Watershed for 20,000,000: NYState one step closer to drilling.
NY is one step closer to unconventional natural gas production with the help of Halliburton.
I start with that dramatic line, for Halliburton is a major player in this industry. The salient point is: there is a major environmental and health issue impacting people nationwide, that is now set to change the economic, environmental and political landscape of New York and no one is covering it.
Michelle Obama's garden is getting more coverage, even on these pages, than this issue.
NPR's morning edition devoted three days to it last week. However, strangely, their fine reporter (a well-respected author, by the way - not a dummy) did not fully investigate the issue and cited industry groups and environmental groups, and left all criticism of the industry out of his report until concerned folk contacted NPR, and he began to investigate. To do this reporter credit, he went on-air to discuss the issues that he had not reported originally on the final day of coverage.
(This is a common issue with reporters nowadays: We don't know what we don't know until we know we don't know it.
If you want to get the story right, you have to look at what you don't know - at the places the light does not shine.
However, if you are accustomed to talking to groups - and familiar groups at that, groups you know and trust - and if you do not investigate facts as they stand, unfiltered by groups, then you get a very skewed view of reality. You report agendas, not events or facts.)
In any case, the NPR ombudsman did answer her phone personally, and I commend her for that.
The big news today:
The NY Department of Environmental Conservation came out with its draft of the SGEIS yesterday. We have only sixty days to comment on this document of over 800 pages.
Obviously, I have not read the document, though I have read reports on it - based, it seems, on a briefing.
I can't comment on the regulations - some seem wise, others not so much. Obviously, this demands study and the 60 day comment period offered by the DEC doesn't seem adequate.
However, one fact seems important:
The new regulations do not include any buffer zone whatsoever for the watersheds that supply about 20,000,000 people with water - of course, the entire NYC region is included. . This means that a well can be drilled right next to the reservoirs and rivers. Drilling in this case means pumping about 5,000,000 gallons of water laced with thousands of pounds of a toxic chemical mix into the ground.
(Of course, I'm once again not mentioning the hundreds of thousands of us who live in the area set to be drilled, but my assumption is no one really cares about the Southern Tier of New York or most of Pennsylvania.)
The assumption of industry analysts is that the toxins will not migrate. However, they have not proven that it does not and substantial evidence nationwide indicates it does.
I have written previously about the possibility of unconventional drilling in New York. Unconventional natural gas drilling, as you probably don't know because it is not reported about anywhere, has had an appalling reputation nationwide: increasing ozone, polluting water (with 1,000's of incidences of aquifer contamination and EPA acknowledgment), concurrent with illnesses (as Theo Colbourn testified before congress) such as rare cancers, brain damage, nerve damage and reproductive disorders), and generally, as Douglass Adams might put it, being very nasty, indeed.
Last week, there were three separate spills nearby - within a few miles from my in-laws - forcing the PA DEP to close the site temporarily. And it doesn't do this often. There have been problems throughout the state, not the least in the Pittsburg area.
Hearings regarding the NYC watershed have been held to no avail. I recommend reading the testimony of OGAP lawyer, Bruce Baizel, who is well-respected and down-to-earth, and who has been called in as a consultant by state governments to help with drafting appropriate regulation.
Note: NYC is famed for its clean water which does not have to be filtered. A filtering facility is estimated to cost ten billion dollars.
My suggestion:
If you live in NY this is your issue. Really, if you live near any shale-play, you will be impacted (if you haven't been already.) Investigate it.
If you are a journalist, consider (just consider, for a moment) that it may be worthy of coverage and that it is better to cover environmental debacles before significant damage so you can prevent such damage, than to write beautiful muckraking pieces in which you dramatically reveal the horrors that have occurred after the fact.
Be a Jonah. He didn't get much credit, but he did save Nineveh. (By the way, Nineveh is a small town that sits over the Marcellus shale.)
At the link http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/58440.html
in chapter Six on "Potential Environmental Impacts"
the report lists in this chapter over 350 chemicals and hazardous minerals like arsenic that could be stirred up and/or released, it seems the fracturing process involves using a lot of chemicals as surfactants and other resons to get the gas flowing. From Chapter Six of the NY State report, I am just listing some of the chemicals and the formatting was in a table which doesn't copy, but the list gives some idea of the huge number of synthetic organic chemicals being used:
6.1.3.1 Drilling
Contamination of surface water bodies and groundwater resources during well drilling could occur as a result of failure to maintain stormwater controls, ineffective site management and surface and subsurface fluid containment practices, poor casing construction, or accidental spills and releases. Surface spills would involve materials and fluids present at the site during the drilling phase. Pit leakage or failure could also involve well fluids. These issues are discussed in Chapters 8 and 9 of the GEIS, but are acknowledged here with respect to unique aspects of the proposed multi-well development method. GEIS conclusions regarding pit construction standards and liner specifications were largely based upon the short duration of a pit’s use. The greater intensity and duration of surface activities associated with well pads with multiple wells increases the odds of an accidental spill, pit leak or pit failure if mitigation measures are not sufficiently durable. Concerns are heightened if on-site pits for handling drilling fluids are located in primary and principal aquifer areas, or are constructed on the filled portion of a cut-and-filled well pad.
6.1.3.2 Hydraulic Fracturing Additives
6.1.3.1 Drilling
Contamination of surface water bodies and groundwater resources during well drilling could occur as a result of failure to maintain stormwater controls, ineffective site management and surface and subsurface fluid containment practices, poor casing construction, or accidental spills and releases. Surface spills would involve materials and fluids present at the site during the drilling phase. Pit leakage or failure could also involve well fluids. These issues are discussed in Chapters 8 and 9 of the GEIS, but are acknowledged here with respect to unique aspects of the proposed multi-well development method. GEIS conclusions regarding pit construction standards and liner specifications were largely based upon the short duration of a pit’s use. The greater intensity and duration of surface activities associated with well pads with multiple wells increases the odds of an accidental spill, pit leak or pit failure if mitigation measures are not sufficiently durable. Concerns are heightened if on-site pits for handling drilling fluids are located in primary and principal aquifer areas, or are constructed on the filled portion of a cut-and-filled well pad.
6.1.3.2 Hydraulic Fracturing Additives
Parameter Name
Used in Additives12
Found in Flowback13
MCLG (mg/L)14
MCL or TT (mg/L)
SPDES Tables15
TOGS111
1,1,1-Trifluorotoluene
Yes
02634-33-5
1,2 Benzisothiazolin-2-one / 1,2-benzisothiazolin-3-one
Yes
00095-63-6
1,2,4 trimethylbenzene
Yes
Table 9
Tables 1,5
00123-91-1
1,4 Dioxane
Yes
Table 8
1,4-Dichlorobutane
Yes
Table 10
03452-07-1
1-eicosene
Yes
00629-73-2
1-hexadecene
Yes
00112-88-9
1-octadecene
Yes
01120-36-1
1-tetradecene
Yes
10222-01-2
2,2 Dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide
Yes
Table 9
Tables 1,5
27776-21-2
2,2'-azobis-{2-(imidazlin-2-yl)propane}-dihydrochloride
Yes
73003-80-2
2,2-Dobromomalonamide
Yes
2,4,6-Tribromophenol
Yes
Table 6
Tables 1,5
2,5-Dibromotoluene
Yes
15214-89-8
2-Acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulphonic acid sodium salt polymer
Yes
46830-22-2
2-acryloyloxyethyl(benzyl)dimethylammonium chloride
Yes
00052-51-7
2-Bromo-2-nitro-1,3-propanediol
Yes
Table 10
00111-76-2
2-Butoxy ethanol
Yes
12 As with Table 5.6, information in the “Used in Additives” column is based on the composition of additives
2-Dibromo-3-Nitriloprionamide (2-Monobromo-3-nitriilopropionamide)
Yes
00104-76-7
2-Ethyl Hexanol
Yes
2-Fluorobiphenyl
Yes
Table 6
Tables 1,5
2-Fluorophenol
Yes
Table 6
Tables 1,5
00067-63-0
2-Propanol / Isopropyl Alcohol / Isopropanol / Propan-2-ol
Yes
Table 10
26062-79-3
2-Propen-1-aminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-2-propenyl-chloride, homopolymer
Yes
09003-03-6
2-propenoic acid, homopolymer, ammonium salt
Yes
25987-30-8
2-Propenoic acid, polymer with 2 p-propenamide, sodium salt / Copolymer of acrylamide and sodium acrylate
Yes
71050-62-9
2-Propenoic acid, polymer with sodium phosphinate (1:1)
Yes
66019-18-9
2-propenoic acid, telomer with sodium hydrogen sulfite
Yes
00107-19-7
2-Propyn-1-ol / Progargyl Alcohol
Yes
51229-78-8
3,5,7-Triaza-1-azoniatricyclo[3.3.1.13,7]decane, 1-(3-chloro-2-propenyl)-chloride,
Yes
00115-19-5
3-methyl-1-butyn-3-ol
Yes
00056-57-5
4-Nitroquinoline-1 -oxide
Yes
Table 8
127087-87-0
4-Nonylphenol Polyethylene Glycol Ether Branched / Nonylphenol ethoxylated / Oxyalkylated Phenol
Yes
4-Terphenyl-d14
Yes
Table 6
Tables 1,5
00064-19-7
Acetic acid
Yes
Table 10
68442-62-6
Acetic acid, hydroxy-, reaction products with triethanolamine
Yes
00108-24-7
Acetic Anhydride
Yes
Table 10
00067-64-1
Acetone
Yes
Yes
Table 7
Tables 1,5
00079-06-1
Acrylamide
Yes
0
TT
Table 9
Tables 1,5
38193-60-1
Acrylamide - sodium 2-acrylamido-2-methylpropane sulfonate copolymer
Yes
25085-02-3
Acrylamide - Sodium Acrylate Copolymer or Anionic Polyacrylamide
Yes
69418-26-4
Acrylamide polymer with N,N,N-trimethyl-2[1-oxo-2-propenyl]oxy Ethanaminium chloride
Yes
15085-02-3
Acrylamide-sodium acrylate copolymer
Yes
68551-12-2
Alcohols, C12-C16, Ethoxylated (a.k.a. Ethoxylated alcohol)
Yes
Aliphatic acids
Yes
Aliphatic alcohol glycol ether
Yes
Aliphatic Hydrocarbon / Hydrotreated light distillate / Petroleum Distillates / Isoparaffinic Solvent / Paraffin Solvent / Napthenic Solvent
Yes
Alkalinity, Carbonate, as CaCO3
Yes
Table 10
64743-02-8
Alkenes
Yes
68439-57-6
Alkyl (C14-C16) olefin sulfonate, sodium salt
Yes
Alkyl Aryl Polyethoxy Ethanol
Yes
Alkylaryl Sulfonate
Yes
09016-45-9
Alkylphenol ethoxylate surfactants
Yes
0.5 mg/L#
07439-90-5
Aluminum
Yes
0.05 to 0.2 mg/L#
Table 7
Tables 1,5
01327-41-9
Aluminum chloride
Yes
73138-27-9
Amines, C12-14-tert-alkyl, ethoxylated
Yes
71011-04-6
Amines, Ditallow alkyl, ethoxylated
Yes
68551-33-7
Amines, tallow alkyl, ethoxylated, acetates
Yes
01336-21-6
Ammonia
Yes
Yes
00631-61-8
Ammonium acetate
Yes
Table 10
68037-05-8
Ammonium Alcohol Ether Sulfate
Yes
07783-20-2
Ammonium bisulfate
Yes
10192-30-0
Ammonium Bisulphite
Yes
12125-02-9
Ammonium Chloride
Yes
Table 10
07632-50-0
Ammonium citrate
Yes
37475-88-0
Ammonium Cumene Sulfonate
Yes
01341-49-7
Ammonium hydrogen-difluoride
Yes
06484-52-2
Ammonium nitrate
Yes
07727-54-0
Ammonium Persulfate / Diammonium peroxidisulphate
Yes
01762-95-4
Ammonium Thiocyanate
Yes
Table 10
07440-36-0
Antimony
Yes
0.006
0.006
Table 6
Tables 1,5
07664-41-7
Aqueous ammonia
Yes
Yes
Table 7
Tables 1,5
Aromatic hydrocarbons
Yes
Aromatic ketones
Yes
07440-38-2
Arsenic
Yes
0
0.01
Table 6
Tables 1,5
07440-39-3
Barium
Yes
2
2
Table 7
Tables 1,5
Barium Strontium P.S. (mg/L)
Yes
Bentonite, benzyl(hydrogenated tallow alkyl) dimethylammonium stearate complex / organophilic clay
Yes
00071-43-2
Benzene
Yes
Yes
0
0.005
Table 6
Tables 1,5
119345-04-9
Benzene, 1,1'-oxybis, tetratpropylene derivatives, sulfonated, sodium salts
Yes
74153-51-8
Benzenemethanaminium, N,N-dimethyl-N-[2-[(1-oxo-2-propenyl)oxy]ethyl]-, chloride, polymer with 2-propenamide
Yes
Bicarbonates (mg/L)
Yes
Table 10
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Yes
Yes
00117-81-7
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Yes
0
0.006
Table 6
Tables 1,5
10043-35-3
Boric acid
Yes
01303-86-2
Boric oxide / Boric Anhydride
Yes
07440-42-8
Boron
Yes
Table 7
Tables 1,5
24959-67-9
Bromide
Yes
Table 7
Tables 1,5
00075-25-2
Bromoform
Yes
Table 6
Tables 1,5
00071-36-3
Butan-1-ol
Yes
Table 10
Tables 1,5
68002-97-1
C10 - C16 Ethoxylated Alcohol
Yes
68131-39-5
C12-15 Alcohol, Ethoxylated
Yes
07440-43-9
Cadmium
Yes
0.005
0.005
Table 6
Tables 1,5
07440-70-2
Calcium
Yes
Table 8
10043-52-4
Calcium chloride
Yes
00124-38-9
Carbon Dioxide
Yes
68130-15-4
Carboxymethylhydroxypropyl guar
Yes
09012-54-8
Cellulase / Hemicellulase Enzyme
Yes
09004-34-6
Cellulose
Yes
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Yes
Yes
Chloride
Yes
250 mg/L#
Table 7
Tables 1,5
10049-04-4
Chlorine Dioxide
Yes
MRDLG=0.8
MRDL=0.8
Table 10
00124-48-1
Chlorodibromomethane
Yes
Table 6
Tables 1,5
07440-47-3
Chromium
Yes
0.1
0.1
Table 6
Tables 1,5
00077-92-9
Citric Acid
Yes
94266-47-4
Citrus Terpenes
Yes
07440-48-4
Cobalt
Yes
Table 7
Table 1
61789-40-0
Cocamidopropyl Betaine
Yes
68155-09-9
Cocamidopropylamine Oxide
Yes
Specific Conductivity
Yes
07440-24-6
Strontium
Yes
Table 9
Table 1
00057-50-1
Sucrose
Yes
Sugar
Yes
05329-14-6
Sulfamic acid
Yes
14808-79-8
Sulfate
Yes
250 mg/L#
Table 7
Tables 1,5
Sulfide
Yes
Table 7
Tables 1,5
14265-45-3
Sulfite
Yes
Table 7
Table 1
Surfactant blend
Yes
0.5 mg/L#
Surfactants MBAS
Yes
0.5 mg/L#
112945-52-5
Syntthetic Amorphous / Pyrogenic Silica / Amorphous Silica
Yes
68155-20-4
Tall Oil Fatty Acid Diethanolamine
Yes
08052-48-0
Tallow fatty acids sodium salt
Yes
72480-70-7
Tar bases, quinoline derivs., benzyl chloride-quaternized
Yes
68647-72-3
Terpene and terpenoids
Yes
68956-56-9
Terpene hydrocarbon byproducts
Yes
00127-18-4
Tetrachloroethylene
Yes
0
0.005
Table 6
Tables 1,5
00533-74-4
Tetrahydro-3,5-dimethyl-2H-1,3,5-thiadiazine-2-thione (a.k.a. Dazomet)
Yes
55566-30-8
Tetrakis(hydroxymethyl)phosphonium sulfate (THPS)
Yes
00075-57-0
Tetramethyl ammonium chloride
Yes
00064-02-8
Tetrasodium Ethylenediaminetetraacetate
Yes
07440-28-0
Thallium
Yes
0.0005
0.002
Table 6
Tables 1,5
00068-11-1
Thioglycolic acid
Yes
00062-56-6
Thiourea
Yes
Table 10
68527-49-1
Thiourea, polymer with formaldehyde and 1-
ETC ETC!!
October 1, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
A gas fracturing industry rep said on Diane Rhem a few days ago not to worry about the chemicals, as 'dilution' will take care of it, meaning I suppose you won't drop dead after one glassful.
October 1, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okie dokie then. I am aghast. Please set up your own blog on this after this fine posts fades into the 24 hour mist. Just paste this comment and add a couple paragraphs. Or go further into the analysis Noble.
I hereby render unto you the COMMENT OF THE DAY AWARD FOR THIS HERE TPMCafe Site given to all of you from all of me............
THIS INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT. To all of us.
Thank you.
October 1, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was aghast too DD., the list above is only partial.
On Diane Rhem the slate fracturing natural gas experts (on her show in the last week) said they just pump 'water' in under pressure, and would only admit to additives (they gave the dilution excuse-'don't worry about the chem's') when cornered by locals who phoned in from Pennsylvania, saying they have these operations in their area and now their well water smelled like gasoline.
Pick you favorite surfactant/additive, mine is:
October 1, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will tell you what Noble. When the water that God has blessed this universe with (see my Water on the Moon blog) begins to smell like gasoline........
WHO PRAY TELL, is defiling God's earth?
THIS SCARES ME MORE THAN ANY SUICIDE BOMBER COULD EVER SCARE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!
October 1, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, couldn't you just cherry pick a little bit to share with us and link to the rest? Eek!
But you are right, it looks like a freaking chemical nightmare. It is true that dilution will help, but how in the world can one calculate the amount of dilution necessary for such a myriad of chemicals? What about interactions and not accounting for each one singularly?
And, I'm thinking so I'm not sure so may be completely wrong, but wouldn't hydraulic fracturing also release inherent petroleum and its lovely batch of chemicals into aquifers as well? It isn't just what you put down the well to break up rock, it's what you release too.
October 1, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, how can they be assured that dilution will be uniform? Most toxic stuff has a tendency to form "hot spots" (borrowing downwinder terminology) - some of it could be diluted heavily while a portion could form pockets of concentrated chemicals more toxic than the original solution.
October 1, 2009 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are other problems concerning dillution. Firstly, when you have thousands of wells needing millions of gallons of water/fracking fluid, accidents will occur -- it is a matter of human error, if nothing else. And given the derth of places to dispose of waste, purposeful dumping is not unknown.
So undilluted chemicals do indeed enter the ecosystem. The situation in Dimock being one of great number. (Here there were three separate spills into wetlands.)
However, even with dillution, the amount of chemicals used is staggering. Remember: about five million gallons per well per frac. Even a ten of a percent of that amount will be substantial.
October 1, 2009 5:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
LBS. I am following you know, for sure.
I did not know this. I have read nothing about it.
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
And I already thanked Noble for adding to this post.
And I have asked that Noble set up his own blog on this after yours has evaporated under our rules here.
Great Post.
October 1, 2009 5:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks! I appreciate your blog a great deal, even if I haven't been commenting. Oy! What a world we live in!
October 1, 2009 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am reviewing the full 809 page NY DOE PDF document on this and the relation of the Marcellus shale to water supplies of major cities. Will get back a new post within 18 hours.
October 1, 2009 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
GOOD MAN. GOOD MAN. Thank you sooooooooooo much!!!
A lot of work.
October 1, 2009 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the comments. I commented over at dickday's excellent blog (http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/dikkday48yahoocom/) but thought I'd repost here:
A sad fact: Most of the people pushing natural gas drilling now are democrats. The just-released Kerry-Boxer bill seems to favor the industry. There are false assumptions at work: 1. That to get rid of coal, one must use natural gas. (A bit like supporting Sauron over Darth Vadar, or Cheney over the the devil incarnate. You don't win either way.)
2. That natural gas is clean. It's not. It's methane and ozone producing. Methane and ozone are better at helping global warming along.
3. That it is a transitional fuel. No way, not when T.Boon Pickens is building an industry around it. Instead of advocating electric cars or other technologies, he is advocating for natural gas vehicles. Some towns and cities are "going green" by using natural gas vehicles, that will need "natural gas" filling stations and "natural gas" processing, not to mention factories . . . It is about as transitional as the Emperor was when he suggested taking control of Nabu. (Okay, I'm a geek.) It's a fossil fuel. A dirty fossil fuel. Period.
I need to read the Boxer and Kerry bill to make sure I have it right. I love them, but boy, a little knowledge from the wrong people (very savvy natural gas lobbiests) can do a great deal of harm.
I need to give Boxer and Kerry a call.
October 1, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cheney "Four years after Vice President Dick Cheney spearheaded a massive energy bill that exempted natural gas drilling from federal clean water laws...(and now the shit is hitting the fan)" http://www.grist.org/article/2009-05-26-natural-gas-water-politics/
Democrats Casey of Pa and Schumer of NY have a bill to put the gas drillers back under the law:
A BILL S 1215
To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to repeal a certain
exemption for hydraulic fracturing, and for other purposes.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:s1215is.txt.pdf
more later...
October 1, 2009 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
NobleCommentDecider: I so appreciate the reading you are doing and the information you offered.
I know about the Frac-Act that my wonderful Congressman Hinchey is supporting that would help protect drinking water (reinforcing the safe drinking water act re: natural gas) and mandate chemical disclosure.
These are good actions.
The question I have is: As we move towards new climate initiatives, will bills give economic leverage to the industry. This is a tricky question, and one I need to investigate.
October 2, 2009 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Stay on it, LBS. This is too important to let go and this is not being talked about beyond the places where political junkies hang out. Great blog, great comments.
October 2, 2009 6:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
NPR is a big disappointment. It needs a total barn cleaning.....
October 1, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50254
Read this and take a look at the Black Shale Resource Plays map about two-thirds down. Look at the Eastern US.
October 1, 2009 8:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh Donal: I am too scared to look, though I've seen the map (I think) a few times.
It gets truly depressing when one looks at the world picture as you have been doing.
But the fact that you look is uplifting in itself.
October 1, 2009 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a link to a fascinating podcast on Hydrofracking
http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_869_Josh_Fox.mp3/view
October 3, 2009 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink