• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Home
  • About
  • Podcast
  • Archives

Atomic Insights

Atomic energy technology, politics, and perceptions from a nuclear energy insider who served as a US nuclear submarine engineer officer

Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Calls Gas Industry "Close to Insane" Regarding Failure to Disclose Fracking Chemicals

September 5, 2010 By Rod Adams

On September 4, 2010, CBS News aired a story about the controversy and impacts of hydraulic fracturing for natural gas in the Marcellus Shale. The video includes some footage showing how the drilling equipment can alter the landscape of what appears to have been a rather quiet rural neighborhood.

John Hanger, the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, had this to say about the natural gas industry and its resistance to disclosing the list of chemicals that they use in the process of breaking and holding open the cracks in shale so that gas will flow into their collection systems.

I think the industry is way out of bounds for not disclosing the list of chemicals. I think the industry is close to insane to have allowed that issue to become a source of suspicion.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

About Rod Adams

Rod Adams is Managing Partner of Nucleation Capital, a venture fund that invests in advanced nuclear, which provides affordable access to this clean energy sector to pronuclear and impact investors. Rod, a former submarine Engineer Officer and founder of Adams Atomic Engines, Inc., which was one of the earliest advanced nuclear ventures, is an atomic energy expert with small nuclear plant operating and design experience. He has engaged in technical, strategic, political, historic and financial analysis of the nuclear industry, its technology, regulation, and policies for several decades through Atomic Insights, both as its primary blogger and as host of The Atomic Show Podcast. Please click here to subscribe to the Atomic Show RSS feed. To join Rod's pronuclear network and receive his occasional newsletter, click here.

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Finrod says

    September 5, 2010 at 8:54 AM

    I think we may reasonably work on the premise that the leaders of the natgas industry are not insane. In which case, what rational motive do they have for their evasive behaviour?

    • katana0182 (Dave) says

      September 5, 2010 at 10:04 AM

      I don’t know. Greed?

    • Jason Ribeiro says

      September 5, 2010 at 2:50 PM

      I would agree with Dave. It’s all about money. I believe it was the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which stripped the EPA of overseeing fracking. Barack Obama voted for that bill as a senator. The bill had some good and bad items, it was a conflated bag of compromises and lobbyist give aways.

  2. katana0182 (Dave) says

    September 5, 2010 at 10:56 AM

    What is so dangerous about fracking is that it destroys the barriers between geological formations, injects unknown chemicals in there, and threatens groundwater quality. Impacts at the surface at any drilling site can and ought to be mitigated, at least when the drilling phase ends and the production phase begins, but when you get into underground occurrences like aquifer chemical plumes and the like – these cannot easily be cleaned up. Even near-surface aquifer plumes – caused by former manufactured gas plants, poorly-managed industrial facilities, leaky underground oil storage tanks, and/or local governmental negligence (as in Love Canal) – are already very difficult to mitigate. The aquifer plumes potentially caused by fracking are much further below the surface and likely are impossible to mitigate.
    In a way, it’s worse than mountaintop removal mining. Destroyed landscapes can be rebuilt to the original geography of the region, and, with time, can regrow, while a destroyed subsurface geology may contaminate groundwaters for thousands of years, making them unfit for human or animal consumption. That even the general idea of what chemicals are involved is not being disclosed – hardly a trade secret – seems to be a clear signal that there is something that somebody is hiding. I cannot help but believe that this bodes ill for groundwater users…

  3. crf says

    September 5, 2010 at 3:20 PM

    I saw a show on PBS on drilling, It may have been gasland — I didn’t watch the whole program, where fraking chemicals were discussed. They had an EPA worker (or perhaps she was an ex-worker), noting that the EPA did not know what to look for when taking ground water samples to look for potential contamination from fraking chemicals, since no list of chemicals and their concentrations is made known by Industry to the EPA, or other government agencies. No government entity knows!
    The reason industry gave for non-disclosure to the government and regulators, let alone the general public or affected landowners: trade secrets.
    OK, so I’m sure the industry has been working REEALLLY hard to work with government agencies so that 1) trade secret info is protected while 2) allowing government agencies to still monitor public & private land and aquifers and watesheds to understand the behaviour of fraking chemicals in the environment.
    I don’t know how, after this show’s very simple presentation, that anyone could think that this industry is anything but plain and simply evil. They get away with it, because the law allows what they are doing. But the industry has been heavily involved in influencing these laws. As the saying goes: be careful what you wish for. The industry may be getting the complete run of the land right now, thanks to their governmental machinations, but the public is losing what trust they put in the industry, which could cause much harm to the industry in the future!

Primary Sidebar

Categories

Join Rod’s pronuclear network

Join Rod's pronuclear network by completing this form. Let us know what your specific interests are.

Recent Comments

  • Eino on Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin
  • Rod Adams on Can prototype nuclear reactors be licensed in the US under current rules?
  • Rob Brixey on Can prototype nuclear reactors be licensed in the US under current rules?
  • Jon Grams on Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin
  • Rod Adams on Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin

Follow Atomic Insights

The Atomic Show

Atomic Insights

Recent Posts

Oil and gas opposition to consolidate interim spent fuel (CISF) storage facilities in Permian Basin

Atomic Energy Wells

Enough with “renewables!”

Can prototype nuclear reactors be licensed in the US under current rules?

Atomic Show #303 – Bret Kugelmass, CEO Last Energy

  • Home
  • About Atomic Insights
  • Atomic Show
  • Contact
  • Links

Search Atomic Insights

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Atomic Insights

Terms and Conditions - Privacy Policy