Chemicals found in NE Pennsylvania water wells

[jaybo41]

A sign of what we should expect to see with all this drilling going on. This kind of thing makes me sick.

 

[jdaddy]

The Environmental Protection Agency concluded its final hydraulic fracturing hearing on Wednesday in Binghamton. The EPA plans to begin a study in January and release initial results by late 2012.

Funny that NY has put so many moratoriums on drilling yet PA has not. It is a huge deposit, it has been there for a long time and is going no where. I think the EPA could kick up the efforts and get that study done a little quicker. I think we could wait 6 months to a year before continuing issuing well permits. I am amazed at how little we know about these chemicals going into the ground, yet all these wells are already in place. Did PA learn nothing from coal/AMD issues? Unreal.

Having said that, some of these folks claims do sound questionable when they are finding chemicals in their water that is not used in fracking. Of course that is a whole different conversation, given that the gas companies will not disclose the process and chemicals fully as they are "proprietary trade secrets". Really? This is an acceptable answer?

 

[bikerfish]

it's perfectly acceptible when you have boatloads of money and can buy off the politicians.
these companies DO NOT care about us or our state, they only want our resource.
kudos to NY for waiting everything out.

 

[Slate_Drake_9]

I think Trent Reznor said it best:

bow down before the one you serve.
you're going to get what you deserve.
god money i'll do anything for you.
god money just tell me what you want me to.
god money nail me up against the wall.
god money don't want everything he wants it all.

 

[franklin]

jdaddy wrote:

The Environmental Protection Agency concluded its final hydraulic fracturing hearing on Wednesday in Binghamton. The EPA plans to begin a study in January and release initial results by late 2012.

Funny that NY has put so many moratoriums on drilling yet PA has not. It is a huge deposit, it has been there for a long time and is going no where. I think the EPA could kick up the efforts and get that study done a little quicker. I think we could wait 6 months to a year before continuing issuing well permits. I am amazed at how little we know about these chemicals going into the ground, yet all these wells are already in place. Did PA learn nothing from coal/AMD issues? Unreal.

Having said that, some of these folks claims do sound questionable when they are finding chemicals in their water that is not used in fracking. Of course that is a whole different conversation, given that the gas companies will not disclose the process and chemicals fully as they are "proprietary trade secrets". Really? This is an acceptable answer?

I thought I read that one company was now disclosing what is in the fluid. There was talk of others following suit. I haven't followed that in the last few months. I have a very good source that I haven't tapped on the issue but I guess it's time I get more details.

BTW this article is about the Dimrock issue that has been the subject of past threads. It will be interesting to see what comes out of the announcement planned for later this month.

 

[JakesLeakyWaders]

Hmm, I always thought it was "got money", but I guess it still has meaning anyway.

 

[jdaddy]

I thought I read that one company was now disclosing what is in the fluid.

I don't know. I was watching an environmental action group regarding severance and as of earlier this week the composition of the liquid was still not disclosed. I am sure once one of them advises their "proprietary" blend they all will. You know they are all the same.

 

[franklin]

Found the article

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703834604575365360901763540.html

Edit: And another the top one changes to a subscription after it's viewed once.

http://marcelluseffect.blogspot.com/2010/07/photo-of-barnett-shale-well-provided-by.html

and another

http://pittsburgh.bizjournals.com/pittsburgh/blog/energy/2010/09/chief_oil_gas_next_to_disclose_frac_fluid_parts.html

If anyone gets hold of an actual list of what is in the fluid I'd appreciate a copy.

 

[Gone4Day]

If anyone gets hold of an actual list of what is in the fluid I'd appreciate a copy.

http://www.rangeresources.com/

 

[Brownout]

Gone4Day wrote:

If anyone gets hold of an actual list of what is in the fluid I'd appreciate a copy.

http://www.rangeresources.com/

I hear that there is an exception where there is non-disclosure on chemicals stored in under 50 gallon drums. 50 gallons and over require disclosure. Also, we know for a fact now that the industry will blatantly lie or withhold the materials until pressed with attorney and/or with dying people asking through a doctor what is in the fluids and then not permitted to reveal to their patient what was in the fluid, even after they had been told. Additionally, you can believe what is on these sheets that they provide if you choose, but I wouldn't, based on petrochemical industry past performance.

 

[franklin]

The key is to check the Material Safety Data Sheets for the material. I know in my industry we are required to have these sheets for every chemical on site. This goes down to a single spray can.

I talked to my source yesterday to get his opinion. Prior to going back for a graduate degree he worked developing materials for one of the prime suppliers of fracking fluids and well cements. At the time he worked there the primary ingredient had the same base material as shampoo. Subsequent to getting his graduate degree he is working in another area of the energy industry. Knowing the due diligence that the reputable companies apply he was highly skeptical of major issues with the fluids. He has an interest in this issue because he owns property that relies on well water and is within the potential drilling area. There are no wells in the area currently and he has had no contact with anyone regarding leasing.

 

[tomgamber]

Companies doing testing either for the DEP or the Industry know what is in the fluid. You can find MSDS sheets on teh website of its manufacturer.

for example...


http://www.gibsons.com/Doc/MSDS/Gibson%20Clear%20Frac%20Fluid.pdf

http://www.fracoil.com/section/OurProducts.aspx

http://www.arcfluids.com/cbm.htm



in addition...

http://marcellusdrilling.com/2010/06/list-of-78-chemicals-used-in-hydraulic-fracturing-fluid-in-pennsylvania/

 

[franklin]

jaybo41 wrote:
A sign of what we should expect to see with all this drilling going on. This kind of thing makes me sick.

Thanks Tom: That last link is the most informative. Guar listed on that site is the polymer I was referring to above. I'd like to see the percentages breakdown. If I understand the mix correctly the Guar would make up a significant percentage of the frack fluid before water and sand are added.

BTW that one link to Moose Jaw lists kerosene as a main ingredient. I wonder if that isn't a fluid used in shale oil drilling.

 

[Brownout]

franklin wrote:

jaybo41 wrote:
A sign of what we should expect to see with all this drilling going on. This kind of thing makes me sick.

Thanks Tom: That last link is the most informative. Guar listed on that site is the polymer I was referring to above. I'd like to see the percentages breakdown. If I understand the mix correctly the Guar would make up a significant percentage of the frack fluid before water and sand are added.

BTW that one link to Moose Jaw lists kerosene as a main ingredient. I wonder if that isn't a fluid used in shale oil drilling.

It is known that there was an agreement to not use diesel to frack wells with the EPA. After said agreement, then it turns out diesel was still used in large quantities. At these sites they found benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene.

These chemicals are what's listed as being found in that article that was in the first post. Of course, these other companies are explicitly stating that these use ethylene glycol in the wells, but this one does not.

The guy didn't pretest for these specific compounds, so, how can you prove it wasn't there before hand. That is obviously correct, but of course the drillers will use it as an out at every opportunity.

Then, they will say, well how do we know that this wasn't a civilian diesel spill, how do we know it wasn't a civilian ethylene glycol spill(anti-freeze). And, as they cite in the article, they explicitly state, well, you heard him, he can't tell you where it came from, so.......oh well......tough luck.

Now......if I met these people and their neighbors, I am going to bet that they probably aren't spilling diesel and anti-freeze around their properties in quantities to pollute their wells. Sure, they could be, but considering there is drilling around, and frackers are known to like to use diesel and anti-freeze, I'm going to start with the drillers.

 

[Brownout]

When you look at these disclosure sheets, and they list what the common uses are, notice how they are immediately attempting to associate these chemicals with household cleaners to reduce fear. Do people use some of these substances to clean their house-sure. Should they be using lye to clean their house and extreme acids, and should we be dumping this into our water as citizens- of course not. But, people do, so rest assured that's all we are going to blast into the earth and truck around watersheds and line pits with.

These chemicals are toxic, and many of them fall under the probable carcinogen category. Ya know, it's not a definite, but if you had the chance to not to put it near water, or mix it with water, or put it in your environment, you're going to stay far away from it.

Tons of antimicrobial agents listed. Not the type of thing you would want anywhere near your drinking water or to escape into a stream or a swamp, etc.

Then, of course, this is just the beginning of the process, then we hook all the gas up to pipes, and we build compressor stations, then we have horrible air quality, in addition to methane contamination and the water issues. And then there is just the basic development in our public property.

This is a total, sick joke. We need nuclear power now in this state to kick this out, or just kick it out and import it from other states if they don't want to protect their health.

 

[Brownout]

franklin wrote:
The key is to check the Material Safety Data Sheets for the material. I know in my industry we are required to have these sheets for every chemical on site. This goes down to a single spray can.

I talked to my source yesterday to get his opinion. Prior to going back for a graduate degree he worked developing materials for one of the prime suppliers of fracking fluids and well cements. At the time he worked there the primary ingredient had the same base material as shampoo. Subsequent to getting his graduate degree he is working in another area of the energy industry. Knowing the due diligence that the reputable companies apply he was highly skeptical of major issues with the fluids. He has an interest in this issue because he owns property that relies on well water and is within the potential drilling area. There are no wells in the area currently and he has had no contact with anyone regarding leasing.

I wonder if the base you are talking about is sodium laureth sulfate. It is used as a cheap detergent in shampoos and soaps of low quality. It can also be used as a surfactant, so the drilling industry probably would look at using it, if they don't already. It is obtained by processing ethylene in the ethoxylation process. Now, in this process dioxane is created, which is one of those it's probably a carcinogenic, but we're not sure, and it's created in so many things that we don' t really want to alarm anyone so we have to look for replacements. If you happen to brush your teeth too long you often get sores in the mouth, that is from SLS.

Take a look at the back of a shampoo bottle and tell me how natural you think that stuff is. Look for PEGs, they are known to cause kidney problems. Why is this stuff in shampoo? It is there because the oil companies have so much waste left over from processing crude that they think they can sell it to us in personal care products.

Look at this friction reducer they use in these drilling sheets. Doesn't state what it is, just says non-hazardous. You know what it probably is.........mineral oil. A truck spilled a bunch of it recently on the way to a drilling pad, made local roads impassable, they were so slick. While mineral oil is used by some people on their bodies, it again comes from crude oil.


The MSDS sheets, who exactly assesses these chemicals and do you think they are tested thoroughly for all carcinogenic effects and dangers. I highly doubt it.

 

[tomgamber]

Brownout wrote:



The MSDS sheets, who exactly assesses these chemicals and do you think they are tested thoroughly for all carcinogenic effects and dangers. I highly doubt it.

I believe it is the manufacturer and it is required by OSHA it is a personal safety issue more than a pollution issue.

MSDS Management. MSDSs are required for all chemically-oriented products, liquids, solids, and gases. They must be reflective of those products used, stored, manufactured, processed, produced, distributed, or imported in the workplace. Inactive MSDSs must be maintained for 30 years. Employers are required to make them accessible at all times to employees, and suppliers are required to make them available to end users upon the very first delivery of each product.

MSDS Origination. Those originators, inventors, or creators of chemically-oriented products must develop an MSDS for each product they provide for commerce. They must also accompany an MSDS reflective of the product upon the very first shipment to any end-user.

 

[Chaz]

DEP is requiring companies to reveal all chemicals used. That wasn't the case 6 months ago.

 

[bikerfish]

I just read that wyoming passed a law that requires disclosure of chemicals used, though from what I read, they do not need to made public, but the enforcing agency must know what is used.
at least it's a step in the right direction.

 

[tomgamber]

As I said its all redundant. Someone (a worker) has to use these and OSHA requires disclosure already.