Cross Posted at Earth Friendly Shopping - Hydraulic Fracture - Fracking up our water supply?
Recently, the massive spill of coal ash in Tennessee has highlighted the environmental and health dangers of coal combustion. However, another environmental hazard is currently flying mostly under the radar. The potential risk to drinking water from Hydraulic Fracturing of Natural Gas wells.
Follow me over for more
Background.
Natural gas has gotten a lot of attention in this country. Natural Gas is considerably cleaner than oil or gasoline. Burning natural gas emits 23% less carbon dioxide than burning oil. Even the Sierra Club has referred to natural gas as a transitional fuel. As T. Boone Pickens said. It is cleaner, cheaper, and ours.
In addition, new technologies have allowed the extraction of previously unrecoverable gas from wells all across the US. One of the key new technologies is hydraulic fracturing. (fracking) In a hydraulic fracture operation, water and a mix of chemicals are pumped at high pressure into the formation where the gas is stored At some point, the formation is no longer able to absorb the liquid and fractures. The gas will flow more easily through the fracture and into the well.
What are the potential damages to the environment?
The biggest concern right now is the potential for contamination of underground sources of drinking water (USDW). The hydraulic mix used most fracturing operations contains a variety of toxic chemicals.
The EPA states that many chemicals in hydraulic fracturing fluids are linked to human health effects. These effects include cancer; liver, kidney, brain, respiratory and skin disorders; birth defects; and other health problems. The draft EPA study included calculations showing that even when diluted with water at least nine hydraulic racturing chemicals may be injected into USDWs at concentrations that pose a threat to human health. These chemicals are: benzene, phenanthrenes, naphthalene, 1-ethylnapthalene, 2-methylnapthalene, fluorenes, aromatics, ethylene glycol and methanol. This important information was removed from the final study.
The exact mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing operations have not been made public. The companies involved, Haliburton, Schlumberger and BJ Services, consider the contents of their hydrolic fracture mixtures proprietary. The extreme nature of their positions was seen in the case of Cathy Behr
Cathy Behr, an emergency room nurse in Durango, Colo., had almost died after treating a wildcatter who had been splashed in a fracking fluid spill at a BP natural gas rig. Behr stripped the man and stuffed his clothes into plastic bags while the hospital sounded alarms and locked down the ER. The worker was released. But a few days later Behr lay in critical condition facing multiple organ failure.
Her doctors searched for details that could save their patient. The substance was a drill stimulation fluid called ZetaFlow, but the only information the rig workers provided was a vague Material Safety Data Sheet, a form required by OSHA. Doctors wanted to know precisely what chemicals make up ZetaFlow and in what concentration. But the MSDS listed that information as proprietary. Behr’s doctor learned, weeks later, after Behr had begun to recuperate, what ZetaFlow was made of, but he was sworn to secrecy by the chemical’s manufacturer and couldn’t even share the information with his patient.
Because of this lack of disclosure, we don’t ever really know what chemicals are in the mixtures, or how toxic they are. But we do know that at least one company considers them dangerous, and recommends that unused mixtures be disposed of as hazardous waste.
The hydraulic fracturing company Schlumberger recommends that many of its fracturing fluids be disposed of at hazardous waste facilities. Yet these same fluids are allowed to be injected directly into or adjacent to USDWs. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act no other industries are allowed to inject hazardous wastes –unchecked directly into USDWs. EPA does not provide any scientific data to demonstrate that the hazardous characteristics of fracturing fluids are reduced enough to make it safe to inject these chemicals into or close to USDWs.
In 2001 special task force on energy policy convened by Vice President Dick Cheney recommended that Congress exempt hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act. The national energy bill passd in 2005 included this exemption. As a result, states, municipalities, and property owners may have to bear the cost of cleanups. the health risks, and the reduced property values that result from contaminated ground water.
Has there been contamination?
Industry representatives insist that there has been no contamination of drinking water from hydraulic fracturing operations.
The industry insisted, as it has for years, that hydraulic fracturing itself had never contaminated a well, pointing to an anecdotal survey done a decade ago by the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission, a coalition of state regulatory bodies and, again, to the 2004 study by the EPA [3] (PDF).
"You have intervening rock in between the area that you are fracturing and the areas that provide water supplies. The notion that fractures are going to migrate up to those shallow formations — there is just no evidence of that happening," says Ken Wonstolen, an attorney representing the Colorado Oil and Gas Association who has worked with the petroleum industry for two decades. "I think fracturing has been given a clean bill of health."
There are multiple issues with the industries claims.
First of all, the 2004 study that the industry quotes and relies on is far from conclusive. A lot of information that had been in draft copies was left out of the final report. Even so
Buried deep within the 424-page report are statements explaining that fluids migrated unpredictably — through different rock layers, and to greater distances than previously thought — in as many as half the cases studied in the United States. The EPA identified some of the chemicals as biocides and lubricants that "can cause kidney, liver, heart, blood, and brain damage through prolonged or repeated exposure." It found that as much as a third of injected fluids, benzene in particular, remains in the ground after drilling and is "likely to be transported by groundwater."
Chapter 3 of the study states
The hydraulically induced fracture may extend from the target formation into a USDW
The hydraulically induced fracture may connect with natural (existing) fracture systems and/or porous and permeable format ons, which may facilitate them ovement of fracturing fluids into a USDW
A review of the study by the Oil and Gas Accountability project found the report to be incomplete. Some of the major criticisms of the report included.
* EPA fails to examine long-term impact of fluids stranded in CBM formations
Most of the fracturing fluids are pumped out. However, as much as 20% can be left behind, or stranded. They could mix with naturally occurring compounds, degrade into even more toxic forms, and/or travel through layers of rock into USDW
* EPA does not seriously address the issue of residual fracturing fluids left when wells are fractured more than once; or the effect of infilling as CBM basins mature
* EPA uses a theoretical, best-case scenario, without any supporting data, to conclude that stranded fracturing fluids will not harm USDWs
* EPA fails to thoroughly investigate the toxicity and health effects related to hydraulic
fracturing fluid chemicals
.
Meanwhile, evidence is growing that water supplies have been compromised in at least six states from hydraulic fracturing operations. In Alabama, Colorado, New Mexico, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming, incidents have been recorded in which residents have reported changes in water quality or quantity following fracturing operations of gas wells near their homes
While it has not been conclusively proven that hydraulic fracture caused water quality impairment. evidence is clearly pointing in that direction. Consider these cases
* In Sublette County Wyoming, near to a large natural gas field, 80 out of 220 wells have been found to be contaminated with benzine.
* Larry and Laura Amos lived near to a fracture site in Colorado. Methane from the fracture seeped into their water well, and exploded it. Years later. Laura developed a rare adrenal tumor. 2-BE a compound which has been shown to cause adrenal tumors was used in at least one of the wells.
There are many more of these stories. For now, it appears clear that contamination from the wells is far more prevalent than stated in the EPA report.
What needs to be done?
Natural Gas production is crucial to this countries economy, and that means that we can’t stop hydraulic fracturing. However, it is important that we take appropriate steps to make fracking safer. The Oil and Gas Accountability Project has recommended the following 5 actions
- Further study of the effects of hydraulic fracturing on underground sources of drinking water should be conducted. (Phase II of the EPA study)
- EPA should establish regulations for hydraulic fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
- Hydraulic fracturing should not be exempted from the Safe Drinking Water Act.
- Until they can be proven safe, all potentially toxic substances should be liminated from fracturing fluids.
- Public accountability mechanisms should be put in place.
This article drew heavily from Propublica articles, and Drinking Water at Risk. A study performed by the Oil and Gas Accountability Project of Earthsworksaction.org