Fracking

{{#badges: WaterEnergy | CoalSwarm | stub}} Fracking (also often referred to as hydrofracking) is a process in which a fluid is injected at high pressure into an oil or a natural gas deposit to fracture the rock and release the liquid or gas below. The process has been used in Colorado and New Mexico , and in an expanded effort to use this method is underway to tap natural gas associated with the Marcellus Shale formation which underlies much of New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania and other mid-Atlantic states.

The use of hydrofracking -- which uses enormous amounts of drinkable water along with toxic chemicals and which also releases radioactive materials and other hazardous substances in shale deposits -- has raised significant environmental and health concerns. In New Mexico, for example, similar processes have leached toxic chemicals into the water table at 800 sites.

Fracking fluids are "proprietary," and companies, like Haliburton have not been required to divulge the chemicals that are in them. As discussed in more detail below, fracking fluids have been exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act.

How It Works

The method for extracting gas from the Marcellus Shale--a process called "horizontal hydrolic fracturing," or hydrofracking, in which a fluid is injected into the rock which then releases the gas along with radioactive toxins and other hazardous substances in the shale--has raised serious environmental and health concerns. In New Mexico, for example, similar processes have leached toxic chemicals into the water table at 800 sites. To force natural gas out of shale, millions of gallons of fresh, drinkable water are forced through a pipe drilled into the shale at extremely high pressure. A variety of chemicals are added to the water to keep the fractures in the shale open and keep the gas flowing to the surface.

Propublica, "an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest," has provided two charts, depicting how the "hydro-fracking" process works. "What is Hydraulic Fracturing?" can be seen at: http://www.propublica.org/special/hydraulic-fracturing-national, while "Anatomy of a Gas Well can be seen at: http://www.propublica.org/feature/anatomy-of-a-gas-well-426.

Hydrofracking and the "Halliburton loophole"

This method for extracting gas--a process called "horizontal hydrolic fracturing" and also known as hydrofracking--involves injecting a high volume of fluid into rock to release oil or gas, along with radioactive toxins and other hazardous substances in the shale. This method has raised serious environmental and health concerns. In New Mexico, for example, similar processes have leached toxic chemicals into the water table at 800 sites.

Yet, in 2005, at the urging of Vice President Dick Cheney, Congress created the so-called "Halliburton loophole" to the Clean Water Drinking Act (CWDA) to prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from regulating this process, despite its demonstrated contamination of drinking water. (In 2001, Cheney's "energy task force" had touted the benefits of hydrofracking, while redacting references to human health hazards associated with hydrofracking; Halliburton, which was previously led by Cheney, reportedly earns $1.5 billion a year from its energy operations, which relies substantially on its hydrofracking business.)

According to ProPublica reporter Abrahm Lustgarten, the EPA under Christine Todd Whitman's tenure as Administrator engaged in secret negotiations with industry, while supposedly addressing drinking water issues related to a gas drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking." In 2004, the EPA undertook a study on the issue and "the EPA, despite its scientific judgment that there was a potential risk to groundwater supplies, which their report clearly says, then went ahead and very surprisingly concluded that there was no risk to groundwater," Lustgarten said in September 2009. "[P]art of my reporting found that throughout that process the EPA was closer than seemed comfortable with the industry. I filed FOIA requests for some documents and found conversations between Halliburton employees and the EPA researchers, essentially asking for an agreement from Halliburton in exchange for more lax enforcement. The EPA, in these documents, appeared to offer that and agree to that. And it doesn’t appear, by any means, to have been either a thorough or a very objective study."

In June 2009 Representatives Diana DeGette, DeGette, John Salazar and Maurice Hinchey and Senators Robert P. Casey Jr. and Chuck Schumer introduced the Fracking Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act (FRAC ACT). The act is aimed at closing the 'Halliburton loophole' and requiring the oil and gas industry to disclose the chemicals used in drilling projects.

In late October 2009 the House of Representatives agreed to include a statement in the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill and report for fiscal year 2010 urging the EPA to reassess the impact of fracking on water supplies. The report stated:

"The conferees urge the EPA to carry out a study on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, using a credible approach that relies on the best available science, as well as independent sources of information. The conferees expect the study to be conducted through a transparent, peer-reviewed process that will ensure the validity and accuracy of the data. EPA shall consult with other federal agencies as well as appropriate state and interstate regulatory agencies in carrying out the study, and it should be prepared in accordance with EPA quality assurance principles."

Concerns

While there is no complete list of the cocktail of chemicals used in this process, information obtained from environmental clean-up sites demonstrates that known toxins are routinely being used, including hydrochloric acid, diesel fuel (which contains benzene, tuolene, and xylene) as well as formaldehyde, polyacrylimides, arsenic, and chromates. These chemicals include known carcinogens and other hazardous substances.

Propublica reporter Abrahm Lustgarten, in a key December 27, 2009 story appearing on Politico.com, revealed that "three company spokesmen and a regulatory official said in separate interviews...that as much as 85% of the fluids used during hydrofracking is being left underground after wells are drilled in the Marcellus Shale." Translation: "[Over] three million gallons of chemically tainted wastewater could be left in the ground forever. Drilling compnaies say that chemical make up less than 1% of that fluid...[which] still amount[s] to 34,000 gallons in a typical well." The old school of thought was that only roughly 30% of the fluids stayed in the ground, which has proven false. Toxics Targetting, "an organization that "obtains environmental data from local, state and federal government sources and updates our information on a continuing basis," created a video in which they show what they coin "ignitible water." The video can be seen above.

Concerns about Hydrofracking and the New York City Water Supply

Citizen groups are mobilizing in New York to oppose hydrofracking. This opposition has deployed several tactics, including a class action lawsuit. New videos have been produced to educate the public about the dangers of fracking the Marcellus shale. In the following video, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer calls hydrofracking Marcellus Shale for Natural Oil the "most alarming environmental news he has heard in a long time, and makes this the number one environmental crisis" they face in the city:

In response to these and other concerns, New York City urged the state to ban natural gas drilling in its watershed on Wednesday, December, 23, 2009. Steven Lawitts, the city's top environmental official, called fracking techniques "unacceptable threats to the unfiltered fresh water supply of nine million New Yorkers," putting the city at odds with the gas industry, which considers shale drilling completely safe. Marc LaVorgna, spokesman for NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg stated, "Based on all the facts, the risks are too great and drilling simply cannot be permitted in the watershed."

The New York Times noted that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, which is "going through a public review of its new rules on hydraulic fracturing," is looking into reports that "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."

Ecological Dangers of Hydrofracking Noted in Other Areas of the U.S.

Catskill Mountainkeeper, a public interest group whose mission, according to its website, is to "work to promote sustainable economic growth and the protection of natural resources essential to healthy communities," states the following: "A number of these [hydrofracking] fluids qualify as hazardous materials and carcinogens, and are toxic enough to contaminate groundwater resources. There are cases in the U.S. where hydraulic fracturing is the suspected source of impaired or polluted drinking water. In Alabama, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming, incidents have been recorded by people who have gas wells near their homes. They have reported changes in water quality or quantity following fracturing operations."

Pennsylvania

On November 9, 2009, Reuters reported that "George Zimmermann, the owner of 480 acres of land in southwest Pennsylvania, says Atlas Energy Inc. ruined his land with toxic chemicals used in or released there by hydraulic fracturing. He found seven potentially carcinogenic chemicals above permissible levels set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency." He performed tests on his well water a year before drilling began and said the water conditions were "perfect." After the drilling began, water tests found arsenic at 2,600 times acceptable levels, benzene at 44 times above limits and naphthalene five times the federal standard. He has decided to sue Atlas Energy Inc for negligence and is seeking an injunction against further drilling, and unspecified financial damages. Jay Hammond, general counsel for Atlas, said Zimmermann's claims are "completely erroneous" and said Atlas will "vigorously" defend itself in court and declined further comment.

Later that month on November 20, 2009, Reuters reported that "Residents of a [Dimrock, PA] sued Cabot Oil & Gas Corp, claiming the company's natural-gas drilling ha[d] contaminated their water wells with toxic chemicals, caused sickness and reduced their property values. The complaint says residents have suffered neurological, gastrointestinal and dermatological symptoms from exposure to tainted water. They also say they have had blood test results consistent with exposure to heavy metals. The lawsuit accuses Cabot of negligence and says it has failed to restore residential water supplies disrupted by gas drilling. It seeks a permanent injunction to stop the drilling processes that are blamed for the contamination, as well as unspecified compensatory damages."

"According to the U.S. Department of Energy 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"

Louisiana

In the April 30, 2009 edition of [Propublica]], Lustgarten wrote about a story he dug up from Louisiana's Shreveport Times. The story revealed that 16 cattle mysteriously and abruptly dropped dead in a "northwestern Louisiana field after apparently drinking from a mysterious fluid adjacent to a natural gas drilling rig, according to Louisiana's Department of Environmental Quality. At least one worker told the newspaper that the fluids...were used for...hydraulic fracturing.

New Mexico

Reuters also reports that "the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency found 14 "contaminants of concern" in 11 private wells in the central Wyoming farming community of Pavillion, an area with about 250 gas wells. The August report did not identify the source of the contamination but is conducting more tests and is expected to reach a conclusion by spring 2010." Furthermore, "in Pennsylvania, at least two privately conducted water tests near gas drilling have also found chemical contamination." In response to these events, "Industry officials say there has never been a documented case of water contamination from gas drilling." Residents whose main source of water is groundwater complain that the water has become "discolored, foul-smelling, bad-tasting, and in some cases even black." Others have become ill and acquired rashes from the water. Some living in the area have gone so far as to halt getting their drinking water from wells and purchase bottled drinking water in exclusivity.

Hazardous Substances, Drinkable Water, and Hydrofracking

To force natural gas out of shale or rock, millions of gallons of fresh, drinkable water are forced through a pipe drilled into the shale. A variety of chemicals are added to the water to keep the fractures in the shale open and keep the gas flowing to the surface. While there is no complete list of the cocktail of chemicals used in this process, information obtained from environmental clean-up sites demonstrates that known toxins are routinely being used, including hydrochloric acid, diesel fuel (which contains benzene, tuolene, and xylene) as well as formaldehyde, polyacrylimides, and chromates. These chemicals include known carcinogens and other hazardous substances.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists:

"When an EPA study concluding that hydraulic fracturing "poses little or no threat" to drinking water supplies was published in 2004, several EPA scientists challenged the study's methodology and questioned the impartiality of the expert panel that reviewed its findings. The Bush administration has strongly supported hydraulic fracturing, an oil extraction technique developed by Halliburton Co., but environmental groups as well as scientists within the EPA have warned that the practice may contaminate drinking water and needs to be regulated."

For more information on the environmental impact of hydrofracking on U.S. residents and efforts to close the Halliburton loophole, see http://www.earthworksaction.org/pubs/JointFS_HalliburtonLoophole.pdf.

Examples of reported health and environmental effects of fracking and fracking fluids

On April 17, 2008, an emergency room nurse in Durango, Colorado named Cathy Behr was working when a rig worker named Clinton Marshall (employed by the energy-services company Weatherford International) was brought in complaining of nausea and headaches. Weatherford reported that he had been caught in a fracturing fluid spill. According to Behr, the chemical stench was "buckling." Since they were unaware of what chemicals were present, the emergency room took no chances and locked down the facility, and the staff was ordered to put on protective gowns and masks. Behr had been nursing Marshall unprotected for ten minutes prior to donning protective gear. A few days after her exposure to Marshall and the fracking fluids with which he was soaked, Behr's skin turned yellow; she started vomiting and retaining fluid. Her husband rushed her to Mercy Hospital, where she was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit. The doctors found she had a swollen liver, erratic blood counts and lungs filling with fluid. "I couldn't breath," she said of the incident. "I was drowning from the inside out." She was diagnosed with chemical poisoning.

In September, 2009, an estimated 8,000 gallons of fracking fluid spilled into a creek near Dimock, Pennsylvania. The spill was blamed on "faulty pipe work" and resulted in a significant fish kill and other fish “swimming erratically,” according to Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection.

Residents of Garfield County, Western Colorado, have reported that their water wells have been contaminated by undisclosed chemicals contained in fracking solutions.

Articles and resources

Related SourceWatch articles

Marcellus Shale