New Congressional Inquiries On Hydraulic Fracturing; EPA Delays Compression Station Rule; GHG Limits Face New Hurdle

Congressional concern about "fracking" took another step forward when the chairman of the House Energy & Commerce Committee sent letters to eight companies asking for details on the chemicals they use during horizontal drilling of shale gas deposits.

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) chairman of the committee, implied in a memorandum to committee members explaining the need for the letters that the "Big Three" of fracking may have violated a voluntary memorandum of agreement (MOA) they signed with the Environmental Protection Agency in 2005. That MOA obligated them to forswear use of diesel fuel in hydraulic fracturing fluids injected into coalbed methane production wells in underground sources of drinking water. The three companies are Halliburton, BJ Services, and Schlumberger. The MOA did not extend to natural gas production. Waxman claimed BJ Services already admitted a violation.

Jeff Smith, a spokesman for BJ Services, admits the company did inadvertently violate the MOA in 2007. He says the company has replaced diesel oil with mineral oil in all fracking liquids it uses for underground water and shale deposit work.

Halliburton calls the implication that it had violated the MOA "completely inaccurate." In a statement in response to the Waxman letter, it said: "Halliburton is firmly committed to full compliance with the MOA and has, in fact, voluntarily gone further to cease the use of diesel in its liquid gel concentrates regardless of the type of HF job in which they are used."

Waxman and others in Congress are concerned not just about use of diesel in fracking but other chemicals as well, such as benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene which theoretically could contaminate sources of drinking water. "There has been no evidence presented to us that suggests fracking is contaminating the drinking water supply," states Smith.

Given the potential for shale gas production, Congress is unlikely to limit fracking per se. But legislation called the FRAC Act has already been introduced in Congress which would require developers of shale gas production to disclose the chemicals in fracking fluids. The EPA would control that new reporting requirement. Major natural gas companies told a congressional committee in hearings early this year that they oppose the FRAC Act because they are concerned with how the EPA may administer the law.

Waxman's investigation could give new steam to the FRAC Act, or defuse it, depending on what he learns. His letters to all eight companies asked about the identity of chemicals they are using in fracking fluids and their total use, potential safety and health issues, documents related to allegations that fracking liquids are dangerous, figures on wastewater disposal and other issues. The other five companies queried are Frac Tech Services, Superior Well Services, Universal Well Services, Sanjel Corporation and Calfrac Well Services.

Under the Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act, approximately 22,000 industrial and federal facilities must report to EPA the quantity of toxic chemicals they release, store, or transfer, which is then made public in the annual Toxics Release Inventory (TRI). Oil and gas exploration and production facilities are exempt from this reporting requirement. EPA also does not have authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to require disclosure of the chemicals injected in hydraulic fracturing operations. Those are two laws Congress could amend to cover fracing disclosure.