New York Times: Fracking Chemicals Were Injected Into Wells, Report Says

Share

From the New York Times – April 16, 2011

by Ian Urbina

WASHINGTON — Oil and gas companies injected hundreds of millions of
gallons of hazardous or carcinogenic chemicals into wells in more than
13 states from 2005 to 2009, according to an investigation by
Congressional Democrats.

 The chemicals were used by companies during a drilling process known as
hydraulic fracturing, or hydrofracking, which involves the high-pressure
injection of a mixture of water, sand and chemical additives into rock
formations deep underground. The process, which is being used to tap
into large reserves of natural gas around the country, opens fissures in the rock to stimulate the release of oil and gas.

Hydrofracking has attracted increased scrutiny from lawmakers and
environmentalists in part because of fears that the chemicals used
during the process can contaminate underground sources of drinking
water.

“Questions about the safety of hydraulic fracturing persist, which are
compounded by the secrecy surrounding the chemicals used in hydraulic
fracturing fluids,” said the report, which was written by
Representatives Henry A. Waxman of California, Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts and Diana DeGette of Colorado.

The report, released late Saturday, also faulted companies for at times
“injecting fluids containing chemicals that they themselves cannot
identify.”

The inquiry over hydrofracking, which was initiated by the House Energy and Commerce Committee
when Mr. Waxman led it last year, also found that 14 of the nation’s
most active hydraulic fracturing companies used 866 million gallons of
hydraulic fracturing products — not including water. More than 650 of
these products contained chemicals that are known or possible human
carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or are listed
as hazardous air pollutants, the report said.

A request for comment from the American Petroleum Institute about the report received no reply.

Matt Armstrong, an energy attorney from Bracewell & Giuliani that
represents several companies involved in natural gas drilling, faulted
the methodology of the congressional report released Saturday and an
earlier report by the same lawmakers.

“This report uses the same sleight of hand deployed in the last report
on diesel use — it compiles overall product volumes, not the volumes of
the hazardous chemicals contained within those products,” he said.
“This generates big numbers but provides no context for the use of these
chemicals over the many thousands of frac jobs that were conducted
within the timeframe of the report.”

Some ingredients mixed into the hydraulic fracturing fluids were common
and generally harmless, like salt and citric acid. Others were
unexpected, like instant coffee and walnut hulls, the report said. Many
ingredients were “extremely toxic,” including benzene, a known human
carcinogen, and lead.

Companies injected large amounts of other hazardous chemicals, including
11.4 million gallons of fluids containing at least one of the toxic or
carcinogenic B.T.E.X. chemicals — benzene, toluene, xylene and
ethylbenzene. The companies used the highest volume of fluids containing
one or more carcinogens in Colorado, Oklahoma and Texas.

The report comes two and a half months after an initial report by the
same three lawmakers that found that 32.2 millions of gallons of fluids
containing diesel, considered an especially hazardous pollutant because
it contains benzene, were injected into the ground during hydrofracking
by a dozen companies from 2005 to 2009, in possible violation of the
drinking water act.

A 2010 report by Environmental Working Group,
a research and advocacy organization, found that benzene levels in
other hydrofracking ingredients were as much as 93 times higher than
those found in diesel.

The use of these chemicals has been a source of concern to regulators
and environmentalists who worry that some of them could find their way
out of a well bore — because of above-ground spills, underground
failures of well casing or migration through layers of rock — and into
nearby sources of drinking water.

These contaminants also remain in the fluid that returns to the surface after a well is hydrofracked. A recent investigation
by The New York Times found high levels of contaminants, including
benzene and radioactive materials, in wastewater that is being sent to
treatment plants not designed to fully treat the waste before it is
discharged into rivers. At one plant in Pennsylvania, documents from the Environmental Protection Agency
revealed levels of benzene roughly 28 times the federal drinking water
standard in wastewater as it was discharged, after treatment, into the
Allegheny River in May 2008.

The E.P.A.
is conducting a national study on the drinking water risks associated
with hydrofracking, but assessing these risks has been made more
difficult by companies’ unwillingness to publicly disclose which
chemicals and in what concentrations they are used, according to
internal e-mails and draft notes of the study plan.

Some companies are moving toward more disclosure, and the industry will
soon start a public database of these chemicals. But the Congressional
report said that reporting to this database is strictly voluntary, that
disclosure will not include the chemical identity of products labeled as
proprietary, and that there is no way to determine if companies are
accurately reporting information for all wells. In Pennsylvania, the
lack of disclosure of drilling ingredients has also incited a heated
debate among E.P.A. lawyers about the threat and legality of treatment
plants accepting the wastewater and discharging it into rivers.       

Read original article

Share

About Damien Gillis

Damien Gillis is a Vancouver-based documentary filmmaker with a focus on environmental and social justice issues - especially relating to water, energy, and saving Canada's wild salmon - working with many environmental organizations in BC and around the world. He is the co-founder, along with Rafe Mair, of The Common Sense Canadian, and a board member of both the BC Environmental Network and the Haig-Brown Institute.