Perhaps a mile from Slate Run

[pcray1231]

The reason the chemicals are not listed is because some law stating they do not need to list the chemicals specifically.

reason for chemicals not listed? from what I've heard, dick cheney/haliburton put an amendment on the clean water act allowing them to be exempt from the law.

You guys are talking about frac fluid. This stuff isn't frac fluid.

This is Airfoam HD. The company's description can be found here:

http://www.aquaclear-inc.com/surfactant-foaming-agents/AIRFOAM-HD.html

While the site lists the half life in the order of minutes, its important to remember that thats the half life of the foam, not the chemicals. The MSDS does not list it as a particularly dangerous chemical, which basically means that its probably fairly safe to work with, not necessarily that its environmentally friendly.

2-BE is the main chemical, which is basically an alcohol, and would have similar effects on animals as rubbing alcohol or antifreeze. In high concentrations it is deadly to any animal which ingests it. In low concentrations, its less dangerous directly but could cause cancer after repeated, long term exposure. The chemical is broken down in a 7-28 day time frame, depending on the oxygen level present. On bugs, the surfactant properties could have more severe effects at certain life stages. Even in small concentrations, it lessens the film between liquid and gas, which is its purpose. This would make it very difficult for a bug, for instance, to sit on top of the water without sinking. It is of a neutral pH. Because it tends to help liquids dissolve things, it could temporarily raise the salinity or water hardness by allowing more minerals in solution.

Because it does break down naturally, this stuff isn't a permanent contaminant. If sufficient knowledge of the hydro cycle in an area exists, it may even be able to be allowed to enter groundwater safely. But it most certainly should not ever be allowed to enter waterways directly, which is what happened here.

However, having said that, this is what would happen if the stuff was dumped before being used. If this stuff was down hole (and I assume it was), you also have to consider what else came out of the hole with it. I've seen nothing on that, and can only hope they're testing to try and find out.

 

[pcray1231]

As far as frac fluid (again, thats not what this stuff is), its considered a trade secret. What this means is that if you try and patent something, you have to disclose it to everyone. If it fails to recieve said patent, it is then available for everyone to use. Even if it gets a patent, a patent only lasts 20 years, and thereafter anyone can use it legally. Thus, it is a recognized and legally protected way of preserving competitive advantage. You are required to not disclose the information to the public or else you lose the protection. The legal protection means that anyone who breaks non-disclosure agreements, etc., have to pay damages, and that it need not be disclosed, for instance, even on a witness stand, to health or environmental organizations, etc.

The most famous example is Coca Cola. Their formula is a closely held trade secret. Had they instead went the patent route, they would have had to disclose the formula and process. During the 20 year patent period, competitors could use that information and change it slightly, and sell something similar. After the 20 year period, competitors could make an EXACT copy, perfectly legally. But because its been held as a trade secret, so long as the company doesn't disclose anything to the public, it can't be made by anyone else legally. That has led to all kind of speculation about things like cocaine being added. It's probably not true, but the company HAS to remain silent or lose its protections. They can't even tell health organizations whats in it, though there's nothing preventing those health organizations from testing it themselves.

 

[grhe]

timesleader.com/news/Potential_leak_at_gas_drilling_site_probed_03-25-2010html

Oh black water keep on flowin'.....

 

[salmo]

Just one of many to come. They may have to stock fish in condoms so they don't die from the water they are stocked into.

Salmo

 

[bikerfish]

pcray, I understand the need to protect trade secrets, up to a point, and that point is when the health and welfare of people is at stake from the use of the stuff. especially when it gets pumped right past thier drinking water!!! it's just plain wrong, and they know it.

 

[pcray1231]

biker,

I agree on the trade secrets thing. I was just throwing that out there for information. Most people see it as the big evil company just trying to avoid environmental regulations, which isn't true. Their reasons for not disclosing it have nothing to do with environmental regulations. Anything covered under a trade secret, since you can't know whats in it, could be feared to be dangerous to people or the environment. And the very fact that its a secret means people will speculate that it is dangerous. In this regard, the drilling companies are held to no different standard than any other industry would be.

Assuming the EPA agrees to a non-disclosure agreement, they still can require samples from the company to do their own analysis, and the EPA can still enforce its regulations if there is some sort of violation. But the EPA could not disclose the chemical composition to the public. If, for instance, higher than allowed concentrations of arsenic were found in Pine Creek, the EPA could still investigate and levy the appropriate fine, or require cleanup, etc. They could still make public that this company is responsible for this arsenic pollution. But they could not disclose that this arsenic is an intentional additive to the frac fluid, and certainly not in what concentration.

I also agree that drillers being exempt from any clean water laws is a bunch of B.S. I don't know enough about it to know exactly what they're exempt from, and what their regulations are, but I don't think that they should be any different than any other industry. This is a totally separate issue from them not having to disclose the composition of their frac water. This is about what levels of pollution they are allowed. And any exemptions for them is just wrong.

 

[grhe]

Trade secret is a nice way to spin the Haliburton loophole.....the real reason drilling companies don't want to disclose all the contents of frac fluid is because they're all either cancer-causing or otherwise seriously harmful to human, animal, fish and overall environmental health and they realize an educated public will lead to a backlash. Moreover, if the contents are disclosed, that will actually allow people to get pre-drilling tests for the toxic chemicals they're pumping into the groundwater. When water wells are contaminated with the same things that are disclosed a clear liability case can be proven.

 

[jayL]

grhe wrote:
Trade secret is a nice way to spin the Haliburton loophole.....the real reason drilling companies don't want to disclose all the contents of frac fluid is because they're all either cancer-causing or otherwise seriously harmful to human, animal, fish and overall environmental health and they realize an educated public will lead to a backlash. Moreover, if the contents are disclosed, that will actually allow people to get pre-drilling tests for the toxic chemicals they're pumping into the groundwater. When water wells are contaminated with the same things that are disclosed a clear liability case can be proven.

I don't think this kind of rhetoric is helping the cause, with all due respect.

"that unknown substance is cancer causing and harmful!"

It doesn't add up. If you don't know what it is, you don't know what it does. It might not be good stuff (probably isn't), but spinning it without facts gives the opposite stance more ammo.

 

[JakesLeakyWaders]

Jay, I completely disagree with you on that one, and I think "what's his face" hit the nail on the head.

I've done a little reading and the exact chemical formulas used to drill is proprietary but generally speaking a lot of the same chemicals are used from company to company and it is widely known that many of the chemicals used in drilling are poisonous or harmful to people and the watersheds they might seep into. There was a good article about it in TU Magazine last winter.

I'm just saying, you might say "yeah well you don't know for sure what they put in a hot dog", but I bet If you found out you might not want to eat a hot dog for a while.

 

[jayL]

JakesLeakyWaders wrote:
Jay, I completely disagree with you on that one, and I think "what's his face" hit the nail on the head.

I've done a little reading and the exact chemical formulas used to drill is proprietary but generally speaking a lot of the same chemicals are used from company to company and it is widely known that many of the chemicals used in drilling are poisonous or harmful to people and the watersheds they might seep into. There was a good article about it in TU Magazine last winter.

I'm just saying, you might say "yeah well you don't know for sure what they put in a hot dog", but I bet If you found out you might not want to eat a hot dog for a while.

All I am saying is that it's unwise to say that something is a carcinogen without actual facts backing you up. It very well might be, but that's the kind of stuff that allows you to be spun as a wacko. It's not good for the cause, IMO.

I'm not saying it's not harmful. It probably is, but if you're going to say that you don't know what it is in one hand, you can't talk about the harm it will cause, as if you know the exact side effects in the other.

I am personally opposed to putting any unnatural, non biodegradable chemicals into the ground. That doesn't mean that someone has to lie or embellish facts to make their point. It marginalizes everyone that's making reasonable arguments against drilling. Sensationalizing the issue marginalizes it in the eyes of the undecided. If the truth is on your side, why would you need to make unsubstantiated claims?

grhe, if you are able to provide anything to back your carcinogen claims up, I apologize for questioning it. It just doesn't pass the smell test to me, and I'm opposed to drilling unless it's VERY tightly controlled.

 

[pcray1231]

I'm not saying its not harmful either, it probably is. In fact, they divulge that it is dangerous to people and the environment, and their pollution controls stem from isolating it and not letting it enter the groundwater, rather than reducing the toxicity. Thats fine, if it works. What I'm saying is that the purpose for keeping it secret has nothing whatsoever to do with hiding from pollution concerns.

Not divulging it to the public gives them exactly zero protection from pollution standards, period. The EPA can get access to their chemicals and analyze them, they just can't inform the public of those results. If any of those chemicals are found in a waterway and the drilling company is found to be responsible, then the EPA can inform the public of what chemical(s) were found in excess of standards, and they can penalize the offending company. If the purpose were to avoid pollution concerns, then its defeating its own purpose, because we're all sitting here assuming the stuff is instant death for anything that touches it. When we don't know, we assume the worst, human nature.

Now, if those pollution standards are lowered for oil and gas, thats another issue entirely (and one where I'm pretty certain I'll side with you on).

And further, the pollution that occurred in this case doesn't appear to be frac fluid at all. It's a common surfactant, patented and mass produced, with a chemical composition that has been well divulged, and environmental and toxicity effects that have been well tested. It is alcohol based, toxic if ingested or through chronic exposure. It is biodegradable and designed to be allowed to degrade naturally in the soil. However, the process of biodegradation takes time, and it should not be allowed to enter groundwater or waterways until that happens. That did not happen. Somebody screwed up, and the company should be held responsible. Hopefully the damage was not too bad.

 

[grhe]

I think we're all, as sportsmen and otherwise lovers of the outdoors, emotional on the drilling issue. I believe that if you have a strong, yet reasonable opinion, it should be clearly expressed. I'm not opposed to all drilling either, but there are areas in this state that have been historically areas of development, gas and oil production and the like that don't encompass or contain our most pristine forests, wild areas, clean water and native trout. These are areas that people who treasure what we have in PA have lived, purchased property in and otherwise flocked to for years to enjoy the way of life and the natural resources we have been blessed with. When these areas that have been preserved and maintained are faced with a great quantity of natural gas drilling and industrial activity, trucking, etc. that goes along with it, I think the people who appreciate what we have up there are rightfully concerned. With that said, I refer you to the article link posted at the beginning of this thread, when we were discussing the discharge into the spring that runs into Pine Creek. It refers to 2be as being a chemical in the surfactant(I know that's not frac fluid), which is utilized in the drilling process that is known to cause cancer in animals. I think any review of literature or articles on the web about the U.S. house committee's investigation into fracking, and the recently begun study of fracking by the EPA would also demonstrate that some companies have allegedly fracked with diesel fuel and related substances. I am not a chemist and don't know every compund that makes up diesel fuel, but I do know I wouldn't want it in my well or favorite trout stream. As jakesleakywaders stated, there is a large volume of literature and evidence out there that clearly supports the fact that chemicals and substances used in frac fluid and/or the drilling process as a whole can be harmful to the environment.

 

[DGC]

"There is no scientific evidence" is one of the most overused and for some reason successful arguments for allowing harm I know of.

It has been used from coal mining to cigarettes very effectively. It is only after massive, obvious harm that you can stop big money from having its way. Possibly organized protests in Harrisburg would help. Big ones.

As for Frac fluid, our own DEP secretary has testified and written that MSDS cover chemical disclosures adequately--a dubious presumption.

As far as I know, the whole problem of Haliburton loophole could be nixed by the legislature saying that frac chemicals have to be disclosed. Maybe even just DEP. It just means they frac with something else--probably the same chemicals just not from the Haliburton brand. If an industry rationale is that "we have used these same chemicals to frac for 50 years" then go ahead an do so. Haliburton's proprietary cocktail didnt exist then.

 

[pcray1231]

but there are areas in this state that have been historically areas of development, gas and oil production and the like that don't encompass or contain our most pristine forests, wild areas, clean water and native trout.

There are, but there are also areas which do have pristine forests, wild areas, clean water, and native trout which have had massive drilling operations for a long time period. The ANF is a great example. This is an area where people go for the wilderness experience, not at all different than NC PA. All has not been gravy there, there's been some issues over the years. But its not like its a barren wasteland either. Hopefully there's been some learning since then. Marcellus is new, and adds a few things to the equation that need to be considered.

am not a chemist and don't know every compund that makes up diesel fuel, but I do know I wouldn't want it in my well or favorite trout stream.

You most certainly would not want any frac fluid in your stream or well. Nobody would. It's all bad stuff, perhaps worse than diesel fuel, and nobody is challenging that. Nobody is trying to hide how dangerous the stuff is. The plan to prevent water contamination from frac fluid is designed solely around isolation, not letting it into the groundwater or wells to begin with. Aside from a handful of accidents and one or two "I don't know what happened"'s, the drilling industry has been fairly successful in this endeavor, well under 1% of wells have resulted in contamination. But there have been a few incidents, and even 1 is too many. With perhaps thousands of wells going in, its a fair bet we're going to see a few.

While all that needs to be addressed, my biggest concern still stems from water use and siltation concerns from building roads and well pads.

And DGC

As far as I know, the whole problem of Haliburton loophole could be nixed by the legislature saying that frac chemicals have to be disclosed.

This is what I was trying to point out. The loophole and the non-disclosure have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. If they are disclosed, it in no way closes the loophole. If the loophole is closed, it does not require disclosure. Separate issues altogether.

Non-disclosure means that they don't have to give up their process to the public, or to anyone who doesn't sign a NDA. It does not protect them from environmental regs. If a stream is higher than the standard in any harmful chemical and its traced back to them, they're responsible.

The loophole says that they don't have to follow certain regs, or not to the same standard, or whatever (I'm still trying to figure it out exactly). Basically, it says a stream can't have more than 0.00001% of chemical X, unless drillers are around, and then it can have 0.1% before penalties take effect. Yes, I made the numbers up to show how it works, I'd don't know what they are for any chemical. I'm trying to look up the law but can't find it? I have seen mentions to the loophole in news publications but I don't trust the news, but I can't find the actual law. Anyone have it?

I really don't like either, but the loophole is the evil one (assuming it exists), the non-disclosure is simply annoying.