and $30 billion, according to various estimates.

Hazen and Sawyer’s early findings [2] were summarized at a city meeting last week and posted on the city’s Department of Environmental Protection’s Web site Tuesday evening, after repeated requests for the document by ProPublica over the past several days.

The report [2], and an accompanying summary Powerpoint presentation, lays out several areas of concern. The consultants found that drilling “introduces hazardous chemicals into the watershed” and that “the well bore, which acts as a conduit between geologic formations, can allow previously isolated contaminants to flow into shallow groundwater or surface water.”

The research also warned of “enormous volumes” of wastewater and said there are no treatment plants in the region designed to treat these wastes. It said the disturbance from hydraulic fracturing could cause seismic shifts or otherwise damage the tunnels or aqueducts that bring the water to the city. Hydraulic fracturing shoots millions of gallons of water, sand and chemicals underground with such force that it breaks rock and releases pockets of gas.

So far, New York City’s top officials have preferred a behind-the-scenes approach as the public debate over the state’s natural gas drilling policy unfurls in Albany. City DEP officials have protested to the DEC in private letters, but have said little publicly.

In a letter obtained by ProPublica in July 2008, then New York City DEP commissioner Emily Lloyd asked the DEC commissioner [6] to disclose the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and to consider a partial ban on drilling near the reservoirs that supply New York City’s water. Shortly afterward, and following an investigation by ProPublica, Gov. David Paterson ordered the environmental review [7] that was released Sept. 30. Called the Draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement, it supplements gas and oil drilling rules established in 1992 [8]. New York City officials have since sent several additional letters to the state DEC voicing their ongoing concerns.

A spokesman for the state DEC did not return repeated calls for comment.

The state supplemental draft report discloses many of the drilling chemicals, as Lloyd had requested, and it also strengthens several other environmental protections. But it did not recommend a full or partial ban on drilling in the watershed.

The supplementary impact statement is now subject to a 60-day public comment period, after which final guidelines will be issued. But Stringer and others are pressing the state for a 30-day extension, which would allow the findings from the Hazen and Sawyer report to be included.

Read the “Rapid Impact Assessment Report [2]” by consulting firm Hazen and Sawyer.

Read our full coverage of natural gas drilling [9].

ProPublica reporters Joaquin Sapien and Saprina Shankman contributed to this story.

A drill site entrance near the spill site in Dimock, Pa., taken this past winter. (Photo: 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 connected to Cabot’s drilling in the Dimock area. Last winter, drinking water in several area homes 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. “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.

People at the scene described a “gray gooey substance” spread across the ground and said barricades of hay bales and plastic had been set up to confine the sludge. According to an e-mailed account from Vincent Fronda, who lives in nearby Johnson City, N.Y., and went to take pictures of the spill, there were “many huge puddles of the stuff in the woods west of the pad.” Fronda described finding a hole with a drill bit and four-foot-deep fluids, and said workers were running a vacuum pump to try to get the bit out. 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.

One of my pet complaints is finally being addressed, at least partly. Living here in the Barnett Shale region of Texas, where drilling for natural gas is making Swiss cheese of the ground beneath, say, my house, I’ve been sensitive to these reports that link fracturing chemicals to groundwater contamination.

To be fair, natural gas advocates point out that the crevices they’re tapping are typically not at the same level as groundwater; they’re much farther below the surface. Still, that means they’re drilling through potential groundwater territory. And it doesn’t explain away the numerous reports around the country of water contaminated with chemicals used in the fracturing process.

Call me suspicious, or call me a reader of Pro Publica which has been cracking open this story, but these matters worry me. (See the latest story from Pro Publica here. It’s about how gas drilling could be the culprit in contaminated Wyoming water wells being investigated by the EPA. The EPA jumped on this problem a few years after residents in the tiny town of Pavillion complained that “their water wells turned sour and reeked of fuel vapors shortly after drilling took place nearby,” according to Pro Publica. Hmmmm. I smell a problem.)

But I digress. What’s happening now is that Congress may soon ask for more disclosure from gas companies, requiring them to reveal the chemicals being used in the hydraulic fracturing process. If passed, the companies would have to itemize what’s in those fluids they’re injecting beneath the earth to split the rock (which releases gas stores).

The Natural Resources Defense Council supports this potential repeal of the “Halliburton Loophole,” as it’s known because this 2005 exemption to the Safe Drinking Water Act allowed Halliburton to keep its fracturing formula secret.

The NRDC is asking supporters of disclosure to contact their lawmakers about these pending bills:
House of Representatives’ Bill 2766 and Senate Bill 1215.

For more info on areas where natural gas drilling has contaminated water and threatened property see the NRDC blog by Amy Mall, a senior policy analyst with the group.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Pity the American public trying to figure out where to stand on natural gas. There’s a cacophony of appeals to our patriotism, pocketbooks and desire to be eco-correct.

The latest twist comes from politicians in Congress, accompanied by oilman and clean energy trumpeter T. Boone Pickens,  who are promoting big tax breaks for natural gas-powered cars and fueling stations. The Natural Gas Act (Sen. 1408), proposed last week by Sen. Robert Menendez of (D-New Jersey) and co-sponsored by Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), would increase tax breaks for people and groups that buy vehicles that use compressed natural gas (CNG). It also would offer incentives to those developing CNG infrastructure, for example, doubling the property tax break for building a fueling station from $50,000 to $100,000.

SOOOO GREEN

This move has got some serious environmental potential: Compressed natural gas vehicles put out almost no harmful tailpipe emissions. Compared with traditional gasoline vehicles, they win the clean tailpipe competition hands down. Don’t believe me, take it from this synopsis by the Union for Concerned Scientists comparing emissions from CNG, diesel and gasoline engines.

Of course, you can’t easily fill up on natural gas because there are only a few hundred stations in the US. So this technology works better for government fleets that can refuel at a single source. This is a problem that could be solved in a couple ways, by converting gasoline cars, which is not very difficult, and by offering big government bonuses to people who can build more stations (people like T. Boone Pickens).

This could be good for Americans because natural gas, if the price holds, is cheaper than gasoline. Yea! And it’s mainly (for now) domestically sourced in the US and elsewhere in North America. Rah!

SO NOT GREEN

And yet, from an environmental perspective, the idea of gearing up for a future based on natural gas, another finite fossil fuel, really smells. In fact, it’s flammable. Ask the people in Ohio whose house exploded when leaking natural gas filled up their well and then their basement.

OK, call that an accident. It still leaves the question of environmental contamination from the whole process of natural gas extraction. Natural gas drilling causes significant air pollution. Last year, a researcher at Southern Methodist University determined that air pollution from natural gas drilling operations was nearly as great as that from autos and cars in the Dallas-Fort Worth metro area. State environmental quality experts reviewed the SMU study and … concurred.

Natural gas drilling also can compromise groundwater, or at least, the under ground regions near groundwater, when dozens of chemicals (many of them known carcinogens like benzene linked to certain leukemias) are injected deep into the ground during the “fracking” process to access natural gas deposits.

These are serious environmental consequences, and we don’t even really know how serious because oil and gas companies have been exempted from disclosure on their hydraulic fracturing “fracking” formulas under the Clean Water Act.

In another turn of rich Washington D.C. irony, a different set of lawmakers has recently asked that this Clean Water exemption be overturned, so we can find out more about the chemicals being unleashed near our groundwater. So as Menendez and crew are pushing for more tax breaks for natural gas, another group is asking for more disclosure from the same industry via the Fracturing Responsiblity and Awareness of Chemicals Act. These aren’t mutually exclusive movements, necessarily, but they do illustrate how we Americans might suffer whiplash trying to follow natural gas developments.

Meantime, natural gas has wide support as a “bridge” solution while other technologies such as the batteries for all-electric vehicles and the wind and solar installations capable of powering buildings are developed.

“Natural gas is an important alternative fuel to help pave the way to energy independence, which will not only help keep us safer, but will also help reduce the high cost of fuel and, thus, high utility bills across the board,” said Hatch, at the news conference announcing SB 1408. Needless to say, Utah and Nevada contain extensive natural gas reserves. Menendez’s New Jersey sits astride a swath of reserves in the Northeast.

And there are more reserves in shale rock, now accessible, according to the industry, via new drilling methods.

But do we need it (or a better question may be, who needs it?) and at what environmental price? While there have been opposition groups to past surges on natural gas, and there are active pockets of local opponents, the large environmental groups appear to be undecided or at least uncharacteristically less vocal on this topic. (Except on the shale issue, which has louder opposition.)

If you want to know more about the potential downside of natural gas drilling, see the article Buried Secrets: Is Natural Gas Drilling Endangering U.S. Water Supplies?

And stay tuned, we’ll try to keep a nose out for the fumes too.

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media

Global wind power installations grew by 29 percent in 2008, exceeding past performance and bringing the world’s commercial wind power capacity to 120,798 megawatts.

Wind now produces 1.5 percent of the world’s electricity with 80 countries using commercial wind power, according to an analysis by the Worldwatch Institute released this week.

The U.S. claimed much of that growth, with more than 42 percent of the power capacity added in 2008. The U.S. was the leader in new installations (passing Germany), and also became the world leader in cumulative wind power capacity with 25,170 megawatts of capacity at the end of 2008, according to Worldwatch.

Natural gas still added capacity faster than wind; despite wind’s surging growth trajectory.

Elsewhere in the world, wind strengthened its position in several key population centers, according to Worldwatch:

• Wind became Europe’s leading source of new electric capacity with 8,877 megawatts added, outpacing new natural gas and coal facilities. Wind power now accounts for 8 percent of the European Union’s power capacity. Europe ended the year with 65,946 megawatts of capacity.

• Germany leads the region in new installations, and despite a slowdown in production in 2008, still expects to generate 31 percent of the nation’s power from wind by 2030. It ranks second in the world in total wind capacity with 23,903 megawatts, just behind the U.S.

• Spain was fourth worldwide in new installations in 2008, and ranks third after the United States and Germany for cumulative wind power capacity with 16,740 megawatts.

• Asia accounted for nearly one-third of the global wind capacity added in 2008, with China passing its 2010 wind power target of 10,000 megawatts and ending 2008 with 12,200 megawatts in place. China ranks 4th in the world for total capacity.

• India ranked third in wind capacity additions for 2008 with 1,800 megawatts of new wind added and now ranks 5th for total capacity worldwide.

• Nearly 400,000 people are employed in the wind industry across the world, a number that could temporarily decline because of the economic downturn, according to Worldwatch, which also predicts that lower construction costs could lead to a long-term boom in wind.

“We’ve seen rapid and consistent global growth in the wind sector over the past decade, with an increasing number of countries turning to wind as a source of power,” said the report’s author, senior researcher Janet Sawin. “If these trends continue as expected, wind energy will play an integral role in the transition to a low-carbon economy.”

Copyright © 2009 Green Right Now | Distributed by Noofangle Media