107
chemical additives are used in any individual frack, the EPA discovered that a
bewildering variety of choices are available. With new chemicals constantly being
added, it is virtually impossible to track them all, or even to just stay up-to-date. The
identity of many of these chemicals was unknown, with formulas and physical property information tightly held by the manufacturers as proprietary trade secrets. The
hydraulic fracturing fluid chemical additives that were identified had virtually no
information available on toxicity or other potentially hazardous properties of the
compounds. The fact that these various chemicals with unknown properties may be
entering the environment is a concern.
The O&G industry has been resisting the disclosure of frack chemicals for years.
With the strong support of then Vice President Dick Cheney, the 2005 Energy Policy
Act as approved by Congress and signed into law by President Bush contained a
provision that exempted hydraulic fracturing service companies from compliance
with the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program requirements of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Most UIC wells are used for the disposal of chemical
waste, and the intent of the rule was to make sure public records were being kept for
the disclosure of all chemicals being injected underground.
Shale wells are not UIC disposal wells, but fluids are injected underground and
service companies were concerned that a narrow reading of the law could require
them to publicly disclose the secret chemical formulas of proprietary frack chemical
additives being developed for shale. Competitors could then access and copy these
special formulas. The companies wanted the UIC rules modified to make it crystal
clear that they were exempt from revealing their secret frack formulas. Known as
the “Halliburton loophole” after Cheney’s former employer and the largest hydraulic fracturing service company in the U.S., the exemption is only for the UIC
requirements of the SDWA. It does not exempt industry from the entire SDWA or
the older Clean Water Act as some people have claimed. (More information is available at https://www.epa.gov/uog).
The United States has historically protected the trade secrets of companies that
develop a proprietary formulation or an industrial process, and service companies
invest a lot of time and money into developing hydraulic fracturing fluid formulations. Like the formula for Coca-Cola, fracking companies claimed the right to keep
their mixtures secret. While this is understandable, the large volumes and potential
environmental hazards of frack fluid additives can have a much larger impact than a
spilled bottle of Coca-Cola, so perhaps at least the toxicity and hazardous properties
data should be made available. The oil and gas industry has been exempted from a
number of federal environmental statutes for quite some time, for example the
requirement to obtain an NPDES permit (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System) for storm water discharges. So although the Halliburton loophole raised
concerns within the environmental community, by and large the O&G industry
couldn’t see what all the fuss was about.
The EPA drinking water study (USEPA 2016) also found that some activities
associated with hydraulic fracturing were more likely than others to have significant
impacts on water resources. These are listed below:
• water withdrawals in areas with limited water resources
6.2 Additives and Produced Water
chemical additives are used in any individual frack, the EPA discovered that a
bewildering variety of choices are available. With new chemicals constantly being
added, it is virtually impossible to track them all, or even to just stay up-to-date. The
identity of many of these chemicals was unknown, with formulas and physical property information tightly held by the manufacturers as proprietary trade secrets. The
hydraulic fracturing fluid chemical additives that were identified had virtually no
information available on toxicity or other potentially hazardous properties of the
compounds. The fact that these various chemicals with unknown properties may be
entering the environment is a concern.
The O&G industry has been resisting the disclosure of frack chemicals for years.
With the strong support of then Vice President Dick Cheney, the 2005 Energy Policy
Act as approved by Congress and signed into law by President Bush contained a
provision that exempted hydraulic fracturing service companies from compliance
with the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program requirements of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Most UIC wells are used for the disposal of chemical
waste, and the intent of the rule was to make sure public records were being kept for
the disclosure of all chemicals being injected underground.
Shale wells are not UIC disposal wells, but fluids are injected underground and
service companies were concerned that a narrow reading of the law could require
them to publicly disclose the secret chemical formulas of proprietary frack chemical
additives being developed for shale. Competitors could then access and copy these
special formulas. The companies wanted the UIC rules modified to make it crystal
clear that they were exempt from revealing their secret frack formulas. Known as
the “Halliburton loophole” after Cheney’s former employer and the largest hydraulic fracturing service company in the U.S., the exemption is only for the UIC
requirements of the SDWA. It does not exempt industry from the entire SDWA or
the older Clean Water Act as some people have claimed. (More information is available at https://www.epa.gov/uog).
The United States has historically protected the trade secrets of companies that
develop a proprietary formulation or an industrial process, and service companies
invest a lot of time and money into developing hydraulic fracturing fluid formulations. Like the formula for Coca-Cola, fracking companies claimed the right to keep
their mixtures secret. While this is understandable, the large volumes and potential
environmental hazards of frack fluid additives can have a much larger impact than a
spilled bottle of Coca-Cola, so perhaps at least the toxicity and hazardous properties
data should be made available. The oil and gas industry has been exempted from a
number of federal environmental statutes for quite some time, for example the
requirement to obtain an NPDES permit (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System) for storm water discharges. So although the Halliburton loophole raised
concerns within the environmental community, by and large the O&G industry
couldn’t see what all the fuss was about.
The EPA drinking water study (USEPA 2016) also found that some activities
associated with hydraulic fracturing were more likely than others to have significant
impacts on water resources. These are listed below:
• water withdrawals in areas with limited water resources
6.2 Additives and Produced Water