Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Checkmateking on July 18, 2010 at 9:34

I wonder what Halliburton, Schlumberger, etc. will have to say about this issue, we are talknig about very confidential proprietary information.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Skip Peel - Mineral Consultant on July 18, 2010 at 9:54

Range is not the first E&P to make statements in support of disclosure regarding frac fluid formulas. If memory serves Exxon Mobil did so several months back. Yes, the formulas are the property of the service companies but if their customers bring their, eh, influence to be bear they may be persuaded to publish the ingredients and concentrations. I suspect that the major companies already know what is in the fluid mix and think that the political battle with environmental lobby would be defused to some degree by getting the facts on the table. I doubt they would support disclosure if they did not think they could defend the safety of the fluid as used.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on July 18, 2010 at 10:35

I copied & pasted the part above where Cathy Landry says, "... with appropriate confientiality protections." Perhaps Haliburton & Schlumberger will be the ones to determine what those "protections" will be?

I agree with Skip's sentiments regarding diffusing the political & environmental [debates] (heh, heh). I also think they may recognize that, given certain other (ahem) situations, if the push to convince government & industry is to happen, this would be an advantageous time. Shoot (pun intended), if the NRA can reach a compromise to get an exemption, why not O&G?

(cue Jack Blake)

80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on July 18, 2010 at 11:27

We really need to stop this nonsense. If you're injecting it into the environment, even far underground, we the people need to have a complete list of chemicals involved.

Especially if

1) Workers are sometimes exposed to it.
2) It does vent to the surface during flowback.
3) There are occasional leaks or spills.
4) Large quantities are being transported over the roads.

If you don't want to divulge the chemicals involved, keep the mix in a locked room somewhere.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on July 18, 2010 at 13:15

Mac - I believe API is saying that they DO support disclosing to state regulators. I'm not really sure I understand what you're saying is "nonsense." Is it that you want the transparency to extend to the public?

IMO, I'm just glad that there could be this much of a concession. As Landry says, it would finally give emergency responders something to work with for now. And if the emergency & medical fields are better able to treat "accidents," that's certainly better than taking shots in the dark for those needing treatment. A proper diagnosis may also afford them the opportunity to get monetary relief, too.

Yes, total transparency would be great, but I wouldn't go slamming this door of opportunity shut just because it's only opened a crack.

thanks 80)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mac Davis on July 18, 2010 at 16:42

Good point, sesport. What I call "nonsense" is that they were ever allowed to inject undisclosed and possibly toxic chemicals into the ground.

I don't necessarily think that fracing is dangerous. I just don't believe they should be allowed to keep the chemicals used secret.

I applaud API for whatever progress they are making in terms of full disclosure of chemicals used.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by sesport on July 18, 2010 at 19:31

Mac - If I'm reading this amended rule correctly, there should now be less fluids disposed as more of it is recycled.

http://dnr.louisiana.gov/sec/execdiv/pubinfo/newsr/2010/0324cons-am...

This, in summary, is what the amendment is all about, and I highlighted the specific phrase that I think will make a difference.

"Specifically, the Rule has been amended to eliminate the one-time usage limitation on E&P Waste and change the landowner affidavit requirement to an operator affidavit requirement."

I'll agree with you that fluids being moved around & used on the surface are a concern, but if they're being recycled there will be less of it being transported.

80)

• ▶ Reply