Carcinogens Injected into Wells During Gas "Fracking"

Sunday, April 17, 2011 by Associated Press
Report: Carcinogens Injected into Wells During Gas "Fracking"

WASHINGTON — Millions of gallons of potentially hazardous chemicals and known carcinogens were injected into wells by leading oil and gas service companies from 2005-2009, a report by three House Democrats said Saturday.

The report said 29 of the chemicals injected were known-or-suspected human carcinogens. They either were regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act as risks to human health or listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Methanol was the most widely used chemical. The substance is a hazardous air pollutant and is on the candidate list for potential regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The report was issued by Reps. Henry Waxman of California, Edward Markey of Massachusetts and Diana DeGette of Colorado.

The chemicals are injected during hydraulic fracturing, a process used in combination with horizontal drilling to allow access to natural gas reserves previously considered uneconomical.

The growing use of hydraulic fracturing has allowed natural gas production in the United States to reach levels not achieved since the early 1970s.

However, the process requires large quantities of water and fluids, injected underground at high volumes and pressure. The composition of these fluids ranges from a simple mixture of water and sand to more complex mixtures with chemical additives.

The report said that from 2005-2009, the following states had at least 100,000 gallons of hydraulic fracturing fluids containing a carcinogen: Texas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Wyoming, North Dakota, New Mexico, Montana and Utah.

States with 100,000 gallons or more of fluids containing a regulated chemical under the Safe Drinking Water Act were: Texas, New Mexico, Colorado, Oklahoma, Mississippi and North Dakota.

The report said many chemical components were listed as "proprietary" or "trade secret."

"Hydraulic fracturing has opened access to vast domestic reserves of natural gas that could provide an important stepping stone to a clean energy future," the report said.

"Yet, questions about the safety of hydraulic fracturing persist, which are compounded by the secrecy surrounding the chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing fluids. This analysis is the most comprehensive national assessment to date of the types and volumes of chemical used in the hydraulic fracturing process."

The investigation of chemicals used in fracturing was started in the last Congress by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which then was controlled by Democrats. The committee asked the 14 leading oil and gas service companies to disclose the types and volumes of the hydraulic fracturing products they used between 2005 and 2009 and the chemical contents of those products

GOP leader puts kibosh on Net neutrality bill

by Marguerite Reardon - September 30, 2010

The latest attempt to introduce Net neutrality legislation has stalled in a House of Representatives committee after a prominent Republican declined to support the proposal.

Rep. Joe Barton of Texas, the senior Republican on the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee, said he would not support a Net neutrality proposal put forth earlier this week by Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.)

Waxman introduced a proposal for Net neutrality that would have prohibited wired broadband providers from "unjustly or unreasonably" discriminating against legal Web traffic. The proposal was very similar to one that was put forth by Verizon Wireless and Google last month. Both proposals would have prohibited wireless broadband networks from the same nondiscrimination requirement.

Waxman said in a statement that he was disappointed that Barton rejected the proposal since the committee had included Republican staffers in its deliberations. Waxman described the proposed legislation as a win-win for consumers as well as broadband service providers by empowering the Federal Communications Commission to enforce violations while providing adequate protections for cable and phone companies.

"Consumers would win protections that preserve the openness of the Internet, while the Internet service providers would receive relief from their fears of reclassification," he said.

Waxman admitted the legislation was only a temporary stop-gap to protect Net neutrality until Congress could come up with a more permanent solution.

Barton said he couldn't support the proposal because he feels that Congress should be looking for a more permanent solution.

"I have consulted with Republican leadership and members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and there is a widespread view that there is not sufficient time to ensure that Chairman Waxman's proposal will keep the Internet open without chilling innovation and job creation," Barton said in a statement. "This is not a solution for the future of the Internet. America should be about preserving the vibrant and competitive free market that exists for the Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by federal or state regulation."

AT&T, which worked with Waxman and other lawmakers on the compromise legislation, also expressed disappointment that it did not get full support.

"While we are disappointed that it was not possible to introduce a bill with bipartisan support, we are mindful that these issues are important and complex, and that there was insufficient time to consider and act on our efforts," Jim Cicconi, senior executive president of AT&T's external and legislative affairs, said in a statement. "We are pleased that ranking members Barton and Stearns remain open to congressional action on this issue, and pledge to work closely with them toward that end."

The stalled effort is the latest in a long line of failed attempts to get formal Net neutrality rules in place. The Federal Communications Commission is currently working on official rules. But some critics argue that a recent federal court decision has called the FCC's authority into question. A court ruled earlier this year that the FCC did not have the jurisdiction to sanction Comcast when it was found violating Net neutrality principles.

Rep. Henry Waxman Pushes Bill to Kill 'Net Neutrality,' After Committing to It

Waxman's legislation, under the banner of mandating network neutrality, would prevent the govt. from requiring broadband providers to treat all web traffic equally.
By Stephen Webster, Raw Story
Posted on September 29, 2010

Legislative text put forward by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) under the banner of mandating network neutrality would instead prevent the government from requiring broadband providers to treat all Internet traffic equally.

Waxman, who has vowed that he would support the so-called 'Net Neutrality' policy proposals favored by most Democrats and progressives, has instead put forward an as-yet-unsettled legislative framework that explicitly prohibits the Federal Communications Commission from regulating broadband Internet under Title II of the Communications Act: a caveat key to implementation of what's been called the Internet's First Amendment.

Should the president sign a bill containing Waxman's language, it would effectively kill 'Net Neutrality' efforts and make key parts of a hotly contested proposal by Google and Verizon the law of the land.

While the bill [PDF link], first published by National Journal blog Tech Daily Dose, carries language that speaks of preventing ISPs from "unjustly or unreasonably" discriminating against "lawful traffic," the spirit of the rule is completely undermined by text that follows.

For today's fast-growing wireless networks, largely seen as the future dominant mode of Internet access, it makes a provision allowing for "reasonable network management," but prohibits blocking "lawful Internet websites."

It's unclear whether this prohibition would even be enforceable, since the bill states that it gives the FCC no new authority to regulate providers unless the company actually elects to be regulated. Violations of rules, which would be investigated only on a case-by-case basis, would incur a maximum fine of $2 million.

Critics of Waxman's bill say that $2 million is almost nothing compared to the potential profits that could be generated by engaging in questionable network traffic management practices. Another concern expressed by 'Net Neutrality' proponents is that bloggers or whistle-blowers publishing content the network providers object to could simply be deprioritized, leaving their material in a gray zone devoid of traffic, which many Internet users cannot easily access.

The legislation also purports to prevent wireless providers from blocking "lawful applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video communications services," but it again makes an allowance for "reasonable network management."

That term, "reasonable network management," is defined as "a network management practice that is appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management function". Waxman's text goes on to explain that "appropriate and tailored practices to reduce or mitigate the effects of what it calls "traffic that is harmful to or unwanted by users" are permissible.

The catch: "Users" includes "premise operators, [...] the provider’s network, or the Internet".

Stated in plain language, under Waxman's proposal, traffic that is unwanted on a provider's network may still be subject to "management." Instances of traffic shaping which can be construed as "unreasonable" pose only a minor inconvenience to ISPs, as the FCC is only investigating individual claims.

From an Internet user's perspective, traffic shaping and discriminatory practices are impossible to prove without the service provider's own admission that it is occurring.

"In determining whether a network management practice is reasonable, the Commission shall consider technical requirements, standards, or best practices adopted by one or more independent, widely-recognized Internet community governance initiative or standard-setting organization," the bill continues. "In determining whether a network management practice for wireless broadband Internet access service is reasonable, the Commission shall also consider the technical, operational, and other differences between wireless and other
broadband Internet access platforms, including the need to ensure the efficient use of spectrum."

In other words, "[the bill] allows blocking over wireless broadband any peer-to-peer activity or even applications, and merely forces 'transparency' rather than a ban on discrimination of lawful traffic," David Dayen summarized, blogging for FireDogLake.

Even lacking full consensus from fellow members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Waxman's text "seems to have enough support to pass the House," The Hill noted, citing three unnamed aides to the California Democrat.

Waxman, at one point, was a proponent of the Internet Freedom and Preservation Act, which would have truly enshrined network neutrality as one of America's emerging broadband policies. It was referred to the Energy and Commerce Committee in July, 2009, where it still lingers at time of this writing.

Here's what Waxman said about 'Net Neutrality' on Sept. 17, 2009:

The fears some have professed that Net Neutrality rules will stifle network investment have proven unfounded over the years. Most recently, over 2,200 public and private entities applied for broadband grants and, in so doing, opted-in to Net Neutrality rules. Industry will benefit from clarity, consistency and predictability with regard to Net Neutrality. 

As a member who has worked hard to protect the intellectual property rights of our creative communities, I do not believe Net Neutrality and strong copyright protection are mutually exclusive goals. In fact, clear Net Neutrality rules should help broadband network operators explore innovative steps designed to stop the theft of online content. I know our new FCC Chairman shares my perspective on the importance of achieving both goals.

Watch:

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a former FCC attorney selected by President Obama to lead the agency, has said he would like to reclassify broadband Internet as a universal service, subjecting it to the enforcement of network neutrality rules. He enjoys the support of the president on the issue, as Obama promised that his administration would usher in non-discrimination policies for Internet traffic.

However, given that Waxman's bill explicitly allows network management on every level -- including the blocking of content "unwanted" by users that include the network's providers -- it would appear the one-time advocate of enforceable network neutrality has completely abandoned the principle.

"Interestingly, the draft proposal has a sunset at the end of 2012," FDL's Dayen wrote. "That’s probably a good idea with all Internet-related legislation, given the fast pace of innovation. But it means that the FCC wouldn’t be able to do anything on reclassification until the next election, and I think the timing is pretty profound."