Fraccing frickin' frucked?

[happytown]

Following on from the recent doco, Gasland, premiering at Sundance (hug it out bitch), things are heating up in the US when it comes to fraccing - House Committee on Energy and Commerce is investigating the practice of hydraulic fracturing and the threat to the environment posed by substances used therein

see for eg

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/2/23/congress_to_investigate_safety_of_natural

 

[happytown]

epa listening tour currently underway in us regarding the threat that hydraulic fracturing may pose to groundwater

see for eg, "EPA Weighs Risks of Hydraulic Fracturing for Natural Gas", NYT, 23/07/10 [not reproduced in full, with link provided to enable forum members to read full story at NYT website]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/24/business/energy-environment/24gas.html?ref=business&pagewanted=all

The streams of people came to to the public meeting here armed with stories of yellowed and foul-smelling well water, deformed livestock, poisoned fish and itchy skin. The culprit, these people argued, was hydraulic fracturing, a method of extracting natural gas that involves blasting underground rock with a cocktail of water, sand and chemicals.

Gas companies countered that the horror stories described in Pennsylvania and at other meetings held recently in Texas and Colorado are either fictions or not the companies' fault.

...

Roughly 99.5 percent of the fluids typically used in fracking, the indutry says, are just water and sand, with trace elements of chemical thickeners, lubricants and other compounds added to help the process along. The cocktail is injected thousands of feet below the water table and, the inductry argues, can't possibly be responsible for growing complaints of spoiled streams and wells. But critics say that the relationship between fracking fluids and groundwater contamination has never been thoroughly studied - and that proving a link has been made more difficult by oil and gas companies that have jealously guarded as trade secrets the exact chemical ingredients used at each well.

...

Fears of fracking's impact on water supllies prompted regulators overseeing the Delaware Water Basin to curtail gas exploration until the effects could be more closely studied. New York State lawmakers are contemplating a moratorium. At he national level, in addition to the EPA study, a Congressional investigation of gas drilling and fracturing, led by House Energy and Commerce Committee, intensified last week with demands sent to several companies for details on their operations - particularly how they handled the slurry of water and chemicals that flowed back from deep within a well.

A renewed, if unlikely, push is also under way to pass federal legislation that would undo an exemption introduced under the Bush administration that critics say freed hydraulic fracturing from regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Last month, Wyoming introduced some of the nation's toughest rules governing fracturing, including provisions that require companies to disclose the ingredients in their fracturing fluids to state regulators - though specifically not to the public.

Gas drillers, responding to the incresed scrutiny and eyeing the expansive and lucrative new gas plays in Appalachia, are redoubling their efforts to stave off federal oversight, in some cases by softening their rigid positions on fracking-fluid disclosure. Last week, Range Resources went so far as to announce its intent to disclose the contents of its fracking fluids to Pennsylvania regulators and to publish them on the company's website.

...

as to the EPA study

as annd in the Federal Register Vol 75, No 118, Mon 06/21/10

The EPA is announcing four public meetings to explain its proposed plan to study the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water.

...

The Hydraulic Fracturing Study informational meetings are as follows: July 8, 2010, in Fort Worth, Texas; July 13, 2010, in Denver, Colorado; July 22, 2010, in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania; August 12, 2010, in Binghamton, New York.

...

The meetings are open to the public and all interested stakeholders are invited to attend. Presentations by EPA will be limited to study planning and will not include discussions on hydraulic fracturing policy or past EPA studies.

...

The meetings will begin with brief presentations by the EPA Office of Research and Development on hydraulic fracturing ... Oral comment session will begin after the presentation, and oral comments will be limited to two minutes each. [comments may also be submitted in writing at information sessions or to EPA contact address]

...

EPA study timeline (taken from EPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study Federal Partner Consultation preso dated 05/27/10, p8)

05-06/10 State & Federal Partner meetings
06/10 website posted
07-08/10 Public meetings
09/10 Draft Study Design Final
10-11/10 Technical Workshops
10/10 Peer Review
01/11 initiate Study
late /12 initial results expected

as to fracking fluid makeup (from "Modern Shale Gas Development in the United States: A Primer, US Dept of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy National Energy Technology Laboratory, April 2009, p 61)

...

The fracturing fluids used for shale gas stimulations consist primarily of water but also include a variety of additives. The number of chemical additives used in typical fracture treatment varies on the conditions of the specific well being fractured. A typical fracture treatment will use very low concentrations of between 3 and 12 additive chemicals depending on the characteristics of the water and the shale formation being fractured. Each component serves a specific, engineered purpose. The predominant fluids currently being used for fracture treatments in the gas shale plays are water-based fracturing fluids mixed with friction-reducing additives (called silckwater).

The addition of friction reducers allows fracturing fluids and proppant to be pumped to the target zone at a higher rate and reduced pressure than if water alone were used. In addition to friction reducers, other additives include: biocides to prevent microorganism growth and to reduce biofouling of the fractures; oxygen scavengers and other stabilizers to prevent corrosion of metal pipes; and acids that are used to remove drilling mud damage within the near-wellbore area. These fluids are used not only to create the fractures in the formation but also to carry a propping agent (typically silica sand) which is deposited in the induced fractures.

...

an inductry fact sheet ("A Fluid Situation: Typical Solution* used in Hydraulic Fracturing" from www.energyindepth.org) lists the fracturing fluids as

99.51% water and sand;
0.49% additives, comprising
-acids 0.123% (helps dissolve minerals and initiate fissure in rock - pre-fracture);
-glutaraldehyde 0.001% (eliminates bacteria in the water);
-sodium chloride 0.01% (allows delayed breakdown of the gel polymer chains);
-N, n-Dimethyl formamide 0.002% (prevents corrosion of the pipe);
-borate salts 0.007% (maintains fluid viscosity as temp increases);
-polyacylamide (minimizes friction between fluid and pipe);
-petroleum distillates 0.088% ('slicks' water to minimize friction);
-guar gum 0.056% (thickens water to suspend the sand);
-citric acid 0.004% (prevents precipitation of metal oxides);
-potassium chloride 0.06% (creates brine carrier fluid);
-ammonium bisulfite (removes O2 from H20 tp protect pipe from corrosion);
-sodium or potassiom carbonate 0.011% (maintains effectiveness of other components);
-proppant (allows fissure to remain open so gas can escape);
-ethylene glycol 0.043% (prevents scale deposits in pipe);
-isopropanol 0.085% (increases viscosity of fracture fluid)

the above info is sourced (according to factsheet) from the aforementioned Gas Shale Primer, supra

however, again from p 61 of the Primer

...

Overall the concentration of additives in most slickwater fracturing fluids is a relatively consistent 0.5% to 2% with water making up 98% to 99.5%.

...

the example of the makeup of a typical fracturing fluid (0.49% aditives) in both the industry factsheet and the Primer is below the 'relatively consistent' 0.5-2.0% in 'most slickwater fracturing fluids'

 

[happytown]

cont/d

interestingly the EPA has examined hydraulic fracturing previously in a 2004 report, "Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs, June 2004, EPA 816-R-04-003", from the exec summary:

... assesses the potential for contamination of underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) from the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into coalbed methane (CBM) wells. To increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the study, EPA has taken a phased approach.

...

The first phase of the study ... is a fact-finding efort based primarily on existing literature to identify and assess the potential threat to USDWs

...

EPA researched over 200 peer-reviewed publications, interviewed approximately 50 employees from inductry and state or local government agencies, and communicated with approximatley 40 citizens and groups who are concerned that CBM production affected their drinking water wells.

...

from Ch 7 Conclusions and Recommendations:

...

7.4 Conclusions

Based on the information collected and reviewed, EPA has concluded that the injection of hydraulic fracturing fluids into coalbed methane wells poses little or no threat to USDWs and does not justify aditional study at this time.

...

Specifically, EPA determined that it would not continue into Phase II of the study if the investigation found that no hazardous constituents were used in fracturing fluids, hydraulic fracturing did not increase the hydraulic connection between previously isolated formations, and reported incidents of water quality degredation were attributed to other, more plausible causes.

Although potentially hazardous chemicals may be introduced into USDWs when fracturing fluids are injected into coal seams that lie within USDWs, the risk posed to USDWs by introduction of these chemicals is reduced significantly by groundwater production and injected fluid recovery, combined with the mitigating effects of dilution and dispersion, adsorption, and potentially biodegredation. Additionally, EPA has reached an agreement with the major service companies to voluntarily eliminate diesel fuel from hydraulic fracturing liquids that are injected directly into USDWs for coalbed methane production.

...

EPA also reviewed incidents of drinking water well contamination believed to be associated with hydraulic fracturing and found no confirmed cases that are linked to fracturing fluid injection into coalbed methane wells or subsequent underground movement of fracturing fluids. Although thousands of coalbed methane wells are fractured annually, EPA did not find confirmed evidence that drinking water wells have been contaminated by hydraulic fracturinf fluid injection into coalbed methane wells.

it is interseting that Phase I (and indeed the only phase) of the study was based primarily on 'existing literature', when according to Ch 4 Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids,

...

4.1 Introduction

...

Available scientific literature indicates that hydraulic fracturing fluid performance became a prevalent research topic in the late 1980s and the 1990s. Most of the literature pertaining to fracturing fluids relates to the fluids' operational efficiency rather than their potential environenmental or human health impacts. There is very little documented research on the environmental impacts that result from the injection and migration of these fluids into subsurface formations, soils, and USDWs.

...

the 2004 report is available form the EPA website, www.epa.gov

a counter to the 2004 EPA report can be found in "Our Drinking Water at Risk: What EPA and the Oil & Gas Industry don't want us to know about Hydraulic Fracturing", Oil & Gas Accountability Project, April 2005, www.ogap.org which

... found that EPA removed information from earlier drafts that suggested unregulated fracturing poses a threat to human health, and that the agency did not include information that suggests fracturing fluids may pose a threat to drinking water long after drilling operations are completed. OGAP's review of relevant data on hydraulic fracturing suggests that there is insufficient information for EPA to have concluded that hydraulic fracturing does not pose a threat to drinking water.

...

The draft EPA study included calculations showing that even when diluted with water at least nine hydraulic fracturing chemicals may be injected into USDWs at concentrations that pose a threat to human health. These chemicals are: benzene, phenanthrenes, napthalene, 1-methylnapthalene, 2-methylnapthalene, fluorenes, aromatics, ethylene glycol and methanol. This important information was removed from the final study.

...

(Our Drinking Water at Risk, p vii)

for further reading,

a pro-hydraulic fracturing website www.hydraulicfracturing.com

an anti-hydraulic fracturing website www.earthworksaction.org

 

[Agentm]

was watching the public meetings in the US for some time now over this issue..

its gaining ground

i invested for a long while in the eagleford shale, and plenty of meetings on this issue are being held throughout the counties.

nice posts

aquifer depletion resulting from the demands for the water is a very touchy subject in the counties..

 

[happytown]

agreed agentm

your knowledge of the eagleford is plain to see for all at asf

real delicate balance between ensuring safe usable groundwater and acreage money/energy requirements

whether the epa is up for the job, who knows

for an environmental protection agency they have produced an awful lot of whistleblowers, generally, arguing the contrary

the fact that some states agencies' are acting in advance of the epa study is interesting

this is potentially a significant issue for frac drilling operations

 

[Bigukraine]

was watching the public meetings in the US for some time now over this issue..

its gaining ground

i invested for a long while in the eagleford shale, and plenty of meetings on this issue are being held throughout the counties.

nice posts

aquifer depletion resulting from the demands for the water is a very touchy subject in the counties..

agreed agentm

your knowledge of the eagleford is plain to see for all at asf

real delicate balance between ensuring safe usable groundwater and acreage money/energy requirements

whether the epa is up for the job, who knows

for an environmental protection agency they have produced an awful lot of whistleblowers, generally, arguing the contrary

the fact that some states agencies' are acting in advance of the epa study is interesting

this is potentially a significant issue for frac drilling operations

Funny Agentm how i brought this up months ago and it was basically a much to do about nothing was the line of your responce......... as i said the issue was being looked at by congress at the time and looks like now the chickens are comming home to roost......
looks like the ADI sale to AWE was done with this in mind and looks like AWE have bought themselves a whole lot of future trouble

 

[happytown]

so why not just trust the oil and gas industry when it comes to hydraulic fracturing then,

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/0...d-companies-acknowledge-fracking-w-90863.html

"Two Oil Field Companies Acknowledge Fracking With Diesel", NYT, 19/02/10, by Mike Soraghan

Two of the world's largest oil-field service companies have acknowledged to Congress that they used diesel in hydraulic fracturing after telling federal regulators they would stop injecting the fuel near underground water supplies.

Halliburton and BJ Services acknowledged to the House Oversight and Governement Reform Committee in January 2008 that they had used diesel in the controversial process that has expanded access to vast natural gas plays.

BJ Services acknowledged it had violated a December 2003 "memorandum of agreement" that it and other companies signed with US EPA agreeing to limit the amount of diesel they use in fracturing.

The chairman of the oversight panel, Democrat Henry Waxman (Calif) is now chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which launched an investigation yesterday into fracturing practices.

...

Waxman's memo says the companies didn't specify whether the fluids were injected into wells located in or near underground sources of drinking water, which could create contamination risks.

...

Halliburton officials said the suggestions that its use of diesel may have violated the agreement are "completely innacurate."

"The terms of the MOA specifically cover coalbed methane gas development activities in association with Underground Sources of Drinking Water, and not [fracturing] projects in other unconventional gas development activities or conventional formations," company spokeswoman Diana Gabriel said.

...

The agreement not to use diesel was aimed at calming fears about groundwater contamination when Congress decided to exempt fracturing from federal drinking water laws in the 2005 energy bill. The agreement was signed by Halliburton, BJ Services and Schlumberger, which then did nearly all the fracturing work in the United States. It included no enforcement penalties.

...

is the oil and gas industry, at least publicly, concerned about the spotlight being placed squarely on hydraulic fracturing - not so it would appear,

http:///www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/...try-reps-greet-house-fracking-prob-63352.html

"Energy Industry Reps Greet House Fracking Probe With Shrug", NYT, 22/02/10, by Katie Howell

Energy insiders say a new House probe of hydraulic fracturing is unlikely to hinder development of new domestic shale gas plays ...

Waxman and Markey launched their inquiry just days after EPAs top drinking water official said he had not seen documented evidence of contamination caused by fracturing and that state regulators were doing a good job overseeing the process.

"The week started out pretty good for us," said Chris Tucker, a spokesman for the industry-backed group Energy in Depth. "Anytime the top drinking water official acknowledges the tremendous track record of state regulators, that's a nice feather in your cap."

...

The [earlier] EPA study, released in 2004, found that hydraulic fracturing posed "little or no threat" to drinking water.

Environmentalists contended that the study was scientifically unsound, but Congress endorsed it and used it to override the earlier decision to regulate hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Lawmakers specifically exempted the practice from federal legislation in a broad 2005 energy law. [known as the Halliburton loophole]

...

Questions about fracturing environmental safety have been raised again in recent months as new reserve estimates point to the massive potential of natural gas shale plays like the Marcellus in Appalachia, Barnett in Texas and Haynesville in Louisiana.

...

More recently, a proposed $41 billion merger between Exxon Mobil and XTO Energy Inc has drawn widespread attention to the drilling practice ... the proposed all-stock deal is contingent on Congress not passing laws that would make hydraulic fracturing "illegal or commercially impracticable."

...

There are currently two bills that propose federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing.

Reps Diana DeGette (D-Colo) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) are sponsoring the House measure (HR 2766), and Sens Robert casey (D-Pa) and Charles Schumer (D-NY) are sponsoring the Senate bill (S 1215). Both would require drilling companies to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act and disclose the chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing.

...

But any legislation that could come out of the Waxman-Markey inquiry or action on the pending legislation would not likely occur until after EPA conducts a new congressionally mandated study into the effects of hydraulic fracturing in shale plays on underground and surface water supplies.

...

Waxman and Markey's inquiry ahead of the release of the study has raised a few eyebrows.

...

the EPA study begins,

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/0...tudy-of-fracturings-effects-on-wat-76992.html

"EPA Begins Study of Fracturing's Effects on Water Supplies", NYT, 18/03/10, by Katie Howell

US EPA announced the start today of a study examining the effects of a controversial oil and gas production technique known as hydraulic fracturing on water supplies.

"Our research will be designed to answer questions about the potential impact of hydraulic fracturing on human health and the environment," EPA Assistant Administrator Paul Anastas said in a statement. "The study will be conducted through a transparent, peer-reviewed process, with significant stakeholder input."

...

"Understanding the risks that hydraulic fracturing poses to drinking water supplies is critical to guiding future policies and regulations that will safeguard the public," Rep Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) said in a statement heralding the study's launch.

...

The new study is being praised by environmentalists who criticized a 2004 EPA probe whose results were skewed, they say, by data collected selectivley from sources with a vested interest in the oil and gas industry.

...

Industry also welcomed the new study, saying it would prove claims that fracturing technology is safe.

"Assuming the study's methodology is technically sound, its evaluations are science-based, and its conclusions are peer-reviewed, there's really only one credible outcome this project can produce," said Chris Tucker, a spokesman for the industry-backed group Energy in Depth. "And -- spoiler alert -- it's not the one that opponents of responsible shale gas exploration are clamoring for."

...

so who is leading the charge against the regulation of hydraulic fracturing in the us

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/0...h-against-federal-legislation-of-f-95671.html

"BP, Others Push Against Federal Regulation of Fracturing", NYT, 23/03/10, by Mike Soraghan

BP America Inc and two other oil and gas companies are lobbying for the new Senate climate and energy bill to recommend against federal regulation of hydraulic fracturing.

...

The latest draft of the Climate and energy bill being written by Sens John Kerry (D-Mass), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) reportedly inlcudes language saying US EPA would not regulate the oil and gas drilling technique. In a "discussion draft" obtained by E&E, the oil and gas firms propose adding language that says regulation would be left to the states.

...

The draft also recommends against public disclosure of the chemicals in fracturing fluid, deeming it "trade secret information".

...

A senate aide confirmed that the draft proposal came from BP, and that Kerry, Graham and Lieberman are considering it with a wide variety of other proposals.

...

Environmental groups have charged that the process can contaminate groundwater, and EPA last week formally announced plans for a study of fracturing activities (Greenwire, March 18). But the oil and gas industry defends the practice as perfectly safe. BP spokesman Scott Dean declined to comment on the proposal.

Amy Mall of the Natural Resources Defenece Council sees the proposal as an attempt to use a climate change bill to head off the drive in Congress to regulate fracturing.

...

An industry group that focuses on fracturing said the language simply restates exisitng law.

...

In adittion to the EPA study, House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif) and Rep Ed Markey (D-Mass) last month announced an investigation into the safety of fracturing. Reps Diana DeGette (D-Colo) and Maurice Hinchey (D-NY) have introduced legislation (HR 2766) that would remove the fracturing exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act and require drilling companies to disclose the chemicals used in their fracturing fluids. Sen Bob Casey (D-Pa) has introduced companion legislation in the Senate.

...

 

[happytown]

whilst the O&G industry opposes any change to current regulation, mainstream concerns are growing, such as this NYT editorial,

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/29/opinion/29mon3.html

"Finding Natural Gas, Safely", NYT, 28/03/10, Editorial

The Environemental Protection Agency will soon begin a much-needed study of the effects on water quality and public health of a method of extracting natural gas called hydraulic fracturing. An EPA investigation in 2004 was rightly seen as superficial and skewed toward industry, which provided much of the underlying data. This one must be comprehensive and transparent.

...

New York State has been forced to review plans to allow exporatory drilling upstate, including New York City's watershed, because of fears that an accidental release of toxic chemicals could posion the water supply for millions of people.

...

Mr Hinchey and Ms Degette should stick to their guns. It's important to enlarge the nation's supply of natural gas, a relativley clean fuel. But where public health is an issue, federal oversight is plainly required.

it would appear, however, that the industry's reach into the political sphere is still powerful,

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/0...r-withdraws-natural-gas-fracking-a-82343.html

"Colo Lawmaker Withdraws Natural Gas 'Fracking' Amendment to Water Bill", NYT, 26/05/10, by Paul Quinlan

Colorado Democrat Diana Degette withdrew a proposed amendment today from House water legislation that would have expanded regulation of a controversial oil and gas production technique that some say has contributed to groundwater pollution.

Degette's amendment to a water-infrastructure bill (HR 5320), which the Energy and Commerce Committee went on to pass with only one no-vote, would have required drillers under the Safe Drinking Water Act to disclose the chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing to state regulators or US EPA.

...

But she ultimately withdrew the measure, saying she had been contacted by industry representatives who suggested that compromise language was possible.

...

Republicans have been staunchly opposed to efforts to further regulate hydraulic fracturing. And five gas-state committee Democrats yesterday signed on to a letter to Waxman and Energy and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Ed Markey (D-Mass) voicing their support of keeping hydraulic fracturing regulation as is.

...

"If you give EPA regulatory authority to require disclosure then implicitly you give them regulatory authority over the process itself, and that could be very detrimental to the oil and gas industry," said Rep Joe Barton (R-Texas), ranking member of the committee.

...

in spite of the O&G industry's immense power, cracks begin to appear,

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/0...-companys-disclosure-decision-could-5706.html

"Natural Gas Comapny's Disclosure decision Could Change Fracking Debate", NYT, 15/07/10, by Mike Soraghan

A Texas natural gas producer's decision to voluntarily disclose the chemicals it injects into the ground could prompt other drillers to do the same, and pave the way for regulators to require such disclosure.

But Range Resources Corp's move also reflects the desire of industry to get out ahead of the issue to prevent federal regulation of the key drilling practice called hydraulic fracturing, or fracking.

...

Range is proposing to dislcose the amount of additives used at each well site, along with their classifications, volumes, dilution factors, and specific and common purposes. Some of that information falls under what other companies consider proprietary trade secrets.

...

Range's willingness to disclose is particularly significant because it was the first gas company to drill and complete a Marcellus Shale well in Pennsylvania.

...

But the move could also provide ammunition to environmentalists and lawmakers pressing for more complete public disclosure.

...

"One company in one region is a good start, but any community where fracking is occurring deserves similar information." said Rep Diana DeGette (D-Colo).

...

Industry groups said the move showed that federal governement intervention isn't necessary.

"There's certainly a trend among some producers to announce support for voluntary disclosures, but that will be a business, and sometimes legal decision that each company will consider for itself," said Jeff Eshelman, spokesman for the Independent Petroleum Association of America, which has lobbied hard against federal regulation of fracturing.

...

"One compnay's efforts at transparency don't substitute for an industrywide requirement that such substances be dislcosed to the public," said Dave Alberswerth of the Wilderness Society.

...

In 2005, the Republican Congress and George W Bush administration exempted fracturing from US EPA regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act, heading off an appellate court ruling that had said the law should cover fracturing.

...

The industry has vehemently fought EPA regulation, fearing that the agency would shut down production while it developed rules that could clamp down on gas production.

...

The Senate climate bill authored by Sens John Kerry (D-Mass) and Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) would order fracturing companies to post on the Internet the worker-safety documents for the chemicals, called material safety data sheets. But the bill's future is increasingly uncertain.

In the House, Degette has pending legislation to rescind fracturing's exemption from federal regulation.

...

Degette has said that she is negotiating a disclosure proposal with the industry. But the negotitaions appear to have been stymied by a debate within the industry among those willing to have disclosure written into federal law and those who want to resist any federal intervention.

...

States have taken widely different approaches to disclosure.

Colorado, which overhauled its oil and gas laws in 2007, requires companies to maintain a well-by-well chemical inventory for the life of the well plus five years ... required to provide it to the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission if asked ... [information can be shared] with health officials, or a treating physician, subject to a confidentiality agreement ... more broadly if the company does not request trade secret protection.

Wyoming's Oil and Gas Conservation Commission decided earlier this year to order drillers to report the chemicals ... to commission staff, the first such requirement in the nation ... measure specifically shields the information from the public.

...

The Pennsylvania Department of Environemental Protection requires material safety data sheets to be attached to every drilling plan, which is available to landowners, local governements and emergency responders.

which asx-listed co's and asf-posted co's rely heavily on hydraulic fracturing in their us operations - and are any of the threads discussing the issue of regulation as a potential long-term investment risk

 

[happytown]

an update on the issue of hydraulic fracturing in the us at present

some states are not waiting for the epa report into the dangers fraccing may pose to human health via poisonous chemicals used impacting on the water table and aquifers

"NY Senate approves fracking moratorium", by Mireya Navarro, NYT, 04/08/10

... New York State Senate voted 48 to 9 Tuesday night to issue a temporary moratorium ...

state Department of Environmental Conservation is currently reviewing the environmental impact of drilling in upstate NY, where natural gas companies are buying up leases and applying for permits to tap the Marcellus Shale ...

prevent new drilling permits from being issued for the Marcellus shale until May 15 2011 ...

"This is the first action in the country to put the brakes on this type of drilling ..." [Katherine Nadeau, Environmental Advocates]

... "We have companies that want to come to NY, but in this regulatory and legislative climate and instability they're going to Pennsylvania ..." [Brad Gill, Independent O&G Association NY]

...

going to Pennsylvania huh?

"New lawsuit filed in fracking country", by Tom Zeller Jr, NYT, 15/09/10

More than a dozen families in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania, filed a lawsuit late Tuesday against the Southwestern Energy Production Co, asserting ... [contamination of] their drinking water

...

"Pennsylvania Governor bans fracking in state forests", by Tom Zeller Jr, NYT, 26/10/10

... Edward G Rendell of Pennsylvania signed an executive order on Tuesday effectively banning further natural gas development on state forest lands

...

Most gas development in Pennsylvania is carried out on private lands, but state regulators have permitted drilling on state forest land since at least 1947

...

Roughly 660,000 of the states 2.2 million acres of public forest land have been leased ...

tick tock tick tock

frick frock frack

 

[happytown]

anyone investing in shale gas plays in the us needs to read the following from the nyt, dated 25/06/11 (link not provided - go to nyt, business, energy)

"Insiders sound an alarm amid a natural gas rush", nyt, 25/06/11, by Ian Urbina

nyt has received hundreds of emails and documents casting doubt on the claims made by the industry

the documents are available at the nyt website

...

In the emails, energy executives, industry lawyers, state geologists and market analysts voice skepticism about lofty forecasts and question whether companies are intentionally, and even illegally, overstating the productivity of their wells and the size of their reserves. Many of these emails also suggest a view that is in stark contrast to more bullish public comments made by the industry, in much the same way that insiders have raised doubts about previous financial bubbles.

...

cheers