The wonders of clean natural gas:

“The water is so saturated with methane and other chemicals it is not to be used for human consumption,” said Bernice Angely, who’s had water trucked to her home 10 miles west of town since her well blew up in July 2007.

Petroglyph Energy Inc., a Boise, Idaho-based firm that has worked the rolling plains of the Raton Basin since 1999, suspended drilling until it can stem the methane. Colorado also is rewriting rules that had allowed Petroglyph to discharge water runoff from its drilling into streams and creeks.

Somebody is going to have to pay for that, right?

But Petroglyph says it’s not clear the drilling caused the methane leaks or prompted other area water wells to run dry. Eying what it calls an extremely promising natural gas field, it believes a shallow water formation tapped by area homeowners isn’t connected to a deeper one pumped by the company for its drilling operations.

Petroglyph chief operating officer Paul Powell also believes a growing number of new homes in the area could explain some of the dry water wells.

“We’ll do what we need to do,” Powell said, stressing that his firm is working with the state on a solution.

With a little luck the people of NYC won’t face the same fate.

(H/T Raw Story)

This piece was originally published by ProPublica. It has been republished here with permission. Learn more about ProPublica.

Figure 5-3, ‘Sample Fracture Fluid Composition by Weight’, as seen in the draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement on natural gas drilling by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Mineral Resources

Two prominent gas industry executives have directly addressed one of the key environmental concerns surrounding the expansion of natural gas development by calling for the disclosure of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing.

The statements – made last week by Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon and Range Resources CEO John Pinkerton – came as the industry faces increasing pressure to be more forthcoming about the chemicals it uses. New York State recently released an environmental impact statement that specifically called for disclosure of the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. Colorado and several other states also have asked for that information.

At issue is whether hydraulic fracturing, and the chemicals it requires, might be responsible for water contamination incidents in drilling areas across the country. The process, which is currently exempt from federal oversight under the Safe Drinking Water Act, forces millions of gallons of water, mixed with sand and small amounts of chemicals, into the earth to break rock and release gas. Scientists, including some at the Environmental Protection Agency, have said they can’t thoroughly investigate the contamination incidents because the names of the chemicals are protected trade secrets.

At a panel discussion at the IHS Herold Pacesetters Energy Conference in Greenwich, Conn., McClendon told attendees that fracturing should be demystified, and that “we need to disclose the chemicals that we are using and search for alternatives,” according to an account of the discussion from Reuters. In other news reports, McClendon was quoted as saying he was concerned that undue fears about the drilling chemicals had bogged down efforts to open the Marcellus Shale, a mammoth natural gas deposit that lies beneath much of Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York.

Chesapeake and other gas producers subcontract fracturing services from companies that specialize in the process, including Halliburton, Schlumberger and BJ Services. In the past, those companies have said they are differentiated by the recipes they use for fracturing underground and that forced disclosure would erase any competitive advantage. But a Schlumberger spokesperson was recently quoted as saying the company is willing to discuss more disclosure.

At the energy conference, Pinkerton called the companies’ concerns that disclosure would put them at a disadvantage “silly” and said, according to a report in Natural Gas Intelligence, that “I’ve basically told them that this is not acceptable.”

Chesapeake and several gas industry associations already offer the public educational fact sheets that  detail a few dominant ingredients in fracturing solutions, but the fact sheets don’t list all the ingredients or explain how they might be combined, information that environmental scientists say is critical to measuring the risk associated with fracturing fluids. It isn’t clear how much more McClendon and Pinkerton would favor disclosing.

“The question remains, what is that disclosure going to be?” said Amy Mall, a policy analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “Is it going to be specifics that allow a health specialist or a hydrologist to analyze exactly what the risks are to human health? The devil is in the details.”

A Chesapeake spokesman declined to clarify McClendon’s statements, but in an e-mailed response said “the discussion about the types of additives used in minimal amounts during hydraulic fracturing is misguided since each additive that is brought onto a well location is accompanied by a Materials Safety Data Sheet, which not only identifies the materials but outlines proper ways in which to utilize them.” The MSDS sheets, which are available to the public, are required by law to provide information on how workers might be poisoned by chemicals – but they’ve also been criticized as providing only partial information.

Pinkerton, the Range Resources CEO, also declined to comment for this article, but a company spokesman said Pinkerton would like to see more information made public than is currently available. “We need to go further than where we have been so far,” said the spokesman, Matt Pitzarella. “We need to get it to a level where everyone is comfortable. In recent years, more and more of those chemicals are now organically based, and I think we need to get a movement towards more and more organically based chemicals.”

It remains to be seen whether service providers such as Halliburton, and the chemical manufactures that supply them, will go along with a movement towards disclosure, as they are the ones with the most at stake. Neither Halliburton nor Schlumberger responded to requests for comment.

“When you start getting from the general to the specific, people may have considerations that aren’t reflected in those general statements,” said Fuller, the Independent Petroleum Association of America spokesman. “We’ve been having conversations with our members about chemical disclosure and types of disclosure and proprietary information for months if not longer.”

A series of reports from ProPublica in the past year have documented numerous cases in which gas drilling and the handling of the fluids it requires have led to water contamination. In response to those concerns, New York State put a moratorium on new drilling in the prized Marcellus Shale gas deposit, and hydraulic fracturing has become a hot button issue across the country.

Political pressure has also been building.

The day before the two executives spoke in Connecticut, a bipartisan group of senators urged their colleagues to include a study of the environmental impacts of fracturing in the energy and climate bill being considered by Congress.

In June, members of the House and Senate also weighed in on the subject, introducing twin bills that would give the EPA authority to regulate fracturing under the Safe Drinking Water Act and mandate disclosure of the chemicals used in the fracturing process. The energy industry is fighting the legislation, known as the Frack Act, and it has languished since summer.

Gwen Lachelt, director of the Oil and Gas Accountability Project, an environmental advocacy group based in Durango, Colo., thinks the executives’ statements show how eager they are to put environmental controversies behind them.

“There is a lot of horse trading going on right now,” Lachelt said. “I don’t think it’s any coincidence that we are hearing from companies about their willingness to disclose and the timing of this letter from the senators.”

Lee Fuller, vice president of government affairs for the Independent Petroleum Association of America, said that if a study of fracturing is included in the climate bill, it would “diminish any interest in moving forward on the Frack Act.”

Not so, said Kristofer Eisenla, deputy chief of staff for one of the bill’s main sponsors, Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), who supports both the study and the disclosure but would also like to see a regulatory framework for addressing the fracturing process.

“Just because they are coming around to see the light of day on this and starting to agree with us doesn’t mean we are going to fold up and go home,” he said. “It does validate what we are trying to do here.”

Pro Publica:

A long-anticipated draft environmental review laying out proposed laws for natural gas drilling in New York’s Marcellus Shale has been released by the state after 18 months of study and several delays. State officials say the guidelines, which are 809 pages long and extremely detailed, address key concerns, including the disclosure of fluids used in the drilling process known as hydraulic fracturing and the on-site handling of drilling waste.

But according to a summary that accompanied the document, which was released just before 6 p.m. Wednesday, it would not ban drilling inside the New York City watershed, a central Catskill Mountain area that supplies drinking water to 9 million people.

“The state’s mitigation proposals are half measures,” Manhattan borough president Scott Stringer said in a news release Wednesday night. “I believe the choice is simple: we either correct this error and ban drilling now, or soon enough the officials entrusted with protecting our environment will be asked to explain why they were asleep at the switch when it mattered most.”

Here is the introduction:

ogdsgeischap1 –

Here is the full document:

OGdSGEISFull –

This piece was originally published by ProPublica. It has been republished here with permission. Learn more about ProPublica.

After three chemical spills in the past nine days, and following a history of environmental problems over the last year, Pennsylvania officials have ordered Cabot Oil and Gas, one of the most active natural gas companies in the state, to stop its hydraulic fracturing operations in Susquehanna County pending an intensive review.

“The department took this action because of our concern about Cabot’s current fracking process and to ensure that the environment in Susquehanna County is properly protected,” DEP north central regional Director Robert Yowell said in a news release distributed this morning.

The stop-work order, which was accompanied by new citations issued for the third spill, will interrupt development of seven new wells that Cabot is currently drilling, and intending to fracture, in Susquehanna County. The citations were similar to those levied earlier in the week, including a failure to contain fracturing fluids.

The state’s order gives Cabot two weeks to re-submit an “accurate” Pollution Prevention and Contingency Plan and Control and Disposal Plan for its well pad sites in the county. It gives the company three weeks to complete an engineering study of the equipment and practices used for hydraulic fracturing.

“There were unique elements of the location that experienced the three incidents and it was not necessary to force a shutdown of all fracturing activities,” said Cabot Spokesman Ken Komoroski, explaining that fluids were piped further than usual at the well site in question. “However Cabot understand the department has an important job to do.”

In interviews earlier this week, Komoroski underscored that the spills had happened under the watch of two of its contractors: Halliburton, one of the world’s largest drilling service companies, and Baker Tanks, a tank transport company.

In recognition of those circumstances, Pennsylvania will require Cabot to post its new pollution prevention plan at each well site and make it available to all its contractors, something that is not normally required in the state.

Here is the press release:

dep_cabot_order_090925 –

This piece was originally published by ProPublica. It has been republished here with permission. Learn more about ProPublica.

Pennsylvania environment officials have charged Cabot Oil and Gas with five violations after nearly 8,000 gallons of hydraulic fracturing solution spilled from a pipe system in two separate incidents near the town of Dimock last week. The department reported that a third, smaller spill occurred at the site Tuesday morning.

According to the state, Cabot failed to prevent a fracturing fluid discharge, failed to keep that discharge from escaping into the environment and from entering a creek, and inappropriately dammed that creek after the spill, among other violations. The company could face fines topping $130,000.

“I was concerned with two releases,” said Bob Yowell, director of the north central regional office of the DEP. “A third release, although it was relatively small, gives us great concern that something unusual is happening at this particular well. This isn’t a normal situation.”

The spills began on Wednesday, Sept. 16, at 2 p.m. when a pipe coupling failed on the system that mixes the fracturing ingredients, sending as much as 2,100 gallons of fluid into the environment. At 8 p.m. that same day another pipe coupling broke in the same system, and 5,880 additional gallons of fracturing fluid were discharged, according to both state and Cabot accounts. On Tuesday morning, Sept. 22, another hose ruptured under pressure, releasing 420 more gallons of the same mixture, though only 10 gallons of that last spill escaped from the company’s spill catch system.

According to Ken Komoroski, a Cabot Oil and Gas spokesman, the fracturing procedure was being conducted by two contractors: Halliburton, one of biggest oil services companies in the world, and Baker Tanks, a petroleum storage tank company.

“Our policy is zero spills, zero unpermitted releases, and those goals were not met so there needs to be evaluations of what can be done to prevent them in the future,” Komoroski told ProPublica. “The spills were less than .5 percent gel, and at 99.5 percent water, this material is not hazardous or dangerous nor does it present any environmental risk.”

Pennsylvania officials allowed Cabot to continue fracturing the well while they conducted their investigation. According to the DEP’s Yowell, halting the fracturing may have presented additional problems, though he could not specify what those risks were. Cabot voluntarily halted the fracturing on Tuesday, after the third spill occurred.

The investigation into the spill is ongoing. According to a DEP press release and the notice letter sent to Cabot, a nearby wetland has been flushed and further remediation may be required, including excavation of soil surrounding the site.

ProPublica reported the spills Monday, stating that the fluids had seeped into Stevens Creek and killed fish there, an assertion repeated in the DEP’s press release on Tuesday. Follow-up interviews with the state’s of Fish and Boat Commission, however, show that a small number of minnows were harmed and that the damage to the creek appeared minimal. However, water samples from the creek are still being evaluated, according to the DEP’s Yowell.

According to a Material Safety Data Sheet provided to the state by Halliburton, the substance spilled was a lubricating gel used in hydraulic fracturing that poses a substantial threat to human health and was described in the Halliburton document as a “potential carcinogen” that has caused skin cancer in animals.

Cabot’s Komoroski points out that the document refers to the gel’s concentrated form, and that the mixture spilled in Dimock was mostly water. He also disputes the information on the Halliburton form that warns the product is a “potential carcinogen.” The disclosure, required by law on the MSDS form, was an effort to be extremely conservative and account for the possibility that a derivative from the refining process could be part of the gel mixture, Komoroski said. He could not say what that derivative was, except that it is a hydrocarbon.

Halliburton did not respond to questions about the details of its MSDS disclosure for the product, called LGC-35 CBM.

Colorado Independent:

Oil and gas industry representatives this week continued to assail a phone survey in Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District showing overwhelming support for federal regulation of a natural-gas drilling process called hydraulic fracturing.

The survey of 504 registered 3rd district voters, conducted for two environmental groups by Boulder-based Harstad Strategic Research and released last week, found 67 percent of the sampling favor passage of the FRAC Act, sponsored by U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, a Democrat from Denver.

Much more information on this polling is available from the group who sponsored the polling, the Western Organization of Resource Councils.

Here are the results from Colorado’s 3rd Congressional District:

CO-Water-Poll-key-findings –

Here are the results from Montana:

MT-Water-Poll-key-findings –

This piece was originally published by ProPublica. It has been republished here with permission. Learn more about ProPublica.

Pennsylvania environment officials are racing to clean up as much as 8,000 gallons of dangerous drilling fluids after a series of spills at a natural gas production site near the town of Dimock last week.

The spills, which occurred at a well site run by Cabot Oil and Gas, involve a compound manufactured by Halliburton that is described as a “potential carcinogen” and is used in the drilling process of hydraulic fracturing, according to state officials. The contaminants have seeped into a nearby creek, where a fish kill was reported by the state Department of Environmental Protection. The DEP also reported fish “swimming erratically.”

The incident is the latest in a series of environmental problems connected to Cabot’s drilling in the Dimock area. Last winter, drinking water in several area homes was found to contain metals and methane gas that state officials determined leaked underground from Cabot wells. And in the spring, the company was fined for several other spills, including an 800-gallon diesel spill from a truck that overturned.

Neither Cabot Oil and Gas nor Halliburton immediately returned calls for comment on Monday. A Halliburton spokesperson sent an e-mail referring any questions to information on the company’s Web site.

DEP officials were also unavailable for interviews, but said through e-mail that faulty piping is suspected and that they have not confirmed the exact cause of the spill. A press spokesperson said to expect an announcement and actions toward Cabot by Tuesday.

ProPublica interviewed state officials several months ago about drilling problems in Dimock. “Cabot has definitely had their share of problems out there,” Craig Lobins, a regional oil and gas division director, said then. “Some of them is just being a little bit careless … or sloppy, or maybe a little bit of bad luck too.”

The drilling fluid spill Wednesday may be the most serious yet, because it involves chemicals that are known to pose a risk to human health and has spread into the area’s surface water system.

According to a Material Safety Data Sheet provided to the state this week by Halliburton, the spilled drilling fluid contained a liquid gel concentrate consisting of a paraffinic solvent and polysaccharide, chemicals listed as possible carcinogens for people. The MSDS form – for Halliburton’s proprietary product called LGC-35 CBM – does not list the entire makeup of the gel or the quantity of its constituents, but it warns that the substances have led to skin cancer in animals and “may cause headache, dizziness and other central nervous system effects” to anyone who breathes or swallows the fluids.

It is not yet clear exactly what led to or caused the spill. State officials report that at least 1,000 gallons of fluid were spilled Wednesday afternoon, and another 5,900 gallons about 10 that night. The substance was reportedly a clay-like mixture, with the Halliburton gel mixed at about five gallons per 1,000 gallons of water. A DEP spokesperson said in an e-mail that the spills appear to be the result of supply pipe failures. In one case a pressurized line may have broken, and in another a seal may have given way. State officials said the fluids had spilled into Stevens Creek.

The contamination incident comes as the state faces increasing scrutiny for its handling of a natural gas drilling boom and dozens of instances of spills and water contamination related to it across the state. Earlier investigations by ProPublica found that methane had leaked into drinking water supplies from gas wells in at least seven Pennsylvania counties. And earlier this month the DEP began investigating a suspected chemical spill in the northwestern part of the state, hundreds of miles from Dimock, which decimated aquatic life along a 30-mile stretch of pristine river. No determination has been made in that case either, but waste fluids from drilling are among the possibilities being investigated.