Oil and Gas Lawyer Blog

A study written by J. David Hughes and published in February by the Post Carbon Institute claims that shale gas reserves are vastly overstated. "Drill Baby Drill - Can Unconventional Fuels Usher In a New Era of Energy Abundance?"  A companion article by Deborah Rogers claims that the shale "frenzy" is a Wall-Street-created bubble, that "U.S. shale gas and shale oil reserves have been overestimated by a minimum of 100% and by as much as 400-500% by operators according to actual well production data filed in various states," and that "shale oil wells are following the same steep decline rates and poor recovery efficiency observed in shale gas wells." "Shale and Wall Street: Was the Decline in Natural Gas Prices Orchestrated?" Both are published on a website called shalebubble.org.  These nay-sayers are continuing a tradition that has followed the oil and gas industry for decades - the debate between the peak-oil advocates and those who believe we will never run out of fossil fuels.

David Hughes' study is worth reading. He studied more than 60,000 shale wells in the US and their rates of decline, costs and reserves. Hughes concludes that more than 1,542 wells will have to be drilled each year in the Bakken and Eagle Ford plays just to maintain current production, at a cost of $14 billion per year. He estimates that it will take $42 billion and more than 7,000 wells per year to maintain current levels of production of shale gas, whereas the value of the gas produced in 2012 was only $32.5 billion. Some examples from Hughes' study:

On overly optimistic predictions by the Energy Information Administration:

Hughes' decline curve for Eagle Ford wells:

Hughes' prediction of future production from the Eagle Ford and Bakken plays:

And on the world's insatiable appetite for fossil fuels:

 Hughes' study is mentioned in "What If We Never Run Out of Oil," by Charles C. Mann, in the May edition of The Atlantic magazine. Mann gives a broad historical perspective to the debate over the ubiquity of fossil fuels. Mann begins by recounting his visit to the Kern River oil field in California many years ago.  One of the first and biggest oil fields discovered in the US, Kern River was discovered in 1899. In 1949, after 50 years of production, analysts estimated that 47 million barrels of recoverable reserves remained. In the next 40 years, the field produced 945 million barrels, and in 1989 analysts estimated the field's remaining reserves at 697 million barrels. By 2009, the field had produced more than 1.3 billion barrels and remaining reserves were estimated to be almost 600 million barrels.

Mann then tells the story of M. King Hubbert, a prominent geophysicist at Shell oil in the 1950's. In 1956, Hubbert predicted that crude oil production in the US would peak between 1965 and 1970. In 1964 Hubbert went to work for the US Geological Survey. The head of the USGS at the time, Vincent E. McKelvey, was an optimist about US oil and gas reserves, and his agency issued optimistic assessments of US oil industry's future.  McKelvey denigrated Hubbert's pessimistic projections and eventually forced Hubbert to resign from USGS.  Although McKelvey derided Hubbert's theories, they proved to be correct, and the decline in US production led to the oil embargo and gas lines of the 1970's. Jimmy Carter adopted Hubbert's views in declaring that the planet's proven oil reserves could be consumed by the end of the next decade. The Carter administration imposed energy-efficiency measures including gas-mileage regulation, home-appliance energy standards, conservation tax credits and subsidies for weatherization.

Mann says that the debate continues today between pessimists and optimists, Hubbertians and McKelveyans, "hammering at each other like Montagues and Capulets." The difference between the Hubbertians and the McKelveyans is in their conception of what is a "reserve." The Hubbertians think of reserves as a physical entity - oil in the ground. The McKelveyans think of reserves as an economic judgment: how much petroleum can be harvested from a given area at an affordable price. In fact, reserve estimates are a mixture of the two - at least if you are wanting to know "recoverable" reserves. What is "recoverable" depends on the price of the commodity and the cost of extracting it. As prices rise, recoverable reserves increase. As technology improves and costs drop, recoverable reserves increase. And vice versa.  Because there will always be some oil in the ground that is too expensive to recover at any point in time, McKeleyans say that the world's supply of oil will never be exhausted. Thus the idea behind Mann's article: "Will we ever run out of oil?"

And now the shale boom, and predictions that the US will soon be energy-independent. If the past is any judge, any prediction is sure to be wrong.

Mann's article goes well beyond the peak oil debate. He explores the possibility of commercial production of methane hydrate as the next breakthrough in unconventional hydrocarbon resources. Methane hydrate is gas trapped in frozen water crystals beneath the sea bed.

Mann says that "Estimates of the global supply of methane hydrate range from the equivalent of 100 times more than  America's current annual energy consumption to 3 million times more." A core sample of methane hydrate was found to contain 99.4% methane. The ice crystals in which the methane is trapped can be lit afire - burning ice.

Japan has spent $700 million on methane hydrate research over the past decade. Its ship, the Chikyu, is the world's most sophisticated research vessel. It recently tested a method of recovery of methane from methane hydrate that produced about 4 million cubic feet of gas.

Mann speculates on the global geopolitical consequences of a shift to unconventional hydrocarbon resources like shales and methane hydrate. Although it would be a relief not to rely on Middle East reserves for US energy supply, such a shift could have destabilizing results in the economies and politics of nations who even now are in the middle of unsettling developments. Mann quotes Daron Acemoglu, an MIT economist and co-author of Why Nations Fail: "Think of Saudi Arabia.  How will the royal family contain both the mullahs and the unemployed youth without a slush fund?"

The US is unique among the 62 petroleum-producing nations in allowing private entities to control most oil and gas resources. In most nations, these assets are owned or controlled by the government. Michael Ross, a UCLA political scientist and author of The Oil Curse: How Petroleum Wealth Shapes the Development of Nations (2012), says that this naturally leads to corruption. Such oil-based economies become unstable when shortfalls in oil revenues eliminate the sole, unsteady support of the ruling elite.

The world has become totally dependent on fossil fuels for its economy and well-being. As Mann says:

[E]conomic growth and energy use have marched in lockstep for generations. Between 1900 and 2000, global energy consumption rose roughly 17-fold, ... while economic output rose 16-fold - as close a link as one may find in the unruly realm of economic affairs.

We depend on hydrocarbons for everything from lighting our homes to providing energy to build our computers to running our cars. Modern life would be impossible without hydrocarbons. Humankind's appetite for energy is insatiable, and is sure to grow as developing countries continue to increase their standard of living. We need to understand and be aware of the consequences. Mann's article is a good place to start.

Here are two good websites that provide interesting and balanced views about energy production and consumption:  The Rational Middle, and Think Progress. The Rational Middle is a series of films by the people that produced the movie Haynesville - A Nation's Hunt for an Energy Future. Its goal is to encourage rational thinking about our energy future and establishing achievable goals toward sustainable energy. The films about unconventional resources and the risks of hydraulic fracturing are worth looking at.

 

Think Progress's climate page introduces thought-provoking statistics about our nation's energy sources and uses. For example:

56.2% of the nation's energy is wasted each year - from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:

 Check them out.

 

I recently had the opportunity to view a documentary, "Switch," produced by Dr. Scott Tinker, Director of the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas and the State Geologist of Texas, and Harry Lynch, documentary filmmaker. Dr. Tinker uses as the premise for his film the question - When will the world ultimately switch from fossil fuels to cleaner, alternative energy sources? In the process, he examines the sources and uses of energy worldwide, their costs and benefits, in an engaging film that takes him from the huge open-pit coal mines in Wyoming to offshore oil rigs to a hydraulic energy plant in the Netherlands, from the top of a wind turban to solar energy farms, and from driving Tesla to installing more efficient heating and lighting systems in the home. In the process, he does what no film I have seen does -- provide a balanced, informed view of the role of energy in our modern world and where we are heading.

In addition to the film, Dr. Tinker has created a website, http://www.switchenergyproject.com/ , that provides additional short videos and other resources to further explore questions surrounding energy, including carbon capture, global warming, hydraulic fracturing, and alternative energy technologies. He interviews many world experts on global energy issues. The five energy issues you need to know, according to Dr. Tinker:

1. Energy drives the modern world and underpins every other issue.

2. We choose our energy based on four qualities: affordable, available, reliable and clean.

3. But clean is complicated. All energies have environmental impacts, which need to be managed effectively and affordably.

4. Even so, the biggest challenge of energy is scale - the enormous amount of energy we demand.

5. And the only way to counter scale, is with efficiency.

The website provides a calendar of screenings of the movie across the country and the world. I highly recommend that you look for it in your area, and see it. Finally, a balanced view of the large, long-range picture of our energy future.

We're in the crazy election season once again, and once again all candidates have promised "energy independence." Newt Gingrich promised to lower gasoline prices. President Obama takes credit for low natural gas prices. Governor Romney says we can eliminate imports of crude oil. Presidential candidates have promised energy independence ever since the oil embargo in Jimmy Carter's administration. The candidates know that, in fact, government policies have little to do with energy prices, and there is little they can do to influence those prices. It might be good to look at a little history.

First, natural gas prices are still essentially a domestic phenomenon. Although transportation of liquefied natural gas is beginning, it is still very expensive in comparison to domestic prices. And natural gas prices are still essentially a matter of domestic supply and demand. Consider these graphs:

 

Prices for natural gas spiked in the last decade; production increased; and prices declined. Supply and demand.

Unlike natural gas, crude oil is a world market, governed by world supply and demand.

 

World oil prices climbed over the last decade to reach $100/bbl at the beginning of this decade, and have remained high; U.S. production of oil increased, and U.S. imports declined. Yet prices remain high, due to global demand.

Texas has prospered as a result, increasing its crude production for the first time in decades, largely as a result of unconventional plays, principally the Eagle Ford:

 

Let's hope that some sanity will return to politics and energy policy after the crazy season.

 

A new documentary by Scott Tinker and Harry Lynch is now being rolled out at select screenings. http://www.switchenergyproject.com/aboutfilm.php#about Dr. Tinker was Director of the Bureau of Economic Geology, a joint organization of the University of Texas and the State of Texas, and a professor at UT's Jackson School of Geology, as well as the State Geologist of Texas. Their film has won the award as best film at the Colorado Environmental Film Festival, and other film recognition. It is now being screened at selected cities across the country, and in Canada and Australia. I have heard Dr. Tinker speak, and he has a wide knowledge of energy issues. The film took three years to make. There are other good films at the Switch Energy Project website: http://www.switchenergyproject.com/topics/alltopics

Be sure to see the film if you get a chance.

 

Rolling Stone magazine's Jeff Goodell has weighed in on the debate over natural gas reserves, the safety of hydraulic fracturing, global warming, methane groundwater contamination, and Chesapeake Energy's controversial finances, in an article titled "The Big Fracking Bubble: The Scam Behind the Gas Boom." Goodell pulled no punches. He calls Aubrey McClendon, Chesapeake's CEO, "an influential right-wing power broker." He says that "Fracking, it turns out, is about producing cheap energy the same way the mortgage crisis was about helping realize the dreams of middle-class homeowners." He claims that "for Chesapeake, the primary profit in fracking comes not from selling the gas itself, but from buying and flipping the land that contains the gas," and that Chesapeake "has more in common with Enron than ExxonMobil."

Goodell's article covers ground that is not new in the debate over the safety, ecology and economics of hydraulic fracturing. He touches on the study by Anthony Engraffea at Cornell University on whether natural gas has less global-warming effect than coal. He discusses the Duke University study of methane in water wells in Pennsylvania. He quotes Arthur Berman (Berman says miss-quoted), a long-time critic of the industry's estimates of shale gas reserves.

McClendon says he agreed to talk to Goodell after he was told that the magazine would publish an article on Chesapeake whether it cooperated or not. Chesapeake has issued a rebuttal to the article ("Although our expectations for honesty and fairness were quite low, the writer failed to reach even that low bar."), and Goodell has responded to Chesapeake's rebuttal ("The company entirely dodges the article's central point: that Chesapeake is a highly-leveraged firm operated by a corporate gambler who engaged in complex scheme to profit off the illusion that America has a virtually unlimited supply of cheap natural gas."). (Isn't the internet amazing?) 

Last Thursday I went to a showing of spOILed, a documentary about the oil and gas industry by journalist turned media analyst Mark Mathis. I recommend the movie as a good effort by a non-expert journalist to understand and analyze the place, importance and future of hydrocarbons in the world today. Unlike Goodell, Mathis comes down on the side of industry. He concludes that, like it or not, the world is dependent on hydrocarbons, which have made our 21st century economy and lifestyle possible; and that the world will not soon develop alternate sources of energy that could wean us from dependence on hydrocarbons, and so must continue to develop available reserves to prevent a catastrophic rise in energy prices if demand exceeds supply.

Whether you agree with Mathis or Goodell, the debate over energy and its future is one that should continue, and good journalists making real efforts to understand and explain the issues in ways that the general public can understand should be encouraged. Remarkably, there is very little debate over these issues in the political sphere, despite the recent environmental disasters -- the Gulf oil spill and the near-meltdown of nuclear reactors following the tsunami in Japan. I would encourage Mathis to read Goodell, and I would recommend Mathis' movie to Goodell. Each could learn something to learn from the other.

 

NASA has prepared a report on the rise of global temperatures that contains a great time-lapse view of global temperatures over time. You can view it here:

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20120119/

 

 

A study group sponsored by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has issued a report, The Future of Natural Gas, the fourth in a series of MIT multidisciplinary reports examinging the role of various energy sources and the effects of carbon dioxide emissions restraints.  The full 170-page report can be found here. The report analyzes the relative carbon footprint of natural gas compared to other fuels and the environmental impact of the development of shale gas reserves, among other topics. Here are some excerpts:

Major conclusions of the report:

• "There are abundant supplies of natural gas in the world, and many of these supplies can be developed and produced at relatively low cost."
• "The role of natural gas in the world is likely to continue to expand under almost all circumstances, as a result of its availability, its utility and its comparatively low cost."
• Natural gas is "one of the most cost-effective means by which to maintain energy supplies while reducing CO2 emissions."

Regarding gas's carbon footprint, the report concludes that "Among the fossil fuels, it has the lowest carbon intensity, emitting less CO2 per unit of energy generated than other fossil fuels. It burns cleanly and efficiently, with very few non-carbon emissions. Unlike oil, natural gas generally requires limited processing to prepare it for end use."

Regarding potential natural gas supply:

• "The mean projection of [worldwide] remaining recoverable resource [of natural gas] in this report is 16,200 Tcf, 150 times current annual global natural gas consumption .... Of the mean projection, approximately 9,000 Tcf could be developed economically with a natural gas price at or below $4/Million British Thermal units (MMBtu) at the export point."
• "The mean projection of recoverable shale gas resource in this report is approximately 640 Tcf, with low and high projections of 420 Tcf and 870 Tcf, respectively. Of the mean projection, approximately 400 Tcf could be economically developed with a natural gas price at or below $6/MMBtu at the wellhead."

Continue reading "New MIT Study, "The Future of Natural Gas," Touts the Future of Natural Gas Shale Development" »

Darell T. Brownlow, Ph.D, has published an article giving his analysis and opinion of the ability of the Carrizo Aquifer to supply water demands caused by fracing of wells in the Eagle Ford play.  The article was published in the newsletter of the Texas Ground Water Association, Fountainhead, and can be found here: Brownlow Article.pdf

Dr. Brownlow, a hydrologist, concludes that there is plenty of water in the Carrizo, in most places, to meet the demands for frac water. His estimates:

• There are about 6 million acres in the Eagle Ford play, and a possible 20,000 oil and gas wells (one well per 300 acres).
• An average frac job uses 15 acre-feet of water (4,887,765 gallons, or 115,375.5 42-gallon barrels).
• So, the frac jobs on those 20,000 wells would use about 300,000 acre-feet of water over the life of the play.
• Current withdrawals from the Carrizo Aquifer are about 275,000 acre-feet per year; so the entire demand for frac water from Eagle Ford wells would equal about one year's withdrawal of water from the aquifer.  At a rate of withdrawal of 275,000 acre-feet per year, groundwater management studies estimate that the Carrizo water table will drop an average of 30 to 35 feet by 2060.

Dr. Brownlow says that, if a successful Eagle Ford well makes 300,000 to 400,000 barrels of oil at $80/bbl, the return to the landowner would be $520,000 per acre-foot ($1.60 per gallon). In contrast, the return to a farmer using  the same acre-foot of water to irrigate corn, peanuts or coastal hay would be $500 to $1,000 per acre, or about $250 per acre-foot of irrigation water. "The point here is that using groundwater from the Carrizo for hydraulic fracturing in the Eagle Ford Shale has enormous economic potential for landowners, oil production companies and the entire region. Moreover, from a geologic and water planning perspective, additional impact on the aquifer appears minimal."

Dr. Brownlow is a resident of Wilson County, a cattle rancher in LaSalle County, serves on the South Central Texas Regional Water Planning Group (Region L), and was the governor's appointee to the Evergreen Underground Water Conservation District from 2000-2010.

James Fallows is a national correspondent for Atlantic Monthly. ( jamesfallows.theatlantic.com )  In the last few years he has lived in and written about China. He has written the cover article for Atlantic's December issue, "Dirty Coal, Clean Future." I am a big fan of James Fallows; he writes clearly about big-picture issues, is a deep thinker, and does not talk down to his readers. Mr. Fallows' article is about the future of coal as a source of energy in the world, and how China is developing "clean coal" technology.

Much has been made recently of new discoveries of natural gas in the U.S.; it has been touted as a solution to our dependence on foreign oil and as a way to reduce emission of greenhouse gases, by replacing coal-powered electric generating plants. Mr. Fallows does not write about new gas discoveries, but his discussion of the future of coal puts our domestic natural gas discoveries in perspective. Below are some excerpts from and summaries of Mr. Fallows' discussion. I recommend that you read his article in full.

Continue reading "James Fallows on the Future of Coal" »

A study group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has concluded that natural gas will play a leading role in the U.S. over the next several decades, both in providing fuel for the nation's energy needs and in reducing greenhous gas emissions. The study was conducted over two years by a group of thirty MIT faculty members, researchers and graduate students, assisted by an advisory committee of industry leaders and consultants. The study group has released an interim 80-page report summarizing its findings. A full report with additional analysis will follow later this year.

Among the study's findings:

Continue reading "MIT Releases Study on Future of Natural Gas" »

A new report on the risks and advantages of hydraulic fracturing by Ann Davis Vaughan and David Pursell, "Frac Attack: Risks, Hype, and Financial Reality of Hydraulic Fracturing in the Shale Plays," provides a much-needed objective summary and analysis of the recent debate over the safety of hydraulic fracturing. Ann Davis Vaughan founded Reservoir Research Partners and is a former investigative journalist for the Wall Street Journal. David Pursell is an analyst with Tudor Pickering Holt & Co., an investment banking firm in Houston specializing in the energy industry.

Continue reading "New Report Provides Objective View of Debate Over Hydraulic Fracturing" »

Gasland is a film documentary about the dangers caused by hydraulic fracturing of gas wells being drilled in shale plays across the U.S. It won a Special Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival this year. It was filmed by Josh Fox, whose family owns land in Pennsylvania that is in the Marcellus Shale Play. Gasland is now being screened across the country.

Josh Fox was recently interviewed about his film on the PBS program NOW. The film asserts that frac'ing of wells has caused underground aquifers to be charged with methane in Pennsylvania and Colorado and poses severe risks of contamination to the water supply. Josh Fox notes that hydraulic fracturing is exempt from federal regulation, and he advocates for passage of the FRAC Act now before Congress that would give the EPA jurisdiction over hydraulic fracturing.

The comments about the NOW story posted on its website evidence the growing controversy over frac'ing.

 

Continue reading "Movie 'Gasland' Stirs More Controversy About Hydraulic Fracturing" »

The Bureau of Land Management has signed a settlement agreement in which it agreed to "suspend" oil and gas leases covering BLM lands in Montana until it has completed a review of the effect of oil and gas development on greenhouse gas emissions.

The settlement was entered in Montana Environmental Information Center, et al. v. United States Bureau of Land Management, Case No. 08-178-M-DWM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, Missoula Division, on March 11, 2010. The case was brought by citizens groups who contended that federal law required the BLM to consider the cumulative impacts of oil and gas development on the environment, and specifically the greenhouse gas emissions caused by oil and gas well drilling and production, before granting oil and gas leases on lands in Montana.

The plaintiffs' petition contains some interesting facts:

The State of Montana published a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Reference Case Projections 1990-2020G, in 2007; it estimated that oil and gas operations in Montana released 4.7 million metric tons of CO2 or its equivalent in 2005, more than 12% of the state's total GHG emissions.

According to the Inventory of U.S. GHG Gases and Sink: 1990-2006, by the Environmental Protection Agency, oil and gas systems are the largest human-made source of methane emissions and account for 24% of methane emissions in the U.S. - 2% of the U.S.'s total GHG emissions. (Methane - natural gas - has 21 times the global warming impact of carbon dioxide.)

The EPA has a program called the Natural Gas STAR Program, designed to encourage oil and gas companies to voluntarily reduce their GHG emissions by following GHG reduction technologies and practices. EPA reported that industry partners in its STAR Program achieved GHG emission reductions totaling 92.3 billion cubic feet. This is equivalent to the annual greenhouse gas emissions from approximately 6.8 million passenger vehicles.

Companies producing oil and gas have reported success in utilizing a number of methane reduction measures, including replacement of high-bleed pneumatic controllers with low-bleed pneumatics, installing plunger lifts, using "green" completions (not venting gas produced during completion operations), replacing gas-actuated pumps with solar electric pumps, and utilizing vapor recovery units (devices that capture vapor emitted from storage tanks and recycle it back into the production stream), and conducting regular inspections of facilities to identify and reduce fugitive leaks from valves, flanges and other connectors.

We may expect that federal agencies like the BLM and the Minerals Management Service, who are responsible for leasing of federal lands, will move toward imposing requirements on oil and gas operators to reduce their GHG emissions by using best available technologies like those enumerated in the plaintiffs' petition in this case. Those same technologies could be used to reduce emissions in and around the Barnett Shale, where residents are increasingly complaining about emissions from oil and gas compressors and other facilities.

The debate over the safety of hydraulic fracturing continues. The Environmental Working Group, a Washington-based non-profit environmental advocacy organization, has issued a white paper, "Drilling Around the Law," calling for fracking to be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and to require public disclosure of chemicals used in frac fluid. The EWG claims that "companies that drill for natural gas and oil are skirting federal law and injecting toxic petroleum distillates into thousands of wells, threatening drinking water supplies from Pennsylvania to Wyoming." EWG claims that fracking has been linked to drinking water contamination and proeprty damage in Colorado, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wyoming and other states, citing articles written by Abrahm Lustgarten in ProPublica, another non-profit organization.

Meanwhile, Chesapeake has published on its website a "Fact Sheet" listing the chemicals used in its frac fluids in the Barnett Shale. The list includes "petroleum distillate," which Chesapeake describes as a "friction reducer," describing it as a product "used in cosmetics including hair, make-up, nail and skin products." The website shows that 99.5% of frac fluid is made up of water and sand, and only .5% is made up of additives, including "petroleum distillate." But the site does not show what percentage or volume of "petroleum distillate" or other additives are used in the frac fluid, or what kind of petroleum distillate is being used.

Another energy organization, Energy In Depth, has published a response to the EWG's white paper on fracking, "When Gummy Bears Attack." its author, Chris Tucker, cites data from the U.S. Department of Energy to show that "petroleum distillate" represents .088% of the volume of frack fluid. He says that petroleum distillates are used in lip gloss, sunscreen and gummy bears.

So what is "petroleum distillate"? Purdue University describes "petroleum distillates" as including all products derived from the distillation of petroleum, from diesel fuel to petroleum jelly to waxes and asphalts:

"Petroleum distillates are found in a wide variety of consumer-products including lip gloss, liquid gas, fertilizer, furniture polish, pesticides, plastics, paint thinners, solvents, motor oil, fuels and hundreds of other products. Petroleum distillates listed commonly on labels of general household products are those that distill off around naphthas. Petroleum jelly, a petroleum distillate product, is generally regarded as nontoxic.

"Petroleum distillates contain both aromatic hydrocarbons (carbon rings) and aliphatic hydrocarbons (straight carbon chains). The chemical structure of the hydrocarbon largely defines the nature and behavior of these compounds. Aromatic hydrocarbons are the most toxic compounds found in petroleum products. Most aromatic hydrocarbons are long-term toxins and known cancer causing agents. These aromatic compounds are found in all crude oils and most petroleum products. Many aromatic hydrocarbons have a pleasant odor and include such substances as naphthalene, xylene, toluene, and benzene. Aliphatic hydrocarbons are flammable and may be explosively flammable. Aliphatic hydrocarbons include methane, propane, and kerosene.

"Aliphatics and aromatics pose a special health risk if ingested and vomited. When swallowed, the lighter, more volatile distillate products can be sucked into the lungs interfering with the lung's functions and chemical pneumonia may result. Aspiration of fluid into the lungs can occur both during swallowing and vomiting of the product. Upon skin contact, petroleum distillates can produce local skin irritation and sensitivity to light in some individuals. Environmentally, many of the petroleum distillate products add to smog and water pollution due to improper disposal or during their manufacture and use."

The controversy over frac fluids has made the Wall Street Journal.

The industry claims that hydraulic fracturing is safe and is necessary to tap oil and gas reserves in the U.S. to reduce our dependency on foreign resources. Environmental groups claim that frac fluid can cause contamination of drinking water and should be closely regulated. Much of the debate appears to suffer from a lack of reasonableness and objectivity.