We will be performing maintenance on the SourceWatch wiki on Saturday, November 21, 2009, beginning at 11am EST. During this time, editing will be suspended and the wiki will be offline at times. The process will take several hours. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you. Thank you for your continued support of the SourceWatch project!

Marcellus Shale

From SourceWatch

Jump to: navigation, search


This article is part of the Water portal on SourceWatch.
This article is part of the Coal Issues portal on SourceWatch, a project of CoalSwarm and the Center for Media and Democracy.
Marcellus Shale is an extensive formation of shale (a type of sedimentary rock that is "carbonaceous," high in carbon) which underlies much of Ohio, West Virginia, Pennsylvania and New York. (Small areas of Marcellus Shale also underly Maryland, Kentucky, Tennessee and Virginia. An associated shale deposit -- the Devonian Black Shale Succession -- also underlies further parts of Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama.)[1]

The "Marcellus Formation" has received renewed attention both because of new estimates of the size of natural gas "reserves" contained below the layers of shale[2] and because of the significant environmental concerns that have been raised about the method of extracting the shale, "hydrofracking" which is discussed in more detail below. Estimates of the size of the reserves range from 1.9 trillion cubic feet (TCF), by the U.S. Geological Survey in 2003,[3] to nearly 500 TCF (which would be the second largest natural gas reserve in the world),[4] by a college professor who has received numerous grants from the American Chemical Society's Petroleum Research Fund.[5]

Contents

[edit]

Hydrofracking and the "Halliburton loophole"

The method for extracting gas from the Marcellus Shale--a process called "horizontal hydrolic fracturing" or hydrofracking, in which a fluid is injected into the rock which then releases the gas along with radioactive toxins and other hazardous substances in the shale--has raised serious environmental and health concerns.[6] In New Mexico, for example, similar processes have leached toxic chemicals into the water table at 800 sites.[7]

Yet, in 2005, at the urging of Vice President Dick Cheney, Congress created the so-called "Halliburton loophole" to the Clean Water Drinking Act (CWDA) to prevent the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from regulating this process, despite its demonstrated contamination of drinking water. (In 2001, Cheney's "energy task force" had touted the benefits of hydrofracking, while redacting references to human health hazards associated with hydrofracking; Halliburton, which was previously led by Cheney, reportedly earns $1.5 billion a year from its energy operations, which relies substantially on its hydrofracking business.)[8]

According to ProPublica reporter Abrahm Lustgarten, the EPA under Christine Todd Whitman's tenure as Administrator engaged in secret negotiations with industry, while supposedly addressing drinking water issues related to a gas drilling technique known as hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking."[9] In 2004, the EPA undertook a study on the issue and "the EPA, despite its scientific judgment that there was a potential risk to groundwater supplies, which their report clearly says, then went ahead and very surprisingly concluded that there was no risk to groundwater," Lustgarten said in September 2009. "[P]art of my reporting found that throughout that process the EPA was closer than seemed comfortable with the industry. I filed FOIA requests for some documents and found conversations between Halliburton employees and the EPA researchers, essentially asking for an agreement from Halliburton in exchange for more lax enforcement. The EPA, in these documents, appeared to offer that and agree to that. And it doesn’t appear, by any means, to have been either a thorough or a very objective study." [10]

In June 2009 Representatives Diana DeGette, DeGette, John Salazar and Maurice Hinchey and Senators Robert P. Casey Jr. and Chuck Schumer introduced the Fracking Responsibility and Awareness of Chemicals Act (FRAC ACT).[11] The act is aimed at closing the 'Halliburton loophole' and requiring the oil and gas industry to disclose the chemicals used in drilling projects.

In late October 2009 the House of Representatives agreed to include a statement in the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill and report for fiscal year 2010 urging the EPA to reassess the impact of fracking on water supplies. The report stated:

"The conferees urge the EPA to carry out a study on the relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water, using a credible approach that relies on the best available science, as well as independent sources of information. The conferees expect the study to be conducted through a transparent, peer-reviewed process that will ensure the validity and accuracy of the data. EPA shall consult with other federal agencies as well as appropriate state and interstate regulatory agencies in carrying out the study, and it should be prepared in accordance with EPA quality assurance principles."[12]
[edit]

Environmental Problems with Hydrofracking the Marcellus Shale for Natural Gas

To force natural gas out of shale, millions of gallons of fresh, drinkable water are forced through a pipe drilled into the shale. A variety of chemicals are added to the water to keep the fractures in the shale open and keep the gas flowing to the surface. While there is no complete list of the cocktail of chemicals used in this process, information obtained from environmental clean-up sites demonstrates that known toxins are routinely being used, including hydrochloric acid, diesel fuel (which contains benzene, tuolene, and xylene) as well as formaldehyde, polyacrylimides, and chromates.[13] These chemicals include known carcinogens and other hazardous substances.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists:

"When an EPA study concluding that hydraulic fracturing "poses little or no threat" to drinking water supplies was published in 2004, several EPA scientists challenged the study's methodology and questioned the impartiality of the expert panel that reviewed its findings. The Bush administration has strongly supported hydraulic fracturing, an oil extraction technique developed by Halliburton Co., but environmental groups as well as scientists within the EPA have warned that the practice may contaminate drinking water and needs to be regulated."[14]

For more information on the environmental impact of hydrofracking on U.S. residents and efforts to close the Halliburton loophole, see http://www.earthworksaction.org/pubs/JointFS_HalliburtonLoophole.pdf.

[edit]

Groups working on gas extraction from Marcellus Shale

[edit]

Media Groups Tracking Marcellus Shale Issues

[edit]

Texas Groups Familiar with the Issues of Gas Extraction from Shale

[edit]

Industry groups and companies promoting the exploitation of the Marcellus Shale deposits

[edit]

Industry Companies and Groups Opposing Tighter Regulation of Fracking

[edit]

Articles and Resources

[edit]

Related SourceWatch Articles

[edit]

References

  1. ↑ Catskill Mountainkeeper, "Marcellus Shale: The Marcellus Shale – America's next super giant", Catskill Mountainkeeper website, accessed March 2009.
  2. ↑ Mary Esch, "Estimated gas yield from Marcellus shale goes up", International Business Times, November 4, 2008. (This is an AP story). "Got gas, lots," Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, November 5, 2008.
  3. ↑ Robert C. Millici and others, Assessment of Undiscovered Oil and Gas Resources of the Appalachian Basin Province, U.S. Geological Survey, Fact Sheet 009-03, February 2003. (Pdf)
  4. ↑ David Rottman, "Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map", MIT Technology Review, Nov/Dec 2009.
  5. ↑ "Gary G. Lash", accessed October 2009. (This CV reports a $130,991 grant from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. The year of the grant is not stated but it was after June 2003.)
  6. ↑ "What Is Hydraulic Fracturing?", Pro Publica, undated, accessed October 2009.
  7. ↑ Abrahm Lustgarten, "New York’s Gas Rush Poses Environmental Threat", ProPublica, July 22, 2008.
  8. ↑ Tom Hamburger and Allen C. Miller, "Halliburton's Interests Assisted by the White House", Los Angeles Times, October 14, 2004.
  9. ↑ See http://www.democracynow.org/2009/9/3/fracking_and_the_environment_natural_gas.
  10. ↑ Interview with Abrahm Lustgarten, "Fracking and the Environment: Natural Gas Drilling, Hydraulic Fracturing and Water Contamination," Democracy Now!, September 3, 2009.
  11. ↑ "Senators, Representatives act to close Halliburton Loophole in the Safe Drinking Water Act", Media Release, June 9, 2009.
  12. ↑ Congressman Maurice Hinchey, "Congress Gives Final Approval to Hinchey Provision Urging EPA to Conduct New Study on Risks Hydraulic Fracturing Poses to Drinking Water Supplies", Media Release, October 29, 2009.
  13. ↑ Weston Wilson, Letter to Senators Allard and Campbell and Representative DeGette, October 8, 2004. This letter, from a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Employee, describes how the Bush Administration's EPA produced a scientifically unsupportable conclusion that hydrofracking should not be regulated under the Clean Water Drinking Act.
  14. ↑ Union of Concerned Scientists, "EPA Findings on Hydraulic Fracturing Deemed 'Unsupportable'", Union of Concerned Scientists website, undated, accessed October 2009.
[edit]

External resources

[edit]

External Articles

This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.
Retrieved from "http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marcellus_Shale"
Personal tools

This encyclopedia is written by people like you, so jump in.

Be a SourceWatcher!

Enter your e-mail address to get the Center for Media and Democracy's free weekly e-newsletter.