By way of this Steven Pearlstein article, Ezra Klein wonders why natural gas doesn’t get as much attention as nuclear energy as a bridge fuel toward the clean energy economy:

My understanding is that natural gas is a really promising candidate as a bridge fuel (a cleaner energy source between the coal/oil economy and whatever comes next), for all the reasons Steve Pearlstein lays out here. But nuclear energy attracts all the political attention. Why is that? Is it just because nuclear energy has traditionally been opposed by liberals and so it’s become an article of faith among conservatives? Does nuclear energy have a more-organized or better-funded industry backing it?

I’ll look at a few factors that may play a role in this below.

Read the rest of this entry »

House Energy and Commerce Committee (via Pro Publica):

Chairman Henry A. Waxman and Subcommittee Chairman Edward Markey today sent letters to eight oil and gas companies that use hydraulic fracturing to extract oil and natural gas from unconventional sources in the United States. The Committee is requesting information on the chemicals used in fracturing fluids and the potential impact of the practice on the environment and human health.

“Hydraulic fracturing could help us unlock vast domestic natural gas reserves once thought unattainable, strengthening America’s energy independence and reducing carbon emissions,” said Chairman Waxman. “As we use this technology in more parts of the country on a much larger scale, we must ensure that we are not creating new environmental and public health problems. This investigation will help us better understand the potential risks this technology poses to drinking water supplies and the environment, and whether Congress needs to act to minimize those risks.”

Here is the letter to Halliburton CEO David J. Lesar:

lesar_letter –

And here is a background document the committee put together on the environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing:

hydraulic_fracturing_memo –

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

Five years ago the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency assured the nation that the technology credited with opening vast new natural gas supplies was safe. Now Congress has ordered the agency to take another look.

As part of the $32 billion Interior and Environment Appropriations Bill recently signed by President Obama, lawmakers asked the EPA to re-visit hydraulic fracturing, the process where copious amounts of water and sand mixed with toxic chemical additives are furiously pumped underground to break up gas-bearing rock thousands of feet below.

The bill urges the EPA to use a portion of the money to fund a scientifically robust and peer-reviewed study of the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, “using a credible approach that relies on the best available science.”

The EPA gave hydraulic fracturing its stamp of approval in a 2004 report [1], but that study has been widely criticized as politically-motivated and scientifically unsound. After the report was released, veteran EPA scientist Weston Wilson wrote a letter [2] to Colorado representatives saying that “based on available science and literature, EPA’s conclusions are unsupportable.” He also wrote that five out seven members of a panel that reviewed the findings had conflicts of interest and “may benefit from EPA’s decision not to conduct further investigation or impose regulatory conditions.”

In 2008 ProPublica reported [3] that EPA staff involved in the study negotiated directly with Halliburton, one of the leaders in the hydraulic fracturing business, and other stakeholders to soften inspection pressure from the agency. In exchange, the companies agreed to voluntarily stop using diesel fuel for some of their fracturing processes.  That report was part of an investigation showing that water sources have been contaminated across the country from drilling.

The 2004 study was used to help justify the passage of an amendment in the 2005 Energy Policy Act which exempted hydraulic fracturing from coverage under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

Ever since, environmentalists and some Democratic members of Congress have been pushing for a reversal.

The new request for a study of fracturing is just one paragraph, deep in the 393-page bill that funds everything from drinking water infrastructure to Great Lakes conservation, and it does not specify an amount of money to be spent on the study.

The office of EPA administrator Lisa Jackson did not respond to requests for comment for this article. But the measure’s sponsor, Rep. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), says he expects the EPA to follow through. “I think don’t think that there is any question that they are going to move forward on it,” said Hinchey, adding that Jackson has indicated this to him directly.

Jackson previously said [4] she recognized that the current regulations restrict the EPA’s ability to protect groundwater and said the issue “was well worth looking into.” But she hadn’t indicated how the EPA would approach the problem or whether the 2004 study would be revised.

The request for a new study comes six months after a matching pair of bills called the FRAC Act was introduced in the House and Senate. The Fracturing Responsibility and Awareness Chemicals Act –sponsored by Hinchey, among others ­– would repeal the oil and gas industry’s exemption from the Safe Drinking Water Act.

It’s not unusual for a study to be introduced as a way of delaying legislation. But Hinchey says this study serves a real purpose because there is a dearth of scientifically-neutral information about hydraulic fracturing.

“We are very sincere and deeply dedicated to getting this done,” he said.

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 –

I previously mentioned that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection had ordered Cabot Oil and Gas to stop drilling in Susquehanna County. Cabot Oil and Gas has now responded:

Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (NYSE: COG) today reported on its remediation of three frac fluid releases at its Heitsman 4H Well location in Dimock Township, Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania. As reported to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), on September 16, 2009 during fracing operations being performed by Cabot contractors, Baker Corporation and Halliburton, there were two releases of frac fluid for a total of approximately 7980 gallons, some of which entered Steven’s Creek. The frac fluid is 99.5% fresh water and 0.5% gel. This mixture is not hazardous or dangerous.

Cabot has determined these releases were caused by failed piping connections between the frac tanks holding a fresh water supply and the equipment used to pump the fluid into the shale formation located more than a mile underground. Also as reported to the PADEP, on September 22, 2009 a release of frac fluid occurred on the same location of approximately 420 gallons. Cabot has determined this release was caused by a pressure surge which caused a hose to rupture.

After each event, and in conjunction with the PADEP, Cabot immediately mobilized a crew to pump the released fluid into on-site storage tanks and clean up any remaining fluid. Water and sediment samples were taken by Cabot at Steven’s Creek, after flushing operations, on September 17, 2009 and again on September 22, 2009. Results obtained to date confirm that remediation efforts have been successful. Dan O. Dinges, Chairman, President and CEO of Cabot, stated “Cabot has a zero tolerance for releases on Cabot properties, and takes its obligations very seriously in this regard. I am pleased with the remediation at the Heitsman 4H location, have been advised that minimal impact resulted from the initial spill containment measures, and there is no further impact to the environment as a result of the releases.”

Cabot is working with Halliburton and Baker to fully determine the cause of the releases and the appropriate additional measures to prevent reoccurrence in the future. Despite Cabot’s positive working relationship with the PADEP field personnel with whom Cabot interacts on a daily basis, Cabot received an Order from the Environmental Program Manager, Oil and Gas Management of the PADEP, located in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, to temporarily cease all hydraulic-fracturing/well stimulation operations in Susquehanna County, Pennsylvania until there is a full review of the incidents.

Dinges stated, “Cabot is disappointed by the PADEP’s issuance of this Order. Based on the facts as we know them, we disagree with several of the allegations made in the Order. However, Cabot is fully committed to understanding the cause of these releases, improving our contractor’s procedures and to the timely resumption of our fracing operations, all of which we will communicate to the market as new information becomes available. This Order has no impact on our drilling which will continue as planned, and there will be no disruption to existing production.”

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.