This article originally provided by The Charleston Gazette

February 16, 2011

Howard Swint: Tap water, fracking chemicals don't mix

The veil of secrecy over the chemical composition of natural gas fracking fluids is slowly being lifted.

And as this information comes to light, West Virginia lawmakers should call upon our wealth of chemistry acumen gained from our long history of industrialization when considering regulations of the industry.

This because the natural gas industry's public relations effort has already begun in earnest, driven in large part by the EPA's long-awaited study of the practice's "potential adverse impact" on water quality.

As a backdrop for the study, the EPA has called for the industry to voluntarily release its list of injection chemicals - a process hamstrung by the industry's longstanding opposition to identifying what compounds go into the ground, much less what comes out.

Chesapeake Energy's Marcellus Shale "Fact Sheet" is a prime example of the early spin wherein they state that their drilling methods employ 99 percent water and sand along with "special purpose additives ... found in common consumer products."

When described in this manner, the intent is to soften concern under the auspices that what's typically found in cosmetic makeup and under bathroom cabinets couldn't be bad for our water supply.

But on closer inspection the acids, corrosion inhibitors, iron control agents, bactericides, scale inhibitors, friction reducers, surfactants, gelling agents, and breaker chemicals that may well be in the corner of the garage certainly do not belong in our tap water.

Of course the devil is in the details, and given that the EPA study is a volunteer effort it comes as no great surprise that Chesapeake isn't listing sulfuric acid, naphtha, methanol, benzene, benzene glycol, toluene, ethanol and phenols as identified in other studies.

Neither are they detailing what effect the mix of these chemicals may have on their collective toxicity nor are they listing what else comes up from the ground such as naturally occurring radioactive substances and water-borne hydrocarbons.

But given that there are no existing federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing the presumption is something is better than nothing. Right?

Well, no, especially in the case of Chesapeake.

West Virginians have learned firsthand that Chesapeake cannot be taken at its word as it turned its back on its promise to build its eastern headquarters in Charleston and further gutted hundreds of existing jobs in the process.

Had it had the ability to move the gas wells and transmission lines from West Virginia it would have shipped them off to Oklahoma City, too.

So when Chesapeake says it uses common household chemicals, lawmakers should be skeptical and insist that all compounds used in the drilling process be listed according to the American Chemistry Society's registry number system.

The 100-year-old organization provides an "unambiguous way to identify a chemical substance or molecular structure when there are many possible systematic, generic, proprietary or trivial names."

In the case of Chesapeake, you can add "misleading" to the list, too.

Swint is an associate broker of commercial properties.