Hydrofracking by Prud & #39;homme Alex

Author:Prud & #39;homme, Alex
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Oxford University Press, USA
Published: 2014-08-15T04:00:00+00:00

Are the Chemicals in Hydrofracking Fluids Harmful?

The mantra of the energy industry is, as Energy in Depth puts it, that hydrofracking fluid is “greater than 99 percent … water and sand, and the fraction of what remains includes many common industrial and even household materials that millions of American consumers use every day.”46 Most of those chemicals, say industry boosters, are no more harmful than “what’s underneath your kitchen sink.”47

While some of the chemicals are common and benign—sodium chloride (used in table salt), borate salts (used in cosmetics), or guar gum (used to make ice cream)—others contain toxic additives—such as benzene (a carcinogen) or the solvent 2-Butoxyethanol, known as 2-BE.48 While they comprise a tiny percentage of the mixture, hazardous exposure to some of these chemicals is measured in the parts per million.

The most common chemical, used in particular between 2005 and 2009, was methanol; other widely used chemicals included isopropyl alcohol, 2-Butoxyethanol, ethylene glycol, hydrochloric acid, petroleum distillates, and ethanol.49 (For a list of chemicals known to have been used in hydrofracking, see the appendix at the end of this book.) Drillers tend to disclose only enough information about their fracking fluids to comply with worker-safety regulations. This usually consists of a product’s trade name and rarely includes a complete list of constituents. A 2011 congressional report found that of 2,500 hydrofracking chemicals used, over 650 of them contained “known or possible human carcinogens, regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or listed as hazardous air pollutants.” The report also revealed that between 2005 and 2009, 279 products had at least one component listed as “proprietary” on their Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) material safety data sheet, meaning that the company that produced and used it chose not to make it public. The congressional committee noted that “Companies are injecting fluids containing unknown chemicals about which they may have limited understanding of the potential risks posed to human health and the environment.”50

As for the small percentage of chemicals that are kept confidential, energy officials defend the use of trade secrets as necessary for innovation. This position is controversial, not least because every one million gallons of fluid blasted underground contains 10,000 gallons of chemicals.51 Without knowing what chemicals are being used, it is impossible to test a site for them. While under the Safe Drinking Water Act the EPA regulated most types of underground fluid injection, the 2005 energy bill—permitting the “Halliburton Loophole”—stripped the agency of its authority to regulate hydraulic fracturing, and hence to determine whether the chemicals it uses are dangerous.

As noted in the previous chapter, the argument behind this special exemption was that state regulations sufficiently protect the environment, and that companies should be able to withhold the identity and amount of chemicals used as a trade secret. The result is that drilling regulation is left to a patchwork of state laws, and it is up to drillers to decide what constitutes a trade secret.52

This has hydrofracking opponents howling that the fox has been left to guard the chicken coop.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.