'Fracking' Report: Carcinogens Injected Into Wells, House Democrats Say

WASHINGTON -- Millions of gallons of potentially hazardous chemicals and known carcinogens were injected into wells by leading oil and gas service companies from 2005-2009, a report by three House Democrats said Saturday.

The report said 29 of the chemicals injected were known-or-suspected human carcinogens. They either were regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act as risks to human health or listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Methanol was the most widely used chemical. The substance is a hazardous air pollutant and is on the candidate list for potential regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The report was issued by Reps. Henry Waxman of California, Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Diana DeGette of Colorado.

The chemicals are injected during hydraulic fracturing, a process used in combination with horizontal drilling to allow access to natural gas reserves previously considered uneconomical.

The growing use of hydraulic fracturing has allowed natural gas production in the United States to reach levels not achieved since the early 1970s.

However, the process requires large quantities of water and fluids, injected underground at high volumes and pressure. The composition of these fluids ranges from a simple mixture of water and sand to more complex mixtures with chemical additives.

The report said that from 2005-2009, the following states had at least 100,000 gallons of hydraulic fracturing fluids containing a carcinogen: Texas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Wyoming, North Dakota, New Mexico, Montana and Utah.

States with 100,000 gallons or more of fluids containing a regulated chemical under the Safe Drinking Water Act were: Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Oklahoma, Mississippi and North Dakota.

The report said many chemical components were listed as "proprietary" or "trade secret."

"Hydraulic fracturing has opened access to vast domestic reserves of natural gas that could provide an important stepping stone to a clean energy future," the report said.

"Yet, questions about the safety of hydraulic fracturing persist, which are compounded by the secrecy surrounding the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids. This analysis is the most comprehensive national assessment to date of the types and volumes of chemical used in the hydraulic fracturing process."

The investigation of chemicals used in fracturing was started in the last Congress by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which then was controlled by Democrats. The committee asked the 14 leading oil and gas service companies to disclose the types and volumes of the hydraulic fracturing products they used between 2005 and 2009 and the chemical contents of those products

_____

Online: House Energy and Commerce Democratic site

Array

"

Comments

[decaturredbird]

11:37 AM on 05/10/2011

I live in Wise County, TX. There is a well being drilled in my 'hood every week it seems. I have had black mud pour out of my faucets for week at a time and the waterbeen milky for months. The water isn't the same as when I bought my house 7 years ago before the drilling started.

[Joe Dallas]

09:48 AM on 04/21/2011

The comments to this post show an astounding level of ignorance in basic science, in basic geology and the basic ability to reason. The ground water tables generally reside 100 to 500 ft below the surface, though rarely go as far down as 1,200 feet. Hydrocarbons are trapped in zones generally 4,000 ft to 25,000 below the surface. If hydrocarbons are entering the ground water, it is because the hydrocarbons are in a zone that is shallow and close to the surface. That was how the original spindle top well was discovered, oil was bubbling to the surface (long before fracturing). Fracturing is done in the zones where hydrocarbons are trapped by 3,000 to 15,000 feet of impenetrable rock which is why the hydrocarbons havent previously entered the groundwater. The use of fracturing fluids in these zones does nothing what so ever to allow the hydrocarbons to penentrate the rock. The oil companies have also been pouring saltwater back into the ground since the 1930's. Saltwater is far more damaging to the environment than any fracturing fluid cocktail. FYI, the salt water is trapped in the same zones as the hydrocarbons and is produced along with the oil and gas. The salt water got there back when the oceans covered large segments of what is now the land continents (during one of the last times the earth experience global warming).

[R]

12:18 PM on 04/27/2011

In some cases the toxic fracking fluid and groundwater may be separated by thousands of feet of rock, but they're connected by a nice conduit called THE WELL.

No human-engineered process is 100% efficient. Seepage and escape of released toxins (not to mention introduced toxins) via the bore hole is not only possible, but likely. Then there's the issue of millions of gallons of what is euphemistically called "productive waste," which is ejected along with the gas and has to be disposed of.

No matter how fail-safe you think a process is, you don't build nuclear plants on fault lines and in tsunami-prone areas, and you don't inject millions of gallons of toxic liquid in watershed areas.

[William Hunter Duncan]

02:49 AM on 04/21/2011

Here in America, stealing a horse was once a hangin' offense. Now, such cowboys can pump toxic chemicals into your ground water, and what do they get? Rich.

www.offthegridmpls.blogspot.com

[Mr Crabs]

03:42 AM on 04/20/2011

If only Obama would just get behind fracking. Then the repubs would go, "fracking is unamerican, where's it's birth certificate? We need to suspend all activity until all the data is in." Problem solved.

[Mr Bobo]

02:36 AM on 04/20/2011

Fine 'em into bankruptcy!

[farmilyman]

05:27 PM on 04/19/2011

No wonder the corporate TeaParty wants the authority taken from the EPA to regulate the environment. Their donors don't want to have to pay fines in the future.

[BillyShears]

09:54 AM on 04/19/2011

I don't understand why environmentally responsible/anti fracking organizations don't just come right out and say that ----fracking causes cancer. Period.
The rest of us need to understand that most of the general poulation clearly is unable or unwilling to listen to scientific facts.
Any explaination longer than 3 words is lost.

[batguano]

09:17 AM on 04/19/2011

Included in this shocking statistic, but absent in this piece, is the fact that from 2005-2009 the fracking criminals injected 32 million gallons of diesel fuel along with the carcinogenic chemicals, and millions of gallons of precious water, rendered then poisonous for human use, into the ground to gain private profit from natural gas extraction. The fact that this practice is apparently "legal" is all the more shocking and shows clearly the power of money to buy legislation and policy decisions that promote profits at the expense of the Common Good and common sense; these practices should be viewed as criminal, rather than business-as-usual. As with coal production that renders land and water useless for humans, fracking methods poison water, land and air quality, and nuclear that has the potential to make hundreds of square miles uninhabitable; how much destruction and public danger will we continue to tolerate to produce dirty/inherently dangerous energy rather than change and promote clean, renewable energy sources?

http://www.propublica.org/article/drilling-industry-says-diesel-use-was-legal

[norkas]

09:04 AM on 04/19/2011

Republicans politicians and many voters prefer to drink water that is contaminated and can harm them and their family then to correct the problem.

I have a very good friend who is a conservative and does prefer clean water and stopping the fracking that uses these chemicals. He agree with the majority of the environmental movement .

What he does not agree with is the global warming and my answer to this was.

Lets say there is a 5% chance that global warming exist why would you not want cleaner air to breath and a better environment to live in. This includes safe drinking water etc.

His answer was yes. Then i said what if in your mind global warming ideas were all false why in the hell would you not support ideas that make our planet cleaner the air , water and land better for humanity?

Yes he said.

Most conservatives voters prefer to drink toxic water then to agree with anything a Democrat and that is what happens when you have the extreme right wing taking control of Republicans talking points.

[wakeupyouall]

12:36 AM on 04/19/2011

AN REPUBS WANT TO ALLOW STATES TO DEREGULATE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS.

[cosmiCataclysm]

11:59 PM on 04/18/2011

The most baffling bit about this is the fact that, somehow, Baggers will be in favor of the corporate villains... 'cause it's about... Freedom?

[dead WASP]

10:32 PM on 04/18/2011

This is a crime against humanity...

[cosmiCataclysm]

12:01 AM on 04/19/2011

Agreed. When will a coalition of valiant pro-capitalist forces establish a 'no-frack' zone and chase the bad guys away with fancy airplanes?

[tacevad]

10:06 PM on 04/18/2011

my personal opinion on fracking is the same as it is on oil drilling and nuclear power, frack,drill or build as many nuclear plants as you want.... as long as before you do anything else you provide a bond in an amount equal to future damages. The going price on an oil well going bad is $20 Billion. (BP /Gulf of Mexico last year) risk assessment is not something to be left to those who stand to profit the most.

[Robert 999]

09:52 PM on 04/18/2011

Like deep water drilling, this needs to be stopped immediately, and investigated. Fracking is going on in Pennsylvania and many States, and there is no signs of pause,,, and lets look at what this is doing...

[chuck prebys]

07:35 PM on 04/18/2011

They put the poison right there into your drinking water.
Could it be any more obvious that they want you d-e-a-d?