It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Texas May Soon Make Drilling Chemicals Public

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Texas May Soon Make Drilling Chemicals Public


www.kristv.com

Texas could soon become the first state to require drilling companies to publicly disclose the chemicals they use to crack tight rock formations in their search for natural gas.
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.star-telegram.com
www.texastribune.org




posted on May, 30 2011 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Hopefully this will not get stopped with blackmail as the tsa billl was stopped with federal threats. I think it goes beyond saying we need to know what is going in our land, drinking water, and on the men who do work on these wells. This affects everyone, from people that lease out the land al the way to the workers who frac, animals plnts and our air.

www.kristv.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 05:55 PM
link   
reply to post by stonebutterfly
 

I fully agree stonebutterfly, and here is a good informative thread on the disclosing of chemicals involved with this process, which was a result of Haliburton being sued by the EPA for disclosure of chems. HERE
Haliburton hid behind the 'trade secret' defense for a while, but when people wanted to know what the heck was being used near, and sometimes in their water supply, the Co's had to answer.
Also, related info for Texans: Millions Of Lives At Risk From Refineries

Peace,
spec

edit on 30-5-2011 by speculativeoptimist because: add link



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
Its no big secret....any derrickhand on a drilling rig could give you as detailed a list as the on site mud engineer.....lost of nasty stuff but no National Security Material in there



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Homedawg
 


It's full of barium - drilling causes chemtrails!!

sorry...couldn't resits



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

Yea, maybe someone in your family with infants won't mind the fracking right down the road then. Just let them drink it because co's have never put profits before people, causing them any harm.
Oh yea, while we are gratefully entitled to our opinions, no one really likes a smart-ass.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:23 PM
link   
The primary material of ANY drilling mud is barite,an inert powdery substance that provides weight without any reaction...caustic soda, some potassium compounds,nothing to cause anyone to go to water about



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
A little perspective on the 750 chemicals used in the fracking process:

But the analysis of the fracturing gel that spilled at the Heitsman farm in Dimock Twp. on Sept. 16 and 22 identified 10 compounds, none of which is included on DEP's online summary of chemicals drilling companies told the department they use to fracture natural gas wells in the Marcellus Shale.
The list also does not include the Halliburton product used during the spill and does not name the generic ingredient "paraffinic solvent" listed by Halliburton on the chemical safety document.
One of the chemicals DEP identified in the gel - 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene - was found in the soil in amounts above the state's health limit. Several other chemicals were found in a swale and the stream after the spill.
Those chemicals, like many used in hydraulic fracturing, have undergone few studies to determine their risks to human health. Because Pennsylvania has not developed rules on the limits of those chemicals that are safe in streams, DEP instructed Cabot Oil and Gas Corp., the driller deemed responsible for the spill, to determine how toxic they are to aquatic life and humans.

thetimes-tribune.com...

Between 2005 and 2009, the 14 oil and gas service companies used more than 2,500
hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 chemicals and other components. Overall, these
companies used 780 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products – not including water added
at the well site – between 2005 and 2009.

Some of the components used in the hydraulic fracturing products were common and
generally harmless, such as salt and citric acid. Some were unexpected, such as instant coffee
and walnut hulls. And some were extremely toxic, such as benzene and lead. Appendix A lists
each of the 750 chemicals and other components used in hydraulic fracturing products between
2005 and 2009.

The most widely used chemical in hydraulic fracturing during this time period, as
measured by the number of compounds containing the chemical, was methanol. Methanol,
which was used in 342 hydraulic fracturing products, is a hazardous air pollutant and is on the
candidate list for potential regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Some of the other
most widely used chemicals were isopropyl alcohol (used in 274 products), 2-butoxyethanol
(used in 126 products), and ethylene glycol (used in 119 products).

Between 2005 and 2009, the oil and gas service companies used hydraulic fracturing
products containing 29 chemicals that are (1) known or possible human carcinogens, (2)
regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act for their risks to human health, or (3) listed as
hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. These 29 chemicals were components of more
than 650 different products used in hydraulic fracturing.

The BTEX compounds – benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene – appeared in 60 of
the hydraulic fracturing products used between 2005 and 2009. Each BTEX compound is a
regulated contaminant under the Safe Drinking Water Act and a hazardous air pollutant under the
Clean Air Act. Benzene also is a known human carcinogen. The hydraulic fracturing companies
injected 11.4 million gallons of products containing at least one BTEX chemical over the five
year period.

Gov Report
More info:
www.propublica.org...
coto2.wordpress.com...

spec

edit on 30-5-2011 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 

Yea, maybe someone in your family with infants won't mind the fracking right down the road then. Just let them drink it because co's have never put profits before people, causing them any harm.
Oh yea, while we are gratefully entitled to our opinions, no one really likes a smart-ass.


Fracking has gone on for decades and decades, and the most common "fracking" agent is .....WATER!

And yes, I would be comfortable with fracking down the road from me, as long as they knew what they were doing. I would be more concerned with films like Gasland that sensationize and make up things to cause hysteria.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
there is some pretty nasty stuff in those chemicals, maybe not national security, but it should be public. A release of information to the public is what we want here. We all need to know what were being exposed to. And if i recall correctly, there are some chemicals that the names are not released because of competion between fracing companies. i would like to know personally because down here, we are big oil and natural gas workers. If your not involved, odds are your father, uncle brother, son, or even females in the offices are involved. We need to know what is being trailed into all our homes through equipment , clothing , and any other gear. And no, most men cannot quit thier jobs because there are few options for work throughout many small towns here. It reminds me of the miners up in the mountains that say this is the only way to have a decent life and not live off the government. just thought id put that out there before the high and mighty condemn us for having to work hard labour.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 06:58 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 


So you did not read any of the EPA reports? Why the big fuss about disclosing the chems then, if they are so benign? You might want to check these vids before drinking the water too. HERE
Even if this is in the minority, I would keep a close eye on my water supply, if fracking was close by, but that's just me.
Also, why did Buffalo and Pittsburgh opt for making fracking illegal in their city? Why is France looking to outlaw the practice? www.isssource.com...



Fracking has gone on for decades and decades, and the most common "fracking" agent is .....WATER!

So was the use of asbestos and lead paint....
And water is 70-80 % of what is used in fracking, it's the 20-30% that worries me.

spec
edit on 30-5-2011 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
reply to post by firepilot
 


So you did not read any of the EPA reports? Why the big fuss about disclosing the chems then, if they are so benign? You might want to check these vids before drinking the water too. HERE
Even if this is in the minority, I would keep a close eye on my water supply, if fracking was close by, but that's just me.
Also, why did Buffalo and Pittsburgh opt for making fracking illegal in their city? Why is France looking to outlaw the practice? www.isssource.com...



Fracking has gone on for decades and decades, and the most common "fracking" agent is .....WATER!

So was asbestos....
And water is 70-80 % of what is used in fracking, it's the 20-30% that worries me.

spec
edit on 30-5-2011 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)


water is not asbestos, and those are naturally harmful chemicals if ingested. They do not frack groundwater, and they are trying to frack a geologic formation with oil.

Those geologic formations are capped at the top by a layer that is IMPERMIABLE, which is how the oil is still down there and has not moved up. If you frack down there, it is impossible for fracking fluid down there, to make its way thousands of feet up. Its much more likely if they did something wrong and has a casing pipe failure much closer to the surface.

But there is not a single verified case, according to the EPA, of fracking fluid getting into a water supply



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 

It's not the moving up that worries me, it's the moving outward to nearby water supplies. Again, why are cities outlawing this, and why did the EPA sue Haliburton for disclosre of chems, and why have the chems not been listed on any of the MSA labels?

It's the gas too, getting into the water that is a problem, but I guess that is a subtle digression to this thread, and more for fracking in general.
Look, I am aware of how the scare thing works with people and those out to make a buck with a overhyped conspiratorial piece, but this issue is more than that, imo.
Please read my thread,www.abovetopsecret.com... , which within, has a lot of good research, then, if you feel all is well, so be it, agree to disagree...

spec



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
Methane gas getting into water is going to happen. It has nothing itself to do with fracking though, since water wells are drilled shallow. But there are often pockets are natural gas, especially when drilling into sedimentary formations.

Gasland disingenously implies when that happens, its because of fracking, when thats not true at all.



posted on May, 30 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by firepilot
 



Methane gas getting into water is going to happen.

I kind of agree, but why has there never been a report of anyone's water faucet spewing flames? It,(including the several different vids in the utbe page linked) seemed to coincide with the increased pace of fracking utilization.

spec

edit on 30-5-2011 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by speculativeoptimist
reply to post by firepilot
 



Methane gas getting into water is going to happen.

I kind of agree, but why has there never been a report of anyone's water faucet spewing flames? It,(including the several different vids in the utbe page linked) seemed to coincide with the increased pace of fracking utilization.

spec

edit on 30-5-2011 by speculativeoptimist because: (no reason given)


Who knows why, maybe no one ever brought attention to it. Gasland claims it is from fracking when every government agency involved in that, agrees it was not from fracking. Fracking has gone on for a long time though too. But methane getting into shallow water wells, doesnt have the slightest thing to do with oil drilling and fracking formations that are incredible far below the water tables.

Even an conservation group I am involved with, admits that Gasland is not completely truthful in its claims. They are keeping an eye on natural gas drilling in the area there, just to make sure that nothing happens bad.



posted on May, 31 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Gasland is a bit on the fear mongering side but I hope we all understand the need for transparency and disclosure. This is all most of us are asking for. Im not saying bring down the industry, not only is it my bread and butter but it is a necessary service. Lets just have information on this. Let the public know what were all dealing with here.



new topics




 
6

log in

join