What? Natural gas? I guess you didn't watch Gasland. You should follow some of these bread crumbs and what natural gas exploration has / is doing in the frac zones.
The primary environmental and human health concerns associated with hydraulic fracturing include the mishandling of solid toxic waste, a deterioration in air quality, the contamination of ground water, and the unintended migration of gases and hydraulic fracturing chemicals to the surface within a given radius of drilling operations. The costs associated with environmental clean-up processes, land value losses, and in addressing human and animal health concerns may be significant. New technological advances and appropriate regulation may be required in order to safely implement the process.
A well blowout in Clearfield County, PA on June 3, 2010 sent more than 35,000 gallons of hydraulic fracturing fluids into the air and onto the surrounding landscape in a forested area. Campers were evacuated and the company EOG Resources (formerly Enron Oil and Gas) and the well completion company C.C. Forbes have been ordered to cease all operations in the state of Pennsylvania pending investigation. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has called this a "serious incident". [14][15]
Industry groups dispute whether hydraulic fracturing has a significant environmental impact, with arguments centered around the extent to which fracturing fluid used far below the earth’s surface and isolated from fresh water zones, could contaminate surface or near-surface water supplies, impact rock shelf causing seismic events or lead to surface subsidence.
However in April of 2010 the state of Pennsylvania banned Cabot Oil & Gas Corp. from further drilling in the entire state until it plugs wells believed to be the source of contamination of the drinking water of 14 homes in Dimock Township PA. The investigation was initiated after a water well exploded on New Year's Day in 2009. The state investigation revealed that Cabot Oil & Gas Company "had allowed combustible gas to escape into the region's groundwater supplies."[16]
Injection of fluid into subsurface geological structures, such as faults and fractures, reduces the effective normal stress acting across these structures. If sufficient shear stress is present, the structure may slip in shear and generate seismic events over a range of magnitudes. Subsidence is not directly caused by hydraulic fracturing but may occur after considerable production of oil or ground water. Subsidence occurs over reservoirs whether they have been subject to hydraulic fracturing or not because it is a result of producing fluids from the reservoir and lowering the reservoir pore pressure. The subsidence process can be associated with some seismicity. Reports of minor tremors of no greater than 2.8 on the Richter scale were reported on June 2, 2009 in Cleburne, Texas - the first in the town's 140-year history.[17]
The nature of the fluids or solids injected during hydraulic fracturing have major health and environmental impacts, the scope of which is incalculable. Reports indicate that only 40% of the chemicals used in the hydraulic fracturing process remain underground after drilling while the remaining toxic waste surfaces either via water wells or through condensation. [18] One use of hydraulic fracturing is in stimulating water wells. In that case, the fluid used may be pure water (typically water and a disinfectant such as bleach). Another use of hydraulic fracturing is to remediate waste spills by injecting bacteria, air, or other materials into a subsurface contaminated zone.
It has been reported that the hydraulic fracturing industry has refused to publicly disclose, allegedly due to intellectual property concerns, the specific contents of the fluids employed in the fracturing process. A "NOW on PBS" episode aired in March, 2010 introduces the documentary film Gasland. The filmmaker claims that the chemicals include toxins, known carcinogens and heavy metals which may have polluted the ground water near fracking sites in Pennsylvania and Colorado. The film also makes a case for explosive gases entering private wells, causing "flammable water." A 2008 newspaper report states that medical personnel were inhibited in their treatment of workers injured in a fracturing accident because they did not know which specific chemicals were used. In the article, a nurse claimed she may have been exposed to the unknown chemicals on the patient’s clothes.[19]
This report, as with many other recent reports, fails to recognize the difference between specific, proprietary formulation and chemical composition as well as long standing OSHA Safety and Health Standards. OSHA Standards – 29 CFR Part 1910.1200(i) specifically states that "The chemical manufacturer, importer, or employer may withhold the specific chemical identity, including the chemical name and other specific identification of a hazardous chemical, from the material safety data sheet, provided that: The specific chemical identity is made available to health professionals, employees, and designated representatives in accordance with the applicable provisions of this paragraph."[20]
In the United States, a 2004 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study concluded that the process was safe and didn't warrant further study, because there was "no unequivocal evidence" of health risks, and the fluids were neither necessarily hazardous nor able to travel far underground. That study, however, was not intended as a general study of hydraulic fracturing, but only of its use in coalbed methane deposits, and the study did not consider impacts above ground.[21] The EPA report did find uncertainties in knowledge of how fracturing fluid migrates through rocks, and upon its release service companies voluntarily agreed to stop using diesel fuel as a component of fracturing fluid, due to public concerns of its potential as a source of benzene contamination. With critics claiming that Bush administration officials influenced the 2004 EPA study, the U.S. Congress has requested that the EPA undertake a new, broader study of fraking. The report is due to be released in 2012.[22]
The increased use of hydraulic fracturing has prompted more speculation about its environmental dangers. A 2008 investigation of benzene contamination in Colorado and Wyoming led some EPA officials to suggest hydraulic fracturing as a culprit. One of the authors of the 2004 EPA report states that it has been misconstrued by the gas-drilling industry.[21] [edit] Regulation
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempted hydraulic fracturing from federal regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.[21] Reports of ground water contamination have questioned whether the exemption is appropriate. A complete listing of the specific chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing operations are not currently made available to landowners, neighbors, local officials, or health care providers. This practice is under scrutiny as well.
Two studies released in 2009, one by the U.S. Department of Energy and the other released by the Ground Water Protection Council, address hydraulic fracturing safety concerns. The industry contends that the chemicals in use have been adequately disclosed through Material Data Safety Sheets (MSDS) available on the OSHA website and that additional regulation is burdensome.[23] Chemicals used in fracturing fluid includes kerosene, benzene, toluene, xylene, and formaldehyde. [24]
On June 8, 2010 the Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission voted to require full disclosure of the hydraulic fracturing fluids used in natural gas exploration.[25] This will aid in tracking pollutants that have migrated from hydraulically fractured gas wells.[26]
Congress has been urged to repeal the 2005 regulatory exemption under the Energy Policy Act of 2005.[27] The FRAC Act, introduced in June 2009, would eliminate the exemption and would require the disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. [edit] The FRAC Act of 2009
In June 2009 two identical bills named the FRAC Act were introduced to both the United States House and the Senate. FRAC stands for Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act. The House bill was introduced by Diana Degette, Jared Polis, and Maurice Hinchey. Bob Casey and Chuck Schumer introduced the bill to the Senate.[28] These bills are designed to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act. This would allow the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate hydraulic fracturing that occurs in States which have not taken primacy in UIC regulation. The bill also requires the energy industry to reveal what chemicals are being used in the sand-water mixture.
However, the policy calls only for the “chemical constituents (but not the proprietary chemical formulas) used in the fracturing process.” Once these constituents are determined the information must be revealed to the public through the Internet. The firms that use the fracturing process have refused to disclose this information because they claim it is a trade secret. The FRAC Act states that in any case where a physician or the State finds that a medical emergency exists, and that the chemical formulas are needed to treat the ailing individual, the firm must disclose the chemical identity to the State or physician – even if that proprietary formula is a trade-secret chemical. Material Safety Data Sheets, required by OSHA under 29 CFR 1910.1200[20] are developed and made available to first responders and other emergency planning and response officials.
ProPublica, an online journal, has published a number of reports that suggest hydraulic fracturing could be the cause of water contamination in areas surrounding drilling operations. However, the Environmental Protection Agency says that they have not been able to conclude whether fracturing is the cause of this contamination. At the same time, numerous state regulatory officials have recently confirmed that they are not aware of any confirmed instances of contamination of drinking water sources due to hydraulic fracturing in their states. The agency blames this lack of information on the 2005 Energy Policy Act because it exempts hydraulic fracturing from federal water laws.[29] The writers of the FRAC Act claim that they are attempting to protect the people who live in close proximity to fracturing from potentially dangerous chemicals leaching into ground water resources. The energy industry does not agree with this pending policy. They see it as “an additional layer of regulation that is unneeded and cumbersome.”[30] The Independent Petroleum Association of America believes that states already sufficiently regulate hydraulic fracturing. Their research suggests that federal regulation could result in the addition of about $100,000 to each new natural gas well.[28] Energy in Depth, a lobbying group, says the new regulation would be an “unnecessary financial burden on a single small-business industry, American oil, and natural gas producers.” This group also claims that the FRAC Act could result in half of the United States oil wells and one third of the gas wells being closed. Also, the bill could cause domestic gas production to drop by 245 billion cubic feet per year along with four billion dollars in lost revenue to the federal government.[31] The Environmental Protection Agency claims that the section that would be amended in the Safe Drinking Water Act is flexible in that it defers regulation of fracturing and drilling to the state. The EPA also says that since most states currently have regulations on fracturing, they would most likely agree with the state’s policy and there would not be much change.[28] The FRAC Act has been heard in both the House and the Senate. It has been referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works, where it remains to this day. Congresswoman Diana DeGette says that she is still deciding if the bill is to proceed alone or if it will be attached to a larger piece of legislation.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
