Agenda 21, Al Gore, algae, algae jet fuel, Americans, Baltic Sea, Barack Obama, Berkshire Hathaway, Billionaires, bio-fuels, Blackstone Group, BP, Bush Administration, carbon dioxide, chemtrails, Chesapeake Bay, clean energy, climate change, CO2, Colorado, Congress, Constellation Energy, conversion, Corexit, Craig Venter, Dead Zone, Death, Deepwater Horizon, Deepwater Horizon oil spill, depopulation, destruction, DNA, DOD, earth, Elite, Elitists, Energy, environmental catastrophe, environmental disaster, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, ExxonMobil, farmers, fertilizer, GE, George Soros, Global Warming, globalists, GM, Goldman Sachs, Great Lakes, greed, Gulf of Mexico, Halliburton, Holocaust, Koch Brothers, Lake Erie, Life, major waterways, Martek Biosciences, Mississippi River, money, Nalco, New World Order, nitrates, nitrogen, Obama Administration, oceans, Ogallala Aquifer, oil, oil companies, One World Government, OriginOil Inc., Pat Stryker, planet, politicians, power-hungry, President, renewable oil, research, seas, sell, Sequestration, South America, stocks, Synthetic Genomics, T. Boone Pickens, technology, Transocean, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Military, United States, University of Chicago, Warren Buffet, water, Water resources, water scarcity, water shortages, world
I bring this information to the public with a very heavy heart. Some journalists revel in being able to expose the type of dramatic conspiracy contained in this article. I take no such pleasure in bringing this to your attention. I will receive no awards or accolades, nor do I seek any. I am setting myself up to be criticized as “one of those conspiracy theorists” with too much time on his hands who has nothing better to do with my time than to invent wild tales of corruption in an attempt to draw attention to myself. I will not be invited on Coast to Coast AM, to reveal my findings to an audience of 12 million people. Perhaps, 10-20 thousand people will actually take the time to read the stunning facts contained in the following paragraphs. What I am trying to accomplish is to start a chain reaction that will culminate in waking up a majority of the public in order to rise up against the abject evil that runs our country. This article is controversial, and I might not actually believe it myself except that every fact in this article is true.
This article is structured in such a way that if the reader takes the time to follow the evidence trail, there can only be one conclusion that makes any sense.
Specifically, this article will detail the following:
- The globalists through their government minions are in the process of destroying massive bodies of water including, but not limited to Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico. The destruction is not because of neglect, it is willful destruction with very ulterior motives in mind.
- The globalists are using nitrates from fertilizer and Corexit to accomplish their desire to create a dead zone in the aforementioned bodies of water.
- The globalists are creating water dead zones which will allow the proliferation of algae growth and the oil companies have initially led the charge to convert our energy usage from oil to algae.
- Prominent globalists are involved in this conspiracy and have contributed massive resources to this endeavor.
- Prominent globalists are attempting to buy up as much water as possible to exacerbate the destruction of water resources in the aforementioned areas. In other words, Americans are looking at extreme water scarcity from which the globalists can wage wars and force submission to their will, while at the same time carry out their stated depopulation agenda.
- My instincts tell me that this conspiracy has more breadth and depth than what is revealed here and it is my sincere hope that my fellow researchers will afford some much needed attention to these issues, because I strongly believe there is more to learn and we do not have much time because humanity’s fate hangs in the balance.
How many times in the history of the insurance industry, have individuals or businesses been caught setting fire to their homes and businesses in order to receive a lucrative payout of insurance money? This is exactly what BP and Exxon are doing. They are intentionally burning down their own home (oil) in order to construct a behemoth palace (bio-fuels).
From Parts Five and Six of this series, it was conclusively proven that BP, Goldman Sachs, Transocean and Halliburton prepositioned (e.g. BP stock dumping) themselves to make money from the destruction of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. However, there is a lot more going on in the Gulf than a handful of corporations each making hundreds of millions of dollars from their contrived role in the oil spill. The motive to destroy the Gulf holds the promise of making certain entities and individuals multi-trillions of dollars.
The Obama administration and many others (individual billionaires, select politicians, BP, Exxon, Nalco, GM, GE, Goldman Sachs, University of Chicago, and many others including the Department of Defense) are all deeply invested in bio-fuels. These billionaire psychopaths will willingly sacrifice the Gulf and all of its residents for this multi Trillion Dollar industry representing a new era of energy applications.
Algae Will Replace Oil As the Nation’s Energy Source
Nitrogen fertilizers and Corexit are being used to systematically create dead zones in large bodies of water in the United States. The use of nitrogen fertilizers and Corexit are accomplishing the same result. This is no coincidence, as the tragedy in the Gulf was perpetrated to accomplish this end.
Farmers apply nitrogen fertilizer to crops to increase yield. Farmers are compensated by the government for crop yield. Therefore, farmers overload the soil. Plants absorb only 30 to 50% of the nitrogen, so as much as 70%, or 87 pounds per acre will end up running off into the nearest body of water. The only thing that grows in this environment is algae. Therefore, nitrogen has a decided evil side as it is creating huge problems with major bodies of water that we are only now beginning to understand. The EPA is aware of the problem, yet remains silent on the issue.
Chesapeake Bay is polluted beyond repair in which massive fish kills, general habitat degradation and bacteria proliferation threatens the health of humans. The damage is rampant. This massive pollution, resulting from the nitrogen runoffs resulting from agricultural endeavors, fills the Chesapeake Bay and, again, the only substance which flourishes in the bay is algae.
Each and every spring, excess fertilizer is deposited into the Mississippi River which eventually ends up in the Gulf of Mexico, thus causing a massive algae bloom that leads to a giant oxygen-deprived “dead zone” where fish can’t survive. And the same thing is going on in the Great Lakes in places like Lake Erie.
Following the Gulf oil spill, and against all common sense, the most lethal form of dispersant, Corexit, was used to treat the oil spill. Instead, what happened is that the spill has resulted in the creation of the second largest dead zone body of water in the world; second only to the Baltic Sea. And, as the reader will discover later in this article, the new energy craze among the so-called environmentalists is algae.
In isolation, we seem to only be looking at a pollution problem that the EPA should deal with. Simply put, the use of nitrogen fertilizer and Corexit should be banned. However, when we look at the totality of the Corexit/nitrogen problem being used to destroy our water supplies, one should immediately sit up and take notice.
Once one understands that Algae proliferates in an otherwise dead zone of water, then one will understand why Corexit was used in the Gulf. And when one understands that fact, one can only conclude that Gulf oil spill was not an accident as it marks the ushering in of a new era in which the bio-fuel, algae, will replace oil. And, amazingly, the oil companies are among those who are behind this plot to destroy major bodies of water in order to allow for the propagation of algae.
President Obama is also participating in this conspiracy against humanity. On March 15, 2013, President Obama announced that it is his intention to move American vehicles away from oil to bio-fuels. Obama, amazingly in this period of Sequestration, has asked Congress for two billion dollars to expand research in this area. And isn’t it an interesting coincidence that the President’s science advisor,John Holdren, in 2009, advocated for “fertilizing” the oceans? I remember that most people thought Holdren had lost his mind when he proposed this as a solution for global warming. However, in the context of creating dead zones through the use of Corexit and nitrogen fertilizers, his suggestion makes a great deal of sense in light of today’s heightened interest in bio-fuels. This cannot be described as anything but psychopathic thinking in that the EPA would allow nitrogen fertilizers to destroy major bodies of water in which only algae can grow. And that this administration would even entertain the idea of creating oceanic dead zones through fertilizing these bodies of water is nothing but pure insanity. It is dangerous to the entire well-being of the planet. But of course, we are dealing with psychopaths.
How many brush fires equals an all-out forest fire? How many coincidences does it take to make a conspiracy? For those who think that there are some interesting thoughts presented here, but the conspiracy angle of destroying major bodies of water to foster the growth of algae needs more proof, let’s take a look at a variable which will connect all the dots.
Amazingly, the oil companies are attempting to lead the way in the process of converting our energy sources from oil to bio-fuels such as algae.
Burning Down Their Own Houses
I began to realize that many of our major bodies of water were being destroyed and all that was necessary to reverse the destruction was to halt the use of nitrogen fertilizers. Then I discovered that Corexit creates the same kind of dead zones just like nitrogen which also was unnecessary in its use because a less virulent dispersant could have been used in the Gulf. Did you know that Corexit is banned in 19 countries? It was at that moment that the light went on for me as I realized that we were witnessing the systematic destruction of major bodies of water on a grand scale. This was coupled with my discovery that the oil companies appear to be preparing to transition from oil to algae.
In August of 2009, BP entered into a partnership with Martek Biosciences to study the use of algae to convert sugar into biodiesel. Eight months later, BP’s and Transocean’s “negligence” led to the oil spill which gravely impacted the food chain, poisoned all life forms in the Gulf and dealt an eventual death blow to the Gulf by creating a massive series of dead zones where nothing will grow, except for algae, for generations to come.
BP is not alone with regard to a major oil company’s foray into the algae business. ExxonMobil entered into a partnership with Synthetic Genomics in order to develop energy’s next king, bio-fuels from algae. From this work, it was discovered that Corexit increases the bioaccumulation of petroleum hydrocarbons into golden-brown algae. For oil companies to be involved in algae conversion is the metaphorical equivalent of burning down your own house in order to collect the insurance money, and this is precisely what they did to the Gulf.
These facts certainly beg the question as to why BP and Exxon Mobil would be investing in a technology which would threaten their only viable product, namely oil?
Algae has the potential to avoid most of the problems of conventional bio-fuels production, such as competition with food crops, and in principle can have dramatic effects on carbon dioxide emissions, even consuming emissions from sources such as coal-fired power plants.
The major problem with using algae as the next bio-fuel is that the fuel yields from algae are still too low for it to be a break-even proposition. However, if that problem were to be solved, algae would be king because it is such a low-maintenance substance. In a related and stunning development, Exxon has partnered with Craig Venter, the pioneer of DNA research. Venter has a stellar record of achievement in his work on the human genome. If anyone can solve the algae yield problem, Venter would the guy. However, if Venter cannot solve the problem of algae yield, OriginOil, Inc. is developing a novel technology which will transform algae into a source of renewable oil. Below is a depiction of the process.
It Is Not a Conspiracy Until You Follow the Money
Readers need to keep in mind, that Exxon and BP began moving into the algae business several months prior to the Gulf oil spill and BP and its partners have been caught pre-positioning their stock moves to maximize profits and minimize losses IN ADVANCE of the oil spill event. And now they are leading the way to convert the nation from oil to algae energy use. These twin giant oil companies have had a lot of help in making this massive conversion a reality. George Soros is involved in “clean energy conversion” away from oil. Readers may recall from Part Six of this series proved that Soros financial interests were among the top five of financial institution which dumped BP stock a few short weeks before the oil spill, thus, making him a co-conspirator. And now Soros is heavily invested in Gulf algae farms as he has invested $1 billion dollars in the endeavor.
The US military invested $35 million dollars in algae jet fuel. Blackstone Group consulted with the Chesapeake Bay region energy provider Constellation Energy to sell company to Warren Buffet and his company Berkshire Hathaway. Buffet is majorly involved in bio-fuels and the algae laden Chesapeake Bay is prime hunting ground for this globalist. Al Gore is also involved in various algae projects as well. The same cast of characters keep rearing their ugly faces in their attempt to subjugate humanity while at the same time make a King’s ransom in the process.
T. Boone Pickens is well on his way to controlling the vast Ogallala Aquifer. Pat Stryker and Koch brothers are involved in garnering Colorado’s water resources in the beta test battleground for Agenda 21. Did you know that that it is illegal in Colorado to reuse irrigation water and to catch rain water? We should be asking ourselves why. Additionally, the Bush family controls the biggest water aquifer in South America. Meanwhile, the globalists are destroying vast amounts water resources in the United States. It seems that the globalists are hell-bent on creating water scarcity.
I do not believe that the globalists only motive is to destroy the Gulf and fresh water supplies so that their new biofuel craze can take hold. I think this is a byproduct to what the central planners are truly after, control over all water which will result in control over who lives and dies. This and more will be covered in the next installment of the Great Gulf Coast Holocaust.
Dave is an award winning psychology, statistics and research professor, a college basketball coach, a mental health counselor, a political activist and writer who has published dozens of editorials and articles in several publications such as Freedoms Phoenix, News With Views and The Arizona Republic.
The Common Sense Show features a wide variety of important topics that range from the loss of constitutional liberties, to the subsequent implementation of a police state under world governance, to exploring the limits of human potential. The primary purpose of The Common Sense Show is to provide Americans with the tools necessary to reclaim both our individual and national sovereignty.
agriculture, Big Pharma, bribery, CEOs, chemotherapy, Congress, corporations, corruption, cosmetics, crop failure, crops, Death, disaster, disease, earth, ecoysytem, environment, evidence, Evidence-based medicine, False evidence, Federal Government, Fluoride, food, food additives, food chemicals, fraud, Genetic engineering, Genetically modified food, Genetically modified organism, Genetically Modified Organisms, Genocide, GMOs, heavy metals, hormone disruption, humanity, Humans, Industry, Life, lobbyists, medicine, Monsanto, murder, Natural News, NaturalNews, Pesticide, pesticides, pharmaceutical companies, Pharmaceutical drug, plastics, poisonous, population, radiation, Science, scientific evidence, Scientific method, Toxic, vaccines, world
Of all the threats to humanity today, none is more destructive than modern-day “evidence-based science.” And by the word “science,” I don’t mean the humble pursuit of knowledge using genuine scientific methods. What I mean is the dogmatic, corporate-driven brand of distorted science based on falsified evidence, bribery of gatekeepers and corruption of government regulators. That “science” is killing us all with hormone disruptors, hidden food chemicals, heavy metals, genetic engineering and neurological disruptors. The pushers of this corporate-driven “evidence-based science” claim to be aiding humanity, yet their actions prove they are only destroying the health of the population and the future viability of the life-sustaining ecosystem as well. For every poison that threatens humanity today, there is a group of scientists lurking behind it, profiting from its consumption while spreading lies about its safety. The aim of this Natural News article series is to exposed the lies of corrupt “science” and reveal the truth about what “evidence-based science” is really promoting in our foods, medicines, industries and home environments. In the name of “evidence-based science,” we are all being killed by GMOs, vaccine additives, processed food chemicals and other threats to life on Earth. I’m not an opponent of genuine, humble science and the search for answers in our universe, but what we’re seeing today is the mass poisoning of us all under the false label of “science.” In a special 10-part article series, I take a look at the top 10 “scientific” threats to our lives:
Source and to read more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039778_evidence-based_science_murdered_GMO.html
Coral bleaching is on the rise thanks to warming waters throughout the world due to global warming and man-made chemicals dumped into our waters. As the world heats up, our fresh water ice caps melt. Devastating consequences due to global warming include fresh water entering our oceans’ natural currents from the Arctic, Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets. This fresh water slows down the oceans’ natural salt water flow, and will eventually halt our oceans’ currents causing even bigger problems for humanity!
That is a whole different story, however it relates to increasing dead zones in saltwater and freshwater bodies thanks to man-made global warming due to the burning of finite fossil fuels. Global warming and the dumping and runoff of man-made chemicals are destroying the Gulf of Mexico, oceans, seas and large freshwater sources like the Great Lakes. Our world relies on these waters to help sustain our seafood supplies and shrinking sources of freshwater which are vital to help sustain a overpopulated earth.
Let’s take a look at one specific area, the Gulf of Mexico, which explains why we are experiencing massive coral reef bleaching, and the deaths and disappearances of fish and other sea creatures.
The most current map of dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico may not reflect BP’s massive oil spill on April 20, 2010. It does not take into consideration that BP’s oil spill killed off a large, untold number of species of ocean dwellers like the 29 marine mammals that live in the gulf including dolphins and whales. Why does the Gulf of Mexico have huge areas where the waters are devoid of most or all living organisms? There are two main reasons.
One factor is the shallow water depths in the Gulf of Mexico which is the world’s ninth largest body of water if technically separated from the Atlantic Ocean. The average water temperature of the gulf during the summer months ranges from the upper 70’s to upper 80’s. 90 degree waters are not uncommon, and marine life cannot live in what is close to bath water temperatures for humans! Why do you think hurricanes that enter the gulf during the warm months gain so much energy? The weather systems have two forces that they need which are extremely warm water and hot temperatures to help them morph from a tropical storm into a enormously destructive hurricane. Global warming has caused not just air temperatures to rise but water temperatures to increase as well. Coral reefs are fragile, and they cannot live in such a warm, polluted environment.
The other synthetic reason why our oceans and the Gulf of Mexico are experiencing slow to rapid die-offs of coral reefs and the various forms of marine life that rely on them as a inter-connected life support system is man-made chemical waste. Is it just coincidence that the ‘Dead Zone’ in the gulf is near where the Mississippi River flows into it? Fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide run-off from farms flow into tributaries of the Mississippi River and directly into the river itself. Industrial farms and factories have uncontrolled flows of pollutants like nitrogen and phosphorous that ultimately end up in the Gulf of Mexico where they create algae blooms and oxygen depletion. No oxygen = no life. Other major toxins enter our waters via illegal dumping of chemical waste that companies purposely do, because they do not want to deal with the expense of properly disposing of their garbage or toxic waste. Any trash that enters the Mississippi River will end up in the Gulf of Mexico, and it will kill or scare off all marine life, thus creating ‘Dead Zones.’
What about what is already in the Gulf of Mexico? That limited source of energy that we spend more energy to get at than what it actually produces: Oil! Take a look at the number of oil platforms in the gulf along with their locations, and think about the tainting of water and the life in it due to drilling for oil!
Then acknowledge that drilling for oil results in oil spills which have a profound and lasting effect on the environment in general including the Gulf of Mexico:
This is a U.S. problem, but it is not limited to just America! Take a look at the dead zones throughout the world as we heat up, melt away, and pollute like there is no tomorrow!
Notice that even the Great Lakes, the world’s largest source of freshwater, is in trouble directly due to pollution including plastics! There are vast areas in the oceans too that are nothing more than giant, floating garbage dump sites! This is the way we treat our planet, and the dying of our oceans’ and other waterways’ is akin to the ‘Canary in the Coalmine’ scenario. Unless we drastically alter the course of society’s sails, then we are in for some rough waters ahead!
by John E Loeffler – Fountain City, Wisconsin
breaking, Brian Iverson, cancer, cancer-causing, Cancerous, carcinogen, Carcinogenic, Clean Air Act, Clean Energy Act, Clean Water Act, criminal, Crystalline Silica, environmental, environmental disaster, Frack Sand, fracking, fraud, fraudulent, Glacier Sands LLC, greed, greedy, Horizontal Fracking, Hydraulic Fracking, hydraulic fracturing, Ike Thomas, known carcinogens, law, Minnesota, Mississippi River, money, Monopolies, monopoly, poison, poisonous, power, power-hungry, Ryan Thomas, Sand, Sand Fracking, Seven Sands LLC, Silica, Silica or Sand Fracking, Silicosis, Snake, snakes, Texas, Toxic, Toxic Chemicals, violations, Wisconsin
Is that not a pretty picture? It is what happens to our land when we rely on finite sources of dirty fossil fuel energy. Say goodbye to the trees, the animals, and a clean environment! The picture is not of a Hydraulic Fracturing or Fracking site. It is a picture of the lesser known Sand Fracking that goes on to supply the needed Silica sand for the extremely toxic Hydraulic Fracking process of which there are now 65,000 wells and counting throughout the U.S.
The premium sand that is ideal for Hydraulic Fracturing or Horizontal Fracturing has been found by businessmen, mainly from Texas, and the high quality sand is in Wisconsin and Minnesota! A little-known company called Glacier Sands LLC a.k.a. Seven Sands LLC is responsible for this “gold rush” in the Sand Fracking industry. Their webpage looks innocent, but looks can be deceiving!
Speaking of deception, welcome to Glacier Sands LLC’s Leadership: http://glaciersands.com/about-glacier-sands/leadership/
Let’s break down three key people in their leadership: Brian Iverson, Ryan Thomas and Ike Thomas. Brian Iverson drew the attention of Texas businessmen Ike and Ryan Thomas, and he formally set up Glacier Sands LLC a.k.a. Seven Sands LLC in 2011 using a Wisconsin address although he lived in Minnesota. Brian Iverson has not only been accused of investment fraud related to a group of mining investors from Montana, but he also filed bankruptcy a little over two years ago to cover over $21 million of debt he accrued related to former business deals “and personal guaranties he gave as security for business loans.” Source: http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/news/2012/07/09/frac-sand-or-farmland-wisconsin-farmers-face-showdown-rescheduled-august-9
Boy, this Brian Iverson guy sounds like bad news! He’s shady at best, and he has hooked up with two Texas businessmen since 2011 to completely destroy (see picture above) Wisconsin and Minnesota’s pristine environment by slithering in like a snake to slowly poison innocent citizens who have lived here for generations. What for? GREED, of course! Brian Iverson needed help to become financially successful, because he has a dirty past of screwing people over, then filing bankruptcy for his losses! Iverson is the epitome of selfishness! He obviously does not care about people in general or his workers, since I am sure he is aware of the dangers of Silicosis and cancer.
Sand Fracking for Crystalline Silica is known to cause Silicosis and cancer. Source: OSHA: http://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/crystalline-factsheet.pdf The Silica sand from Sand Fracking can blow for miles if not continually watered down according to lame government standards. At best, the Crystalline Silica produced from Sand Fracking to use in Hydraulic Fracking will only affect nearby areas to include the Mississippi River. That is bad enough if you live in a state where Sand Fracking sites are popping up faster than they can be properly studied for health risks before approval! Without proper studies on the harmful effects and affects of fracking, county boards like Buffalo County, WI just delay the permit for Sand Fracking until all of the ‘angry citizen’ dust has settled. Then, they go in and vote 3-0 in favor of what nobody wants except for the dirty fossil fuel industry and big business like Glacier Sands LLC! I wonder how many board members and other officials get paid to pass legislation for mining that is NOT wanted by a vast majority of U.S. citizens in general? Probably more than one can possibly imagine! Brian Iverson had help from Ike and Ryan Thomas though. Anything coming out of the most polluted state (Texas) in the U.S. for over a decade and running cannot be good!
Ike Thomas’s Linked in profile suggests a man with deep roots in dirty energy and big business: http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=135550272&authType=name&authToken=3tMX&locale=en_US&goback=%2Enpv_135550272_*1_*1_name_3tMX_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1_*1 He has a company called JusRyn (President since 1980) that is not only hard to find (a red flag), but when you do find Ike’s company it’s listed in the white or yellow pages! This seems a bit fishy to me, but what do you expect from a Texas businessman? What about Ryan Thomas? His Linked in profile says it all including bragging about being a Frack Sand supplier! He has similar business roots like Ike Thomas with dirty mining and dirty energy leading the way: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/ryan-thomas/18/592/664.
Is this what our country wants? A monkey barrel of bullies overrunning our local governments to feed their lust for money and power? Apparently so, because I do not see anyone standing up en masse to protest fraudulent businessmen. Businessmen who sucker farmers or anyone else with many acres of land via a greed-laden but small payout for ruining not only the farmer’s or individual’s land, but the land, water, complete infrastructure to include roads and buildings of towns and cities, and health of humans and animals!
Do you think that Glacier Sands or any other “Fracking” business is going to pay for human health problems which show up years or decades later, or the contamination of our land and water in general? They will be long gone by the time we catch up to the mess they have left behind! Taxpayers, as usual, will be stuck cleaning up dirty mining’s mess due to lack of current concern or ability to do much of anything to stop the Sand Fracking nightmare that consumes Wisconsin and Minnesota! It’s such a shame too, because if you can stop the Sand Fracking from happening then you can halt the even more dangerous Hydraulic Fracturing or Fracking that uses Crystalline Silica in large quantities. Fracking, like Glacier Sands is doing, has already turned America’s landscape from this
By John Loeffler – Fountain City, Wisconsin
Glacier Sands: http://glaciersands.com/about-glacier-sands/leadership/
Twin Cities Daily Planet: Frac Sand or Farmland: Wisconsin farmers face showdown http://www.tcdailyplanet.net/news/2012/07/09/frac-sand-or-farmland-wisconsin-farmers-face-showdown-rescheduled-august-9
In 1989, Dusty and Tamera Hagy bought 81 rural acres in Jackson County, West Virginia. Twenty-one years later, the Hagys sued four natural gas drilling firms alleging the natural gas wells drilled on their property in 2008 contaminated their drinking water and caused physical harm.
The Hagys’ water contamination lawsuit demonstrates how the natural gas industry has built a near-perfect “federal legal exemption’s framework” that when combined with lax or absent state regulations and the legal system’s high costs, inherently approves of citizen collateral damage with no restitution.
The consequence of this framework is that the burden of proof is placed on plaintiffs who, at best, are forced to settle with natural gas companies, thereby sealing the case from public scrutiny, scientific examination and legal precedence. Because the Hagys didn’t sign a non-disclosure agreement with the natural gas companies involved, their legal case gives the public a rare window into how fracking lawsuits play out in reality.
Natural gas is a critical resource. Fifty percent of American residences use natural gas. Natural gas is seen by some as a bridge fuel essential to the U.S.’s strategy to gain energy independence from foreign oil imports. Yet we must ask ourselves: Is the current fracking system one we should support? Are changes needed to level the playing field for all parties involved in fracking? Can fracking be done safely?
The land man cometh
Dusty and Tamera Hagy unwittingly fell into the fracking trap the day they bought their land in 1989. “We loved our 81-acre property, it was our life. We had paid off the mortgage and spent a lot of money fixing the place up. We raised our two boys there, buried our animals there and were planning to give our boys some property,” said Dusty Hagy.
Mineral rights, fracking chemicals and natural gas federal environmental laws were all Greek to the Hagy family before a pleasant Equitable Production Company representative visited the couple in October 2007.
Equitable Production Company’s representative informed the Hagys that four natural gas wells were soon to be drilled on their property about 1,000 feet up the hill from their home.
In West Virginia, surface land ownership is separate from mineral rights. Mineral rights are the portion of the profits received from minerals extracted from land. Another party owns the Hagy property’s mineral rights which were granted hundreds of years ago. The Hagy family receives no gas royalties and didn’t sign a formal gas leasing contract, though, they did sign plenty of “papers” believing they did not have a choice.
Fracking starts – trucks, noise, explosions, and chemicals
On Nov. 11, 2007, trucks, back hoes, tree cutters and workers converged on the Hagy property uphill and upstream from their home. Equitable outsourced the drilling to BJ Services and for the next six months the holler, or enclosed valley, was flattened for a six-acre natural gas well pad.
Tamera Hagy describes life during the drilling and fracking: “It was nothing like what I had expected. This was a huge operation that lasted day and night for eight months. Trucks went up and down the road 24/7. The smell of fumes would make you sick. One night we heard something like a giant drill bit drilling and vibrating under our house.”
Dusty visited the well pad often and learned from the job crew that this fracking job wasn’t going smoothly. One worker mentioned that they had hit a lake of water and were moving the rig. Another worker shared in this audio tape #3 how the cement casing “went bad” and was re-cemented. Of the four open and lined fracking wastewater ponds, one overflowed and later broke, spilling the fracking wastewater into the nearby creek that flows from the well pad past the Hagy family’s home. In March 2008, Dusty noticed that another fracking pond’s wastewater was emptied by hose into the woods. After finding foam and oil slicks in the creek next to their well, and then when their large pond turned green, the Hagys knew something wasn’t right.
Dusty lodged a formal complaint with the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) on Nov. 17, 2008. DEP records reveal a gas inspector visited the site at the well’s completion and issued no violations. DEP records also reveal the three natural gas wells began producing gas in July 2008 and the wells today continue to produce about 3,000 m.c.f. of gas per month.
Be careful what you sign
As Dusty describes the Equitable representative, “We liked him, and he was a nice enough guy in the beginning and we believed everything he told us at face value.” Equitable said the natural gas drilling was simple and would cause minimal damage on 1.5 acres. When Dusty asked if fracking used anything dangerous, they were told that only water and sand were used, no chemicals were ever mentioned. A water test prior to drilling supported the Hagy’s belief that their water well was clean and safe.
On Oct. 22, 2007, Equitable paid the Hagys $19,000 to cover surface damages to their land and trees because building a well pad trashes the landscape. “I believed the Equitable guy when he said the check was just for surface damages. My property was valued at nearly $200,000. It was stupid to sign that paper, I should have gotten a lawyer,” explained Dusty. Because the well pads used more than the original 1.5 acres, Equitable paid the couple another $10,000 for damage on an additional four acres.
Later in 2008, Dusty learned the papers they had signed to receive the payments were actually damage release contracts attempting to exempt Equitable, and all drilling providers, from any and all damages associated with the drilling. “Other than shooting the family dog, this ‘contract’ covered near everything,” said Dusty Hagy.
Family gets sick—headaches, rashes and vomiting
The family drank, bathed and cooked with their well water from November 2007 to November 2008 during the gas well drilling and fracking. Ironically, the Hagy family had boasted about their pristine well water and even after their adult sons moved out, the boys brought jugs of well water back to their homes.
The Hagys began to notice changes to their water in early 2008. Their water volume was dropping and the water’s color changed from clear to brown. Often black particles were floating in water drawn from their well. Despite overwhelming evidence otherwise, Equitable never reported any issues that would impact the Hagys’ well water.
Adding to the changing water quality, both Dusty and Tamera said they were oddly tired, and woke up with “bad headaches, like a hangover.” Both smelled an “acid” odor in the house and their eyes would burn in certain rooms.
The Hagys didn’t put “two plus two together” until their youngest son went to his family doctor in Columbus, Ohio in October 2008. Their son had complained of nausea and was spitting up blood. His doctor treated him for acid reflux, a disorder he’d never experienced before, and suggested he stop drinking his parent’s well water. The son’s symptoms disappeared soon after he discontinued drinking his parent’s well water.
Tamera Hagy developed a rash that her primary care physician diagnosed as contact dermatitis, a skin inflammation caused by a foreign source. Expert medical testimony in court documents reveal the Hagys’ health symptoms mirrored chemical exposure.
Water tests reveal drinking water was bad and Hagys vacate property
Based on their complaints, Equitable re-tested the Hagy water well on Nov. 8, 2008 and their water had clearly changed. The turbidity, or murkiness, was six times greater post drilling (0.5 to 3.2) and iron, manganese and calcium levels increased significantly (Dusty replaced one hot water heater during this time due to calcium build-up).
Water tests conducted later also revealed arsenic, lead, barium and Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate, an organic compound linked to fracking wastewater. The radon levels of the Hagy well were 1,233 pCi/l with the maximum contaminant level set at 300. When those radon levels were compared to area wells, the Hagy’s radon in their drinking water was markedly higher than eight local U.S. Geologic Survey wells in the area.
However, the water tests conducted before and after drilling were limited and included no tests for known fracking chemicals or volatile organic compounds.
In November 2008, Equitable told the couple, “the water was bad” and to stop drinking the well water and the company began supplying bottled drinking water.
On Jan. 13, 2009, Dusty and Tamera vacated their home and have never moved back. “We thought we were going to die,” said Dusty Hagy.
Relations with Equitable were getting tense; Dusty even began recording phone conversations. Repeated requests for a list of the chemicals used in fracking went unanswered.
Equitable admits “your water’s been affected because of our drilling process.”
Dusty Hagy assumed Equitable would fix the water issue based on phone conversations (audio tape #1) with his Equitable representative who stated on the phone:
“ … for whatever reason the water’s been affected because of our drilling process. But the horizontal portion of it I don’t think had anything to do with it. Something we did had something to do with it. We have done something to the water, and no one was doubting that, but it wasn’t the horizontal part. I’m not doubtin’ that fact and I don’t think anybody’s doubtin’ that, the horizontal portion wouldn’t affect it.”
Equitable offered to drill a new water well which the family declined because they believed the aquifer itself was contaminated. This belief stemmed from a neighbor’s claim that 30 of his animals had died in 2008 during the gas drilling. Plus, Equitable tied any restitution to the couple signing an non-disclosure agreement, or gag order, meant to silence the Hagys and negate any future claims.
Hagy family sues drilling firms
As this phone conversation (audio tape #3) with Equitable reveals, once the family sought legal representation in March 2009, all contact with Equitable stopped. Bottled water deliveries and hotel payments stopped. While the couple searched for a rental home, they lived in their un-heated camper. On a positive note, once they vacated their home, their negative health symptoms dissipated.
The Hagys sued Equitable Production Company, BJ Well, Halliburton and Warren Drilling in October 2009. In short, even with the taped calls, drilling records, photos, videos and water tests, the Hagys’ lawsuit was “dismissed” in August 2012. Judge Goodwin’s opinion stated, “The case presents no genuine issue of materials fact for a jury to determine.” The lawsuit is in the appeals process and the litigation costs to date are $175,000.
How does this happen?
Though the Hagys’ lawsuit appears to provide evidence of water contamination, their dismissed lawsuit supports the claim, “There are no known cases of drinking water contamination from fracking,” often touted by pro-fracking groups.
This claim isn’t true, at least 4 confirmed cases of water contamination exist:
- 1987 Parson’s Family, W. Virginia — Outcome: settled.
2011 Paradise Road, Bradford County, PA — Outcome: settled.
- 2012 Fiorentino vs. Cabot Oil, Dimock, PA — Outcome: settled.
- 2012 PA. DEP, Bradford County, PA — Outcome: settled.
Why so few confirmed cases and no case tried before a jury?
More than 40,000 shale gas wells have been drilled since 1996 and at least 825 serious fracking complaints have been lodged, yet only 40 fracking lawsuits have been filed. To date, a jury has never heard a fracking lawsuit.
- The natural gas industry is regulated on a state-by-state basis because of the federal legal exemptions granted to the industry.
- Predatory, private contracts signed between firms and individuals favor gas companies.
- The U.S. legal system’s high litigation costs dissuade lawsuits.
How the “the Big 7” exemptions play out in reality
The natural gas industry is exempted from seven major federal environmental laws. These laws in their simplest forms are intended to protect people, places, water and air. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is tasked with enforcing these laws. Because the natural gas industry isn’t regulated by the U.S. EPA at the federal level because of the legal exemptions, natural gas drilling is regulated on a state-by-state basis.
The chart below outlines the seven federal environmental laws exemptions, with many exemptions dating back decades.
The latest three exemptions were strategically written into the 1,500 page Energy Policy Act of 2005 and are now infamously named the “Halliburton loophole.” These three short paragraphs focused on eliminating water pollution oversight and also eliminated the strict environmental reviews that federal projects must undertake.
When these exemptions are combined, the benefits to natural gas industry are: no federal EPA oversight therefore pushing fracking regulation to the state level, no scientific testing, no environmental studies, no health and geologic studies and no liabilities for drillers of chemical releases into waterways and air.
The 2005 Energy Policy Act’s strategy was to provide the U.S. with “an abundant, domestic and affordable sources of fuel.” Since 2005, the gas industry has been unhampered by federal regulations and the newer shale gas drilling has grown quickly; U.S. natural gas from shale reserves has grown from one percent to 35 percent of the U.S. supply. This new supply of 8.5 trillion cubic feet of gas has forced natural gas prices down by 50 percent, even spurring coal-based electrical plants to convert to natural gas.
The coffin nail: Toxic Release Inventory exemption
The least known exemption though, the 1986 Toxic Release Inventory of Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, may offer the natural gas industry the biggest shield from liabilities and the greatest obstacle for parties alleging fracking water contamination.
In response to the Bopal, India disaster, when Union Carbide released a harmful gas into an urban area which killed more than 20,000 people, Congress required industries to list harmful chemicals on the Toxic Release Inventory to the EPA. The EPA collects and then disseminates that information to the public and local governments.
Yet, oil and gas companies were exempted from the Toxic Release Inventory, therefore chemical disclosure is different for each of the 29 fracking states. To boot, shale gas production, or fracking, is concentrated in relatively gas-friendly states: Texas, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, West Virginia, Colorado and North Dakota, listed in order of gas production volume.
According to an in-depth National Resources Defense Council report which compares today’s hodgepodge of state-level fracking regulations, no state requires full chemical disclosure. Even new regulations in Texas, the largest shale gas producer, require chemical reporting but do not require “proprietary” chemicals to be listed which can account for 50 percent of the chemicals used in one fracking. The report also concludes that state reporting is inconsistent and significant portions of data are missing altogether.
Adding to the lack of chemical disclosure, only two states (West Virginia and Colorado) inform residents about new wells before drilling. This means that in 27 states, residents are not notified of new drilling, making it impossible to conduct comprehensive (and expensive) water testing before the drilling.
How exemptions play out in the law-can you prove what you drank?
In 2007, Equitable wasn’t legally required to disclose the chemicals used in the fracking, therefore no doctor, no person or group knew what chemicals to test for or what caused the foam in the creek, the color changes in the pond or the compromised water well.
Though water tests revealed the Hagy property drinking water had changed since the drilling had occurred, the tests were not apples-to-apples comparisons. During the lawsuit’s evidence discovery process, the natural gas firms finally furnished the list of chemical used on the Hagy property which verified the fracking chemicals used weren’t “just water and sand,” as quoted by the Equitable contact.
The absence of verifiable chemical data is displayed in Judge Goodwin’s opinion and order to grant a motion for Summary Judgement, which in layman’s terms means the Hagy lawsuit was dismissed. The burden of chemical exposure proof was placed on the plaintiffs, “to demonstrate amount, duration, intensity and frequency of chemical exposure.” A catch-22.
Gas leases and contracts: The devil’s in the fine print
Adding to the chemical disclosure catch-22 is that most gas leases heavily favor natural gas drillers. In 2011, The New York Times analyzed more than 110,000 shale gas leases and concluded; over half of gas leases provide landowners no restitution in the event of harm, most exclude any explanation of potential harm and a majority of leases include automatic contract extensions that require no landowner approval. Natural gas wells can produce for decades and gas lease contracts can be automatically renewed in perpetuity. Many leases include clauses mandating that damage disputes be heard in arbitration outside of the legal system.
The door-to-door leasing agents who represent gas drillers, a.k.a. landmen, are tasked with getting natural gas leases signed by landowners. Feedback from many landowners is that landmen are very persuasive, personable and often mis-represent facts. These revealing talking points pages were reportedly found by a Ohio homeowner who had been visited by a West Bay Exploration’s leasing agent. The talking points, marked confidential, give sales agents advice to, “not talk about the anti-fracking documentary Gasland, to not discuss chemicals or fracking and to speed up the lease signing before people think about the drilling.”
Many natural gas leases border on predatory in nature as it appears the gas leasing process relies on the ignorance of rural, landowners to enter into binding, private contracts with natural gas drillers.
The Hagys claim they were absolutely unaware they had signed a damage release waiver, twice even. “The Equitable representative sat right on my porch and said the cash was a small payment for the trees and land damage. It wasn’t until November 2008 that I even found out I supposedly had signed away any rights,” said Dusty.
These two damage release forms inadvertently signed by the Hagys have reared their ugly heads during the lawsuit process as another reason Equitable and BJ Services claim they are not liable for any water, health or property damage; the companies claim the Hagys signed away any rights to liabilities and restitution.
Suing a gas company—expensive and grueling
“Fracking has been the tragedy of the commons—freedom to a common, brings ruin to all,” according to Maxwell Kennerly, a trial lawyer at The Beasley firm in Philadelphia. Legally it’s been impossible for plaintiffs to precisely pinpoint exactly what happened underground or link exact chemicals to a situation when those chemicals aren’t divulged and the drilling process isn’t accessible. Any lawyer taking these cases has to be prepared to put their own money and resources on the line to be a trailblazer.”
The first legal team hired by the Hagy family in 2009 dropped the Hagys’ case one year later. During that year the family lost valuable time in conducting water tests and gathering evidence. Their current lawyer, Kevin Thompson, of the Law Offices of Thompson Barney in Charleston, West Virginia, has taken the case on a contingency fee basis. The Hagy family has paid no out-of-pocket expenses. The lawsuit’s litigation costs to date top $175,000.
Lastly, there is an emotional toll for using our legal system to get restitution; it’s a grueling process according to Dusty Hagy. “It’s been hell. For over two years, we’ve been reliving this awful experience. In the back-of-our-minds we realize this may be all for nothing. My wife and I feel we had our most important asset stolen from us, the drinking water that makes our property a place to live, not just 81 acres for animals. It feels like the whole system is stacked against us.”
Where are the Hagys?
Interestingly, the Hagys and 70 of their neighbors who live on a 5-mile stretch of Sugar Creek Road have petitioned Southern Jackson County Public Services to extend public water service to their homes at cost of $2 million. The project is on an 5-year waiting list and there is no guarantee it will ever be completed. According to Karl Vielhaber, general manager for the Southern Jackson County Public Service, the property owners have petitioned for municipal water because most claim their water wells are contaminated from gas drilling. Most of the homeowners haul water to their homes from a coin operated water source.
Dusty and Tamera have moved to a new property with a mortgage, and they still own their vacated property. Equitable’s three natural gas wells still produce gas today and may for years on the Hagys’ vacant property.
The winners and losers
A clear winner in fracking so far is natural gas industry. Fracking cases settled out-of-court provide critical benefits for the gas industry because the settlements include “gag orders” so that injured parties can not discuss the case and its contents. Financially, settlements reduce liabilities for natural gas firms by eliminating unpredictable jury awards. More importantly, settlements help the industry maintain their public relation’s campaign to the media, elected officials, the financial industry and the American consumer that natural gas drilling is clean and safe.
American consumers are also winners in the fracking story. According to the Energy Information Administration, residential gas prices are about 50 percent less than the 2008 natural gas price peak.
Fracking’s losers are the private landowners who have been negatively impacted by fracking and may or may not have received proper restitution. Collectively, the public loses as closed settlements shut down any learning, studies or analysis needed to create uniform industry best practices and build legal precedence for future cases.
Based on evidence and public pressure, Congress finally approved the U.S. EPA to conduct scientific fracking studies. The final study will be available for peer and public review December 2014.
Fracking regulations are slowly developing. The Obama Administration announced federal regulations mandating methane capturing at well sites. State legislatures are slowly developing new rules with Pennsylvania creating some of the toughest legislation over wastewater recycling and charging per well fees to pay for damages. But, as the Center for Energy Economics and Policy’s website and National Resourced Defense Council report illustrate, fracking regulation is complicated and convoluted.
What can you do?
Stories like this can often leave readers with an uneasy question: “What can I do?” Hear are a few ideas.
- Contact your federal and state elected officials. Your state elected officials are key as fracking is exempt from federal regulation and it seems Washington is struggling to make any changes with pretty much anything. Sending a quick email to your state delegates and senator with a link to this post takes 30 seconds and alerts your elected officials that fracking is on your radar screen. Make your opinion on the current process known.
- Choose a fracking group from below that matches your point of view and sign-up for their newsletters. Add them to your twitter feed or friend on facebook to keep abreast of new regulations and issues. If you’re a Flipboarder, add fracking to your list.
- The groups below often include easy “call-to-actions” where your voice can be heard. Interestingly, all but a few people in these groups and grassroots organizations are volunteers.
New York: Damascus Citizens for Sustainability
If you’re interested in reading the natural gas industry’s point of view, Energy in Depth is their policy and communications group.
All photos taken by Dusty Hagy except the photo and story below is from the West Virginia Surface owner’s Right’s Organization.
America, Americans, Animals, catastrophic, Creeks, Deadly, Divest, Energy, environment, environmental disaster, EPA, Geothermal, Global Warming, Humans, Hydro-electric, Improper, Invest, Iron, Lakes, Lethal, Local Government, Minerals, Mining, Moral, Ore, Overflow, poisonous, Policy, pollution, Regulation, Renewable Energy, Rivers, Runoff, Senator Cullen, Solar, Standards, State Government, State Governors, Streams, Tipping Point, Toxic, U.S., U.S. Government, U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Senate, Unhealthy, Wind, Wisconsin, workers, Worthless
I live in the beautiful state of Wisconsin, with the exception of the bone-chilling cold during January and February! One of my state’s senators sent me a letter informing me that, in short, mining here can be done safely with minimal environmental impact.
There is no such thing as “safe mining!” The two words when put together are polar opposites of each other. I like my idea better, so I emailed it off to him! You can do the same with all of your state’s elected officials, including your governor, by sending them a clear, resounding message that it is (way past) time to divest from dirty, finite energy and invest in cheaper, clean, renewable energy starting today! Our climate is screaming for help, and we can no longer let our legislators promote their hidden, greed-laden agendas!
Here is a copy of a brief letter that I just sent off to Senator Cullen:
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
CHEMICALS USED IN HYDRAULIC FRACTURING
PREPARED BY COMMITTEE STAFF FOR:
Henry A. Waxman – Ranking Member Committee on Energy and Commerce
Edward J. Markey – Ranking Member Committee on Natural Resources
Diana DeGette – Ranking Member Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………………….1
IV. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FLUIDS AND THEIR CONTENTS…..5
A. Commonly Used Chemical Components…………………………………………..6
B. Toxic Chemicals………………………………………………………………………..8
V. USE OF PROPRIETARY AND “TRADE SECRET” CHEMICALS…..11
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hydraulic fracturing has helped to expand natural gas production in the United States,
unlocking large natural gas supplies in shale and other unconventional formations across the
country. As a result of hydraulic fracturing and advances in horizontal drilling technology,
natural gas production in 2010 reached the highest level in decades. According to new estimates by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), the United States possesses natural gas resources sufficient to supply the United States for approximately 110 years.
As the use of hydraulic fracturing has grown, so have concerns about its environmental
and public health impacts. One concern is that hydraulic fracturing fluids used to fracture rock
formations contain numerous chemicals that could harm human health and the environment,
especially if they enter drinking water supplies. The opposition of many oil and gas companies
to public disclosure of the chemicals they use has compounded this concern.
Last Congress, the Committee on Energy and Commerce launched an investigation to
examine the practice of hydraulic fracturing in the United States. As part of that inquiry, the
Committee asked the 14 leading oil and gas service companies to disclose the types and volumes of the hydraulic fracturing products they used in their fluids between 2005 and 2009 and the chemical contents of those products. This report summarizes the information provided to the Committee.
Between 2005 and 2009, the 14 oil and gas service companies used more than 2,500
hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 chemicals and other components. Overall, these
companies used 780 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products – not including water added
at the well site – between 2005 and 2009.
Some of the components used in the hydraulic fracturing products were common and
generally harmless, such as salt and citric acid. Some were unexpected, such as instant coffee
and walnut hulls. And some were extremely toxic, such as benzene and lead. Appendix A lists
each of the 750 chemicals and other components used in hydraulic fracturing products between
2005 and 2009.
The most widely used chemical in hydraulic fracturing during this time period, as
measured by the number of compounds containing the chemical, was methanol. Methanol,
which was used in 342 hydraulic fracturing products, is a hazardous air pollutant and is on the
candidate list for potential regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Some of the other
most widely used chemicals were isopropyl alcohol (used in 274 products), 2-butoxyethanol
(used in 126 products), and ethylene glycol (used in 119 products).
Between 2005 and 2009, the oil and gas service companies used hydraulic fracturing
products containing 29 chemicals that are (1) known or possible human carcinogens, (2)
regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act for their risks to human health, or (3) listed as
hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. These 29 chemicals were components of more
than 650 different products used in hydraulic fracturing.
The BTEX compounds – benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene – appeared in 60 of
the hydraulic fracturing products used between 2005 and 2009. Each BTEX compound is a
regulated contaminant under the Safe Drinking Water Act and a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Benzene also is a known human carcinogen. The hydraulic fracturing companies injected 11.4 million gallons of products containing at least one BTEX chemical over the five year period.
In many instances, the oil and gas service companies were unable to provide the
Committee with a complete chemical makeup of the hydraulic fracturing fluids they used.
Between 2005 and 2009, the companies used 94 million gallons of 279 products that contained at least one chemical or component that the manufacturers deemed proprietary or a trade secret. Committee staff requested that these companies disclose this proprietary information. Although some companies did provide information about these proprietary fluids, in most cases the companies stated that they did not have access to proprietary information about products they purchased “off the shelf” from chemical suppliers. In these cases, the companies are injecting fluids containing chemicals that they themselves cannot identify.
Hydraulic fracturing – a method by which oil and gas service companies provide access
to domestic energy trapped in hard-to-reach geologic formations — has been the subject of both enthusiasm and increasing environmental and health concerns in recent years. Hydraulic
fracturing, used in combination with horizontal drilling, has allowed industry to access natural
gas reserves previously considered uneconomical, particularly in shale formations. As a result of
the growing use of hydraulic fracturing, natural gas production in the United States reached
21,577 billion cubic feet in 2010, a level not achieved since a period of high natural gas
production between 1970 and 1974.1 Overall, the Energy Information Administration now
projects that the United States possesses 2,552 trillion cubic feet of potential natural gas
resources, enough to supply the United States for approximately 110 years. Natural gas from
shale resources accounts for 827 trillion cubic feet of this total, which is more than double what
the EIA estimated just a year ago.
Hydraulic fracturing creates access to more natural gas supplies, but the process requires
the use of large quantities of water and fracturing fluids, which are injected underground at high
volumes and pressure. Oil and gas service companies design fracturing fluids to create fractures and transport sand or other granular substances to prop open the fractures. The composition of these fluids varies by formation, ranging from a simple mixture of water and sand to more complex mixtures with a multitude of chemical additives. The companies may use these
[1 Energy Information Administration (EIA), Natural Gas Monthly (Mar. 2011), Table 1, U.S. Natural Gas Monthly Supply and Disposition Balance (online at www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n9070us1A.htm) (accessed Mar. 30, 2011).
2 EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2011 Early Release (Dec. 16, 2010); EIA, What is shale
gas and why is it important? (online at http://www.eia.doe.gov/energy_in_brief/about_shale_gas.cfm)
(accessed Mar. 30, 2011).]
chemical additives to thicken or thin the fluids, improve the flow of the fluid, or kill bacteria that can reduce fracturing performance. Some of these chemicals, if not disposed of safely or allowed to leach into the drinking water supply, could damage the environment or pose a risk to human health. During hydraulic fracturing, fluids containing chemicals are injected deep underground, where their migration is not entirely predictable. Well failures, such as the use of insufficient well casing, could lead to their release at shallower depths, closer to drinking water supplies. Although some fracturing fluids are removed from the well at the end of the fracturing process, a substantial amount remains underground.
While most underground injections of chemicals are subject to the protections of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Congress in 2005 modified the law to exclude “the underground
injection of fluids or propping agents (other than diesel fuels) pursuant to hydraulic fracturing
operations related to oil, gas, or geothermal production activities” from the Act’s protections.6
Unless oil and gas service companies use diesel in the hydraulic fracturing process, the
permanent underground injection of chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing is not regulated by
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Concerns also have been raised about the ultimate outcome of chemicals that are
recovered and disposed of as wastewater. This wastewater is stored in tanks or pits at the well
site, where spills are possible. For final disposal, well operators must either recycle the fluids
for use in future fracturing jobs, inject it into underground storage wells (which, unlike the
fracturing process itself, are subject to the Safe Drinking Water Act), discharge it to nearby
surface water, or transport it to wastewater treatment facilities. A recent report in the New York
[U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources
of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs (June 2004) (EPA
816-R-04-003) at 4-1 and 4-2.
For instance, Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection has cited Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation for contamination of drinking water wells with seepage caused by weak casing or improper cementing of a natural gas well. See Officials in Three States Pin Water Woes on Gas Drilling, ProPublica (Apr. 26, 2009) (online at www.propublica.org/article/officials-in-three-states-pin-water-woes-on-gas-drilling-426) (accessed Mar. 24, 2011).
John A. Veil, Argonne National Laboratory, Water Management Technologies Used by
Marcellus Shale Gas Producers, prepared for the Department of Energy (July 2010), at 13
(hereinafter “Water Management Technologies”).
42 U.S.C. § 300h(d). Many dubbed this provision the “Halliburton loophole” because
of Halliburton’s ties to then-Vice President Cheney and its role as one of the largest providers of
hydraulic fracturing services. See The Halliburton Loophole, New York Times (Nov. 9. 2009).
See EPA, Draft Hydraulic Fracturing Study Plan (Feb. 7, 2011), at 37; Regulation Lax
as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers, New York Times (Feb. 26, 2011).
Water Management Technologies, at 13.]
Times raised questions about the safety of surface water discharge and the ability of water
treatment facilities to process wastewater from natural gas drilling operations.
Any risk to the environment and human health posed by fracturing fluids depends in large
part on their contents. Federal law, however, contains no public disclosure requirements for oil
and gas producers or service companies involved in hydraulic fracturing, and state disclosure
requirements vary greatly. While the industry has recently announced that it soon will create a
public database of fluid components, reporting to this database is strictly voluntary, disclosure
will not include the chemical identity of products labeled as proprietary, and there is no way to
determine if companies are accurately reporting information for all wells.
The absence of a minimum national baseline for disclosure of fluids injected during the
hydraulic fracturing process and the exemption of most hydraulic fracturing injections from
regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act has left an informational void concerning the
contents, chemical concentrations, and volumes of fluids that go into the ground during
fracturing operations and return to the surface in the form of wastewater. As a result, regulators
and the public are unable effectively to assess any impact the use of these fluids may have on the environment or public health.
On February 18, 2010, the Committee commenced an investigation into the practice of hydraulic fracturing and its potential impact on water quality across the United States. This investigation built on work begun by Ranking Member Henry A. Waxman in 2007 as Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The Committee initially sent letters to eight oil and gas service companies engaged in hydraulic fracturing in the United States. In May 2010, the Committee sent letters to six additional oil and gas service companies to assess a
[Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers, New York Times (Feb. 26, 2011).
Wyoming, for example, recently enacted relatively strong disclosure regulations,
requiring disclosure on a well-by-well basis and “for each stage of the well stimulation
program,” “the chemical additives, compounds and concentrations or rates proposed to be mixed and injected.” See WCWR 055-000-003 Sec. 45. Similar regulations became effective in
Arkansas this year. See Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission Rule B-19. In Wyoming, much of
this information is, after an initial period of review, available to the public. See WCWR 055-
000-003 Sec. 21. Other states, however, do not insist on such robust disclosure. For instance,
West Virginia has no disclosure requirements for hydraulic fracturing and expressly exempts
fluids used during hydraulic fracturing from the disclosure requirements applicable to
underground injection of fluids for purposes of waste storage. See W. Va. Code St. R. § 34-5-7.
See Ground Water Protection Council Calls for Disclosure of Chemicals Used in Shale
Gas Exploration, Ground Water Protection Council (Oct. 5, 2010) (online at
Shale-Gas-Exploration-newsPiece21700) (accessed Mar. 24, 2011).]
broader range of industry practices. The February and May letters requested information on
the type and volume of chemicals present in the hydraulic fracturing products that each company used in their fluids between 2005 and 2009.
The 14 oil and gas service companies that received the letter voluntarily provided
substantial information to the Committee. As requested, the companies reported the names and
volumes of the products they used during the five-year period. For each hydraulic fracturing
product reported, the companies also provided a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) detailing
the product’s chemical components. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA) requires chemical manufacturers to create a MSDS for every product they sell as a
means to communicate potential health and safety hazards to employees and employers. The
MSDS must list all hazardous ingredients if they comprise at least 1% of the product; for
carcinogens, the reporting threshold is 0.1%.
Under OSHA regulations, manufacturers may withhold the identity of chemical
components that constitute “trade secrets.” If the MSDS for a particular product used by a
company subject to the Committee’s investigation reported that the identity of any chemical
component was a trade secret, the Committee asked the company that used that product to
provide the proprietary information, if available.
IV. HYDRAULIC FRACTURING FLUIDS AND THEIR CONTENTS
Between 2005 and 2009, the 14 oil and gas service companies used more than 2,500
hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 chemicals and other components. Overall, these
companies used 780 million gallons of hydraulic fracturing products in their fluids between 2005
and 2009. This volume does not include water that the companies added to the fluids at the well
site before injection. The products are comprised of a wide range of chemicals. Some are
seemingly harmless like sodium chloride (salt), gelatin, and citric acid. Others could pose a
severe risk to human health or the environment.
[The Committee sent letters to Basic Energy Services, BJ Services, Calfrac Well
Services, Complete Production Services, Frac Tech Services, Halliburton, Key Energy Services,
RPC, Sanjel Corporation, Schlumberger, Superior Well Services, Trican Well Service, Universal
Well Services, and Weatherford.
BJ Services, Halliburton, and Schlumberger already had provided the Oversight
Committee with data for 2005 through 2007. For BJ Services, the 2005-2007 data is limited to
natural gas wells. For Schlumberger, the 2005-2007 data is limited to coalbed methane wells.
29 CFR 1910.1200(g)(2)(i)(C)(1).
29 CFR 1910.1200.
Each hydraulic fracturing “product” is a mixture of chemicals or other components
designed to achieve a certain performance goal, such as increasing the viscosity of water. Some
oil and gas service companies create their own products; most purchase these products from
chemical vendors. The service companies then mix these products together at the well site to
formulate the hydraulic fracturing fluids that they pump underground.]
Some of the components were surprising. One company told the Committee that it used
instant coffee as one of the components in a fluid designed to inhibit acid corrosion. Two
companies reported using walnut hulls as part of a breaker—a product used to degrade the
fracturing fluid viscosity, which helps to enhance post-fracturing fluid recovery. Another
company reported using carbohydrates as a breaker. One company used tallow soap—soap
made from beef, sheep, or other animals—to reduce loss of fracturing fluid into the exposed
Appendix A lists each of the 750 chemicals and other components used in the hydraulic
fracturing products injected underground between 2005 and 2009.
A. Commonly Used Chemical Components
The most widely used chemical in hydraulic fracturing during this time period, as
measured by the number of products containing the chemical, was methanol. Methanol is a
hazardous air pollutant and a candidate for regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. It was
a component in 342 hydraulic fracturing products. Some of the other most widely used
chemicals include isopropyl alcohol, which was used in 274 products, and ethylene glycol, which
was used in 119 products. Crystalline silica (silicon dioxide) appeared in 207 products, generally
proppants used to hold open fractures. Table 1 has a list of the most commonly used compounds in hydraulic fracturing fluids.
Table 1. Chemical Components Appearing Most Often in Hydraulic Fracturing Products Used Between 2005 and 2009:
Chemical Component & No. of Products Containing Chemical
Methanol (Methyl alcohol) = 342
Isopropanol (Isopropyl alcohol, Propan-2-ol) = 274
Crystalline silica – quartz (SiO2) = 207
Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (2-butoxyethanol) = 126
Ethylene glycol (1,2-ethanediol) = 119
Hydrotreated light petroleum distillates = 89
Sodium hydroxide (Caustic soda) = 80
Hydraulic fracturing companies used 2-butoxyethanol (2-BE) as a foaming agent or
surfactant in 126 products. According to EPA scientists, 2-BE is easily absorbed and rapidly
distributed in humans following inhalation, ingestion, or dermal exposure. Studies have shown
that exposure to 2-BE can cause hemolysis (destruction of red blood cells) and damage to the
spleen, liver, and bone marrow. The hydraulic fracturing companies injected 21.9 million
gallons of products containing 2-BE between 2005 and 2009. They used the highest volume of
products containing 2-BE in Texas, which accounted for more than half of the volume used.
EPA recently found this chemical in drinking water wells tested in Pavillion, Wyoming. Table
2 shows the use of 2-BE by state.
Table 2. States with the Highest Volume of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids Containing
State & Fluid Volume (gallons)
Texas = 12,031,734
Oklahoma = 2,186,613
New Mexico = 1,871,501
Colorado = 1,147,614
Louisiana = 890,068
Pennsylvania = 747,416
West Virginia = 464,231
Utah = 382,874
Montana = 362,497
Arkansas = 348,959
[EPA, Toxicological Review of Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether (Mar. 2010) at 4.
EPA, Fact Sheet: January 2010 Sampling Results and Site Update, Pavillion,
Wyoming Groundwater Investigation (Aug. 2010) (online at
http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/PavillionWyomingFactSheet.pdf) (accessed Mar.
B. Toxic Chemicals
The oil and gas service companies used hydraulic fracturing products containing 29
chemicals that are (1) known or possible human carcinogens, (2) regulated under the Safe
Drinking Water Act for their risks to human health, or (3) listed as hazardous air pollutants under the Clean Air Act. These 29 chemicals were components of 652 different products used in hydraulic fracturing. Table 3 lists these toxic chemicals and their frequency of use.
Table 3. Chemicals Components of Concern: Carcinogens, SDWA-Regulated
Chemicals, and Hazardous Air Pollutants
Chemical Component, Chemical Category & No. of Products
Methanol (Methyl alcohol) – HAP = 342
Ethylene glycol (1,2-ethanediol) – HAP = 119
Diesel19 – Carcinogen,SDWA,HAP = 51
Naphthalene – Carcinogen,HAP = 44
Xylene – SDWA,HAP = 44
Hydrogen chloride (Hydrochloric acid) – HAP = 42
Toluene – SDWA,HAP = 29
Ethylbenzene – SDWA,HAP = 28
Diethanolamine (2,2-iminodiethanol) – HAP = 14
Formaldehyde – Carcinogen,HAP = 12
Sulfuric acid – Carcinogen = 9
Thiourea – Carcinogen = 9
Benzyl chloride – Carcinogen,HAP = 8
Cumene – HAP = 6
Nitrilotriacetic acid – Carcinogen = 6
Dimethyl formamide – HAP = 5
Phenol – HAP = 5
Benzene – Carcinogen,SDWA,HAP = 3
Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate -Carcinogen,SDWA,HAP = 3
Acrylamide – Carcinogen,SDWA,HAP = 2
Hydrogen fluoride (Hydrofluoric acid) – HAP = 2
Phthalic anhydride – HAP = 2
Acetaldehyde – Carcinogen,HAP = 1
Acetophenone – HAP = 1
Copper – SDWA = 1
Ethylene oxide – Carcinogen,HAP = 1
Lead – Carcinogen,SDWA,HAP = 1
Propylene oxide – Carcinogen,HAP = 1
p-Xylene – HAP = 1
*Number of Products Containing a Component of Concern = 652
According to EPA, diesel contains benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes. See
EPA, Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic
Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs (June 2004) (EPA 816-R-04-003) at 4-11.
Between 2005 and 2009, the hydraulic fracturing companies used 95 products containing
13 different carcinogens. These included naphthalene (a possible human carcinogen), benzene (a known human carcinogen), and acrylamide (a probable human carcinogen). Overall, these companies injected 10.2 million gallons of fracturing products containing at least one carcinogen. The companies used the highest volume of fluids containing one or more
carcinogens in Texas, Colorado, and Oklahoma. Table 4 shows the use of these chemicals by
Table 4. States with at Least 100,000 Gallons of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids Containing a Carcinogen (2005-2009)
State & Fluid Volume (gallons)
North Dakota 557,519
New Mexico 511,186
2. Safe Drinking Water Act Chemicals
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA regulates 53 chemicals that may have an
adverse effect on human health and are known to or likely to occur in public drinking water
systems at levels of public health concern. Between 2005 and 2009, the hydraulic fracturing
companies used 67 products containing at least one of eight SDWA-regulated chemicals.
Overall, they injected 11.7 million gallons of fracturing products containing at least one chemical
regulated under SDWA. Most of these chemicals were injected in Texas. Table 5 shows the use
of these chemicals by state.
For purposes of this report, a chemical is considered a “carcinogen” if it is on one of
two lists: (1) substances identified by the National Toxicology Program as “known to be human
carcinogens” or as “reasonably anticipated to be human carcinogens”; and (2) substances
identified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health
Organization, as “carcinogenic” or “probably carcinogenic” to humans. See U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, Report on
Carcinogens, Eleventh Edition (Jan. 31, 2005) and World Health Organization, International
Agency for Research on Cancer, Agents Classified by the IARC Monographs (online at
http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Classification/index.php) (accessed Feb. 28, 2011).
The vast majority of these SDWA-regulated chemicals were the BTEX compounds –
benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethylbenzene. The BTEX compounds appeared in 60 hydraulic
fracturing products used between 2005 and 2009 and were used in 11.4 million gallons of
hydraulic fracturing fluids. The Department of Health and Human Services, the International
Agency for Research on Cancer, and EPA have determined that benzene is a human
carcinogen. Chronic exposure to toluene, ethylbenzene, or xylenes also can damage the central nervous system, liver, and kidneys.
Table 5. States with at Least 100,000 Gallons of Hydraulic Fracturing Fluids Containing a SDWA-Regulated Chemical (2005-2009)
State & Fluid Volume (gallons)
New Mexico 1,157,721
North Dakota 100,479
In addition, the hydraulic fracturing companies injected more than 30 million gallons of
diesel fuel or hydraulic fracturing fluids containing diesel fuel in wells in 19 states. In a 2004
report, EPA stated that the “use of diesel fuel in fracturing fluids poses the greatest threat” to
underground sources of drinking water. Diesel fuel contains toxic constituents, including
BTEX compounds. EPA also has created a Candidate Contaminant List (CCL), which is a list of
contaminants that are currently not subject to national primary drinking water regulations but are
known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and may require regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act in the future. Nine chemicals on that list—1-butanol, acetaldehyde, benzyl
[U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry, Public Health Statement for Benzene (Aug. 2007).
EPA, Basic Information about Toluene in Drinking Water, Basic Information about
Ethylbenzene in Drinking Water, and Basic Information about Xylenes in Drinking Water (online
at http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/index.cfm) (accessed Oct. 14,
Letter from Reps. Henry A. Waxman, Edward J. Markey, and Diana DeGette to the
Honorable Lisa Jackson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Jan. 31, 2011).
EPA, Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic
Fracturing of Coalbed Methane Reservoirs (June 2004) (EPA 816-R-04-003) at 4-11.
EPA, Contaminant Candidate List 3 (online at http://water.epa.gov/scitech/drinkingwater/dws/ccl/ccl3.cfm) (accessed Mar. 31, 2011).
chloride, ethylene glycol, ethylene oxide, formaldehyde, methanol, n-methyl-2-pyrrolidone, and
propylene oxide—were used in hydraulic fracturing products between 2005 and 2009.
3. Hazardous Air Pollutants
The Clean Air Act requires EPA to control the emission of 187 hazardous air pollutants,
which are pollutants that cause or may cause cancer or other serious health effects, such as
reproductive effects or birth defects, or adverse environmental and ecological effects. Between
2005 and 2009, the hydraulic fracturing companies used 595 products containing 24 different
hazardous air pollutants.
Hydrogen fluoride is a hazardous air pollutant that is a highly corrosive and systemic
poison that causes severe and sometimes delayed health effects due to deep tissue penetration. Absorption of substantial amounts of hydrogen fluoride by any route may be fatal. One of the hydraulic fracturing companies used 67,222 gallons of two products containing hydrogen fluoride in 2008 and 2009.
Lead is a hazardous air pollutant that is a heavy metal that is particularly harmful to
children’s neurological development. It also can cause health problems in adults, including
reproductive problems, high blood pressure, and nerve disorders. One of the hydraulic
fracturing companies used 780 gallons of a product containing lead in this five-year period.
Methanol is the hazardous air pollutant that appeared most often in hydraulic fracturing
products. Other hazardous air pollutants used in hydraulic fracturing fluids included
formaldehyde, hydrogen chloride, and ethylene glycol.
V. USE OF PROPRIETARY AND “TRADE SECRET” CHEMICALS
Many chemical components of hydraulic fracturing fluids used by the companies were
listed on the MSDSs as “proprietary” or “trade secret.” The hydraulic fracturing companies used
93.6 million gallons of 279 products containing at least one proprietary component between 2005 and 2009.
[Clean Air Act Section 112(b), 42 U.S.C. § 7412.
HHS, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Medical Management
Guidelines for Hydrogen Fluoride (online at http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mhmi/mmg11.pdf) (accessed
Mar. 24, 2011).
EPA, Basic Information about Lead (online at http://www.epa.gov/lead/pubs/leadinfo.htm)
(accessed Mar. 30, 2011).
This is likely a conservative estimate. We included only those products for which the
MSDS says “proprietary” or “trade secret” instead of listing a component by name or providing
the CAS number. If the MSDS listed a component’s CAS as N.A. or left it blank, we did not
count that as a trade secret claim, unless the company specified as such in follow-up
The Committee requested that these companies disclose this proprietary information.
Although a few companies were able to provide additional information to the Committee about
some of the fracturing products, in most cases the companies stated that they did not have access to proprietary information about products they purchased “off the shelf” from chemical
suppliers. The proprietary information belongs to the suppliers, not the users of the chemicals.
Universal Well Services, for example, told the Committee that it “obtains hydraulic
fracturing products from third-party manufacturers, and to the extent not publicly disclosed,
product composition is proprietary to the respective vendor and not to the Company.
Complete Production Services noted that the company always uses fluids from third-party
suppliers who provide an MSDS for each product. Complete confirmed that it is “not aware of
any circumstances in which the vendors who provided the products have disclosed this
proprietary information” to the company, further noting that “such information is highly
proprietary for these vendors, and would not generally be disclosed to service providers” like
Complete. Key Energy Services similarly stated that it “generally does not have access to the
trade secret information as a purchaser of the chemical(s). Trican also told the Committee that
it has limited knowledge of “off the shelf” products purchased from a chemical distributor or
manufacturer, noting that “Trican does not have any information in its possession about the
components of such products beyond what the distributor of each product provided Trican in the
In these cases, it appears that the companies are injecting fluids containing unknown
chemicals about which they may have limited understanding of the potential risks posed to
human health and the environment.
Hydraulic fracturing has opened access to vast domestic reserves of natural gas that could
provide an important stepping stone to a clean energy future. 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. It shows
that between 2005 and 2009, the 14 leading hydraulic fracturing companies in the United States
used over 2,500 hydraulic fracturing products containing 750 compounds. More than 650 of
these products contained chemicals that are known or possible human carcinogens, regulated
under the Safe Drinking Water Act, or listed as hazardous air pollutants.
[Letter from Reginald J. Brown to Henry A. Waxman, Chairman, Committee on Energy
and Commerce, and Edward J. Markey, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
(Apr. 16, 2010).
Letter from Philip Perry to Henry A. Waxman, Chairman, Committee Energy and
Commerce, and Edward J. Markey, Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment (Aug.
E-mail from Peter Spivack to Committee Staff (Aug. 5, 2010).
E-mail from Lee Blalack to Committee Staff (July 29, 2010).
Appendix A. Chemical Components of Hydraulic Fracturing Products, 2005-2009
Chemical Component, Chemical Abstract Service Number & No. of Products Containing
1-(1-naphthylmethyl)quinolinium chloride 65322-65-8 1
1,2,3-propanetricarboxylic acid, 2-hydroxy-, trisodium salt, dihydrate 6132-04-3 1
1,2,3-trimethylbenzene 526-73-8 1
1,2,4-trimethylbenzene 95-63-6 21
1,2-benzisothiazol-3 2634-33-5 1
1,2-dibromo-2,4-dicyanobutane 35691-65-7 1
1,2-ethanediaminium, N, N’-bis[2-[bis(2-hydroxyethyl)methylammonio]ethyl]-N,N’-
bis(2-hydroxyethyl)-N,N’-dimethyl-,tetrachloride 138879-94-4 2
1,3,5-trimethylbenzene 108-67-8 3
1,6-hexanediamine dihydrochloride 6055-52-3 1
1,8-diamino-3,6-dioxaoctane 929-59-9 1
1-hexanol 111-27-3 1
1-methoxy-2-propanol 107-98-2 3
2,2`-azobis (2-amidopropane) dihydrochloride 2997-92-4 1
2,2-dibromo-3-nitrilopropionamide 10222-01-2 27
2-acrylamido-2-methylpropanesulphonic acid sodium salt polymer * 1
2-bromo-2-nitropropane-1,3-diol 52-51-7 4
2-butanone oxime 96-29-7 1
2-hydroxypropionic acid 79-33-4 2
2-mercaptoethanol (Thioglycol) 60-24-2 13
2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one 2682-20-4 4
2-monobromo-3-nitrilopropionamide 1113-55-9 1
2-phosphonobutane-1,2,4-tricarboxylic acid 37971-36-1 2
2-phosphonobutane-1,2,4-tricarboxylic acid, potassium salt 93858-78-7 1
2-substituted aromatic amine salt * 1
4,4′-diaminodiphenyl sulfone 80-08-0 3
5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one 26172-55-4 5
Acetaldehyde 75-07-0 1
Acetic acid 64-19-7 56
Acetic anhydride 108-24-7 7
Acetone 67-64-1 3
Acetophenone 98-86-2 1
Acetylenic alcohol * 1
Acetyltriethyl citrate 77-89-4 1
Acrylamide 79-06-1 2
Acrylamide copolymer * 1
Acrylamide copolymer 38193-60-1 1
To compile this list of chemicals, Committee staff reviewed each Material Safety Data
Sheet provided to the Committee for hydraulic fracturing products used between 2005 and 2009. Committee staff transcribed the names and CAS numbers as written in the MSDSs; as such, any inaccuracies on this list reflect inaccuracies on the MSDSs themselves.
Acrylate copolymer * 1
Acrylic acid, 2-hydroxyethyl ester 818-61-1 1
Acrylic acid/2-acrylamido-methylpropylsulfonic acid copolymer 37350-42-8 1
Acrylic copolymer 403730-32-5 1
Acrylic polymers * 1
Acrylic polymers 26006-22-4 2
Acyclic hydrocarbon blend * 1
Adipic acid 124-04-9 6
Alcohol alkoxylate * 5
Alcohol ethoxylates * 2
Alcohols * 9
Alcohols, C11-15-secondary, ethoxylated 68131-40-8 1
Alcohols, C12-14-secondary 126950-60-5 4
Alcohols, C12-14-secondary, ethoxylated 84133-50-6 19
Alcohols, C12-15, ethoxylated 68131-39-5 2
Alcohols, C12-16, ethoxylated 103331-86-8 1
Alcohols, C12-16, ethoxylated 68551-12-2 3
Alcohols, C14-15, ethoxylated 68951-67-7 5
Alcohols, C9-11-iso-, C10-rich, ethoxylated 78330-20-8 4
Alcohols, C9-C22 * 1
Aldehyde * 4
Aldol 107-89-1 1
Alfa-Alumina * 5
Aliphatic acid * 1
Aliphatic alcohol polyglycol ether 68015-67-8 1
Aliphatic amine derivative 120086-58-0 2
Alkaline bromide salts * 2
Alkanes, C10-14 93924-07-3 2
Alkanes, C13-16-iso 68551-20-2 2
Alkanolamine 150-25-4 3
Alkanolamine chelate of zirconium alkoxide (Zirconium complex) 197980-53-3 4
Alkanolamine/aldehyde condensate * 1
Alkenes * 1
Alkenes, C>10 alpha- 64743-02-8 3
Alkenes, C>8 68411-00-7 2
Alkoxylated alcohols * 1
Alkoxylated amines * 6
Alkoxylated phenol formaldehyde resin 63428-92-2 1
Alkyaryl sulfonate * 1
Alkyl (C12-16) dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride 68424-85-1 7
Alkyl (C6-C12) alcohol, ethoxylated 68439-45-2 2
Alkyl (C9-11) alcohol, ethoxylated 68439-46-3 1
Alkyl alkoxylate * 9
Alkyl amine * 2
Alkyl amine blend in a metal salt solution * 1
Alkyl aryl amine sulfonate 255043-08-04 1
Alkyl benzenesulfonic acid 68584-22-5 2
Alkyl esters * 2
Alkyl hexanol * 1
Alkyl ortho phosphate ester * 1
Alkyl phosphate ester * 3
Alkyl quaternary ammonium chlorides * 4
Alkylaryl sulfonate * 1
Alkylaryl sulphonic acid 27176-93-9 1
Alkylated quaternary chloride * 5
Alkylbenzenesulfonic acid * 1
Alkylethoammonium sulfates * 1
Alkylphenol ethoxylates * 1
Almandite and pyrope garnet 1302-62-1 1
Aluminium isopropoxide 555-31-7 1
Aluminum 7429-90-5 2
Aluminum chloride * 3
Aluminum chloride 1327-41-9 2
Aluminum oxide (alpha-Alumina) 1344-28-1 24
Aluminum oxide silicate 12068-56-3 1
Aluminum silicate (mullite) 1302-76-7 38
Aluminum sulfate hydrate 10043-01-3 1
Amides, tallow, n-[3-(dimethylamino)propyl],n-oxides 68647-77-8 4
Amidoamine * 1
Amine * 7
Amine bisulfite 13427-63-9 1
Amine oxides * 1
Amine phosphonate * 3
Amine salt * 2
Amines, C14-18; C16-18-unsaturated, alkyl, ethoxylated 68155-39-5 1
Amines, coco alkyl, acetate 61790-57-6 3
Amines, polyethylenepoly-, ethoxylated, phosphonomethylated 68966-36-9 1
Amines, tallow alkyl, ethoxylated 61791-26-2 2
Amino compounds * 1
Amino methylene phosphonic acid salt * 1
Amino trimethylene phosphonic acid 6419-19-8 2
Ammonia 7664-41-7 7
Ammonium acetate 631-61-8 4
Ammonium alcohol ether sulfate 68037-05-8 1
Ammonium bicarbonate 1066-33-7 1
Ammonium bifluoride (Ammonium hydrogen difluoride) 1341-49-7 10
Ammonium bisulfate 7783-20-2 3
Ammonium bisulfite 10192-30-0 15
Ammonium C6-C10 alcohol ethoxysulfate 68187-17-7 4
Ammonium C8-C10 alkyl ether sulfate 68891-29-2 4
Ammonium chloride 12125-02-9 29
Ammonium fluoride 12125-01-8 9
Ammonium hydroxide 1336-21-6 4
Ammonium nitrate 6484-52-2 2
Ammonium persulfate (Diammonium peroxidisulfate) 7727-54-0 37
Ammonium salt * 1
Ammonium salt of ethoxylated alcohol sulfate * 1
Amorphous silica 99439-28-8 1
Amphoteric alkyl amine 61789-39-7 1
Anionic copolymer * 3
Anionic polyacrylamide * 1
Anionic polyacrylamide 25085-02-3 6
Anionic polyacrylamide copolymer * 3
Anionic polymer * 2
Anionic polymer in solution * 1
Anionic polymer, sodium salt 9003-04-7 1
Anionic water-soluble polymer * 2
Antifoulant * 1
Antimonate salt * 1
Antimony pentoxide 1314-60-9 2
Antimony potassium oxide 29638-69-5 4
Antimony trichloride 10025-91-9 2
a-organic surfactants 61790-29-8 1
Aromatic alcohol glycol ether * 2
Aromatic aldehyde * 2
Aromatic ketones 224635-63-6 2
Aromatic polyglycol ether * 1
Barium sulfate 7727-43-7 3
Bauxite 1318-16-7 16
Bentonite 1302-78-9 2
Benzene 71-43-2 3
Benzene, C10-16, alkyl derivatives 68648-87-3 1
Benzenecarboperoxoic acid, 1,1-dimethylethyl ester 614-45-9 1
Benzenemethanaminium 3844-45-9 1
Benzenesulfonic acid, C10-16-alkyl derivs., potassium salts 68584-27-0 1
Benzoic acid 65-85-0 11
Benzyl chloride 100-44-7 8
Biocide component * 3
Bis(1-methylethyl)naphthalenesulfonic acid, cyclohexylamine salt 68425-61-6 1
Bishexamethylenetriamine penta methylene phosphonic acid 35657-77-3 1
Bisphenol A/Epichlorohydrin resin 25068-38-6 5
Bisphenol A/Novolac epoxy resin 28906-96-9 1
Borate 12280-03-4 2
Borate salts * 5
Boric acid 10043-35-3 18
Boric acid, potassium salt 20786-60-1 1
Boric acid, sodium salt 1333-73-9 2
Boric oxide 1303-86-2 1
b-tricalcium phosphate 7758-87-4 1
Butanedioic acid 2373-38-8 4
Butanol 71-36-3 3
Butyl glycidyl ether 2426-08-6 5
Butyl lactate 138-22-7 4
C10-C16 ethoxylated alcohol 68002-97-1 4
C-11 to C-14 n-alkanes, mixed * 1
C12-C14 alcohol, ethoxylated 68439-50-9 3
Calcium carbonate 471-34-1 1
Calcium carbonate (Limestone) 1317-65-3 9
Calcium chloride 10043-52-4 17
Calcium chloride, dihydrate 10035-04-8 1
Calcium fluoride 7789-75-5 2
Calcium hydroxide 1305-62-0 9
Calcium hypochlorite 7778-54-3 1
Calcium oxide 1305-78-8 6
Calcium peroxide 1305-79-9 5
Carbohydrates * 3
Carbon dioxide 124-38-9 4
Carboxymethyl guar gum, sodium salt 39346-76-4 7
Carboxymethyl hydroxypropyl guar 68130-15-4 11
Cellophane 9005-81-6 2
Cellulase 9012-54-8 7
Cellulase enzyme * 1
Cellulose 9004-34-6 1
Cellulose derivative * 2
Chloromethylnaphthalene quinoline quaternary amine 15619-48-4 3
Chlorous ion solution * 2
Choline chloride 67-48-1 3
Chromates * 1
Chromium (iii) acetate 1066-30-4 1
Cinnamaldehyde (3-phenyl-2-propenal) 104-55-2 5
Citric acid (2-hydroxy-1,2,3 propanetricarboxylic acid) 77-92-9 29
Citrus terpenes 94266-47-4 11
Coal, granular 50815-10-6 1
Cobalt acetate 71-48-7 1
Cocaidopropyl betaine 61789-40-0 2
Cocamidopropylamine oxide 68155-09-9 1
Coco bis-(2-hydroxyethyl) amine oxide 61791-47-7 1
Cocoamidopropyl betaine 70851-07-9 1
Cocomidopropyl dimethylamine 68140-01-2 1
Coconut fatty acid diethanolamide 68603-42-9 1
Collagen (Gelatin) 9000-70-8 6
Complex alkylaryl polyo-ester * 1
Complex aluminum salt * 2
Complex organometallic salt * 2
Complex substituted keto-amine 143106-84-7 1
Complex substituted keto-amine hydrochloride * 1
Copolymer of acrylamide and sodium acrylate 25987-30-8 1
Copper 7440-50-8 1
Copper iodide 7681-65-4 1
Copper sulfate 7758-98-7 3
Corundum (Aluminum oxide) 1302-74-5 48
Crotonaldehyde 123-73-9 1
Crystalline silica – cristobalite 14464-46-1 44
Crystalline silica – quartz (SiO2) 14808-60-7 207
Crystalline silica, tridymite 15468-32-3 2
Cumene 98-82-8 6
Cupric chloride 7447-39-4 10
Cupric chloride dihydrate 10125-13-0 7
Cuprous chloride 7758-89-6 1
Cured acrylic resin * 7
Cured resin * 4
Cured silicone rubber-polydimethylsiloxane 63148-62-9 1
Cured urethane resin * 3
Cyclic alkanes * 1
Cyclohexane 110-82-7 1
Cyclohexanone 108-94-1 1
Decanol 112-30-1 2
Decyl-dimethyl amine oxide 2605-79-0 4
Dextrose monohydrate 50-99-7 1
D-Glucitol 50-70-4 1
Di (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate 117-81-7 3
Di (ethylene glycol) ethyl ether acetate 112-15-2 4
Diatomaceous earth 61790-53-2 3
Diatomaceous earth, calcined 91053-39-3 7
Dibromoacetonitrile 3252-43-5 1
Dibutylaminoethanol (2-dibutylaminoethanol) 102-81-8 4
Di-calcium silicate 10034-77-2 1
Dicarboxylic acid * 1
Didecyl dimethyl ammonium chloride 7173-51-5 1
Diesel * 1
Diesel 68334-30-5 3
Diesel 68476-30-2 4
Diesel 68476-34-6 43
Diethanolamine (2,2-iminodiethanol) 111-42-2 14
Diethylbenzene 25340-17-4 1
Diethylene glycol 111-46-6 8
Diethylene glycol monomethyl ether 111-77-3 4
Diethylene triaminepenta (methylene phosphonic acid) 15827-60-8 1
Diethylenetriamine 111-40-0 2
Diethylenetriamine, tall oil fatty acids reaction product 61790-69-0 1
Diisopropylnaphthalenesulfonic acid 28757-00-8 2
Dimethyl formamide 68-12-2 5
Dimethyl glutarate 1119-40-0 1
Dimethyl silicone * 2
Dioctyl sodium sulfosuccinate 577-11-7 1
Dipropylene glycol 25265-71-8 1
Dipropylene glycol monomethyl ether (2-methoxymethylethoxy propanol) 34590-94-8 12
Di-secondary-butylphenol 53964-94-6 3
Disodium EDTA 139-33-3 1
Disodium ethylenediaminediacetate 38011-25-5 1
Disodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate dihydrate 6381-92-6 1
Disodium octaborate tetrahydrate 12008-41-2 1
Dispersing agent * 1
d-Limonene 5989-27-5 11
Dodecyl alcohol ammonium sulfate 32612-48-9 2
Dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid 27176-87-0 14
Dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid salts 42615-29-2 2
Dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid salts 68648-81-7 7
Dodecylbenzene sulfonic acid salts 90218-35-2 1
Dodecylbenzenesulfonate isopropanolamine 42504-46-1 1
Dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid, monoethanolamine salt 26836-07-7 1
Dodecylbenzenesulphonic acid, morpholine salt 12068-08-5 1
EDTA/Copper chelate * 2
EO-C7-9-iso-, C8-rich alcohols 78330-19-5 5
Epichlorohydrin 25085-99-8 5
Epoxy resin * 5
Erucic amidopropyl dimethyl betaine 149879-98-1 3
Erythorbic acid 89-65-6 2
Essential oils * 6
Ethanaminium, n,n,n-trimethyl-2-[(1-oxo-2-propenyl)oxy]-,chloride, polymer with
2-propenamide 69418-26-4 4
Ethanol (Ethyl alcohol) 64-17-5 36
Ethanol, 2-(hydroxymethylamino)- 34375-28-5 1
Ethanol, 2, 2′-(Octadecylamino) bis- 10213-78-2 1
Ethanoldiglycine disodium salt 135-37-5 1
Ether salt 25446-78-0 2
Ethoxylated 4-nonylphenol (Nonyl phenol ethoxylate) 26027-38-3 9
Ethoxylated alcohol 104780-82-7 1
Ethoxylated alcohol 78330-21-9 2
Ethoxylated alcohols * 3
Ethoxylated alkyl amines * 1
Ethoxylated amine * 1
Ethoxylated amines 61791-44-4 1
Ethoxylated fatty acid ester * 1
Ethoxylated nonionic surfactant * 1
Ethoxylated nonyl phenol * 8
Ethoxylated nonyl phenol 68412-54-4 10
Ethoxylated nonyl phenol 9016-45-9 38
Ethoxylated octyl phenol 68987-90-6 1
Ethoxylated octyl phenol 9002-93-1 1
Ethoxylated octyl phenol 9036-19-5 3
Ethoxylated oleyl amine 13127-82-7 2
Ethoxylated oleyl amine 26635-93-8 1
Ethoxylated sorbitol esters * 1
Ethoxylated tridecyl alcohol phosphate 9046-01-9 2
Ethoxylated undecyl alcohol 127036-24-2 2
Ethyl acetate 141-78-6 4
Ethyl acetoacetate 141-97-9 1
Ethyl octynol (1-octyn-3-ol,4-ethyl-) 5877-42-9 5
Ethylbenzene 100-41-4 28
Ethylene glycol (1,2-ethanediol) 107-21-1 119
Ethylene glycol monobutyl ether (2-butoxyethanol) 111-76-2 126
Ethylene oxide 75-21-8 1
Ethylene oxide-nonylphenol polymer * 1
Ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid 60-00-4 1
Ethylene-vinyl acetate copolymer 24937-78-8 1
Ethylhexanol (2-ethylhexanol) 104-76-7 18
Fatty acid ester * 1
Fatty acid, tall oil, hexa esters with sorbitol, ethoxylated 61790-90-7 1
Fatty acids * 1
Fatty alcohol alkoxylate * 1
Fatty alkyl amine salt * 1
Fatty amine carboxylates * 1
Fatty quaternary ammonium chloride 61789-68-2 1
Ferric chloride 7705-08-0 3
Ferric sulfate 10028-22-5 7
Ferrous sulfate, heptahydrate 7782-63-0 4
Fluoroaliphatic polymeric esters * 1
Formaldehyde 50-00-0 12
Formaldehyde polymer * 2
Formaldehyde, polymer with 4-(1,1-dimethyl)phenol, methyloxirane and oxirane 30704-64-4 3
Formaldehyde, polymer with 4-nonylphenol and oxirane 30846-35-6 1
Formaldehyde, polymer with ammonia and phenol 35297-54-2 2
Formamide 75-12-7 5
Formic acid 64-18-6 24
Fumaric acid 110-17-8 8
Furfural 98-01-1 1
Furfuryl alcohol 98-00-0 3
Glass fiber 65997-17-3 3
Gluconic acid 526-95-4 1
Glutaraldehyde 111-30-8 20
Glycerol (1,2,3-Propanetriol, Glycerine) 56-81-5 16
Glycol ethers * 9
Glycol ethers 9004-77-7 4
Glyoxal 107-22-2 3
Glyoxylic acid 298-12-4 1
Guar gum 9000-30-0 41
Guar gum derivative * 12
Haloalkyl heteropolycycle salt * 6
Heavy aromatic distillate 68132-00-3 1
Heavy aromatic petroleum naphtha 64742-94-5 45
Heavy catalytic reformed petroleum naphtha 64741-68-0 10
Hematite * 5
Hemicellulase 9025-56-3 2
Hexahydro-1,3,5-tris(2-hydroxyethyl)-s-triazine (Triazine) 4719-04-4 4
Hexamethylenetetramine 100-97-0 37
Hexanediamine 124-09-4 1
Hexanes * 1
Hexylene glycol 107-41-5 5
Hydrated aluminum silicate 1332-58-7 4
Hydrocarbon mixtures 8002-05-9 1
Hydrocarbons * 3
Hydrodesulfurized kerosine (petroleum) 64742-81-0 3
Hydrodesulfurized light catalytic cracked distillate (petroleum) 68333-25-5 1
Hydrodesulfurized middle distillate (petroleum) 64742-80-9 1
Hydrogen chloride (Hydrochloric acid) 7647-01-0 42
Hydrogen fluoride (Hydrofluoric acid) 7664-39-3 2
Hydrogen peroxide 7722-84-1 4
Hydrogen sulfide 7783-06-4 1
Hydrotreated and hydrocracked base oil * 2
Hydrotreated heavy naphthenic distillate 64742-52-5 3
Hydrotreated heavy paraffinic petroleum distillates 64742-54-7 1
Hydrotreated heavy petroleum naphtha 64742-48-9 7
Hydrotreated light petroleum distillates 64742-47-8 89
Hydrotreated middle petroleum distillates 64742-46-7 3
Hydroxyacetic acid (Glycolic acid) 79-14-1 6
Hydroxyethylcellulose 9004-62-0 1
Hydroxyethylethylenediaminetriacetic acid, trisodium salt 139-89-9 1
Hydroxylamine hydrochloride 5470-11-1 1
Hydroxypropyl guar gum 39421-75-5 2
Hydroxysultaine * 1
Inner salt of alkyl amines * 2
Inorganic borate * 3
Inorganic particulate * 1
Inorganic salt * 1
Inorganic salt 533-96-0 1
Inorganic salt 7446-70-0 1
Instant coffee purchased off the shelf * 1
Inulin, carboxymethyl ether, sodium salt 430439-54-6 1
Iron oxide 1332-37-2 2
Iron oxide (Ferric oxide) 1309-37-1 18
Iso amyl alcohol 123-51-3 1
Iso-alkanes/n-alkanes * 10
Isobutanol (Isobutyl alcohol) 78-83-1 4
Isomeric aromatic ammonium salt * 1
Isooctanol 26952-21-6 1
Isooctyl alcohol 68526-88-0 1
Isooctyl alcohol bottoms 68526-88-5 1
Isopropanol (Isopropyl alcohol, Propan-2-ol) 67-63-0 274
Isopropylamine 75-31-0 1
Isotridecanol, ethoxylated 9043-30-5 1
Kerosene 8008-20-6 13
Lactic acid 10326-41-7 1
Lactic acid 50-21-5 1
L-Dilactide 4511-42-6 1
Lead 7439-92-1 1
Light aromatic solvent naphtha 64742-95-6 11
Light catalytic cracked petroleum distillates 64741-59-9 1
Light naphtha distillate, hydrotreated 64742-53-6 1
Low toxicity base oils * 1
Maghemite * 2
Magnesium carbonate 546-93-0 1
Magnesium chloride 7786-30-3 4
Magnesium hydroxide 1309-42-8 4
Magnesium iron silicate 1317-71-1 3
Magnesium nitrate 10377-60-3 5
Magnesium oxide 1309-48-4 18
Magnesium peroxide 1335-26-8 2
Magnesium peroxide 14452-57-4 4
Magnesium phosphide 12057-74-8 1
Magnesium silicate 1343-88-0 3
Magnesium silicate hydrate (talc) 14807-96-6 2
Magnetite * 3
Medium aliphatic solvent petroleum naphtha 64742-88-7 10
Metal salt * 2
Metal salt solution * 1
Methanol (Methyl alcohol) 67-56-1 342
Methyl isobutyl carbinol (Methyl amyl alcohol) 108-11-2 3
Methyl salicylate 119-36-8 6
Methyl vinyl ketone 78-94-4 2
Methylcyclohexane 108-87-2 1
Mica 12001-26-2 3
Microcrystalline silica 1317-95-9 1
Mineral * 1
Mineral Filler * 1
Mineral spirits (stoddard solvent) 8052-41-3 2
Mixed titanium ortho ester complexes * 1
Modified alkane * 1
Modified cycloaliphatic amine adduct * 3
Modified lignosulfonate * 1
Monoethanolamine (Ethanolamine) 141-43-5 17
Monoethanolamine borate 26038-87-9 1
Morpholine 110-91-8 2
Mullite 1302-93-8 55
n,n-dibutylthiourea 109-46-6 1
N,N-dimethyl-1-octadecanamine-HCl * 1
N,N-dimethyloctadecylamine 124-28-7 3
N,N-dimethyloctadecylamine hydrochloride 1613-17-8 2
n,n’-Methylenebisacrylamide 110-26-9 1
n-alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride 139-08-2 1
Naphthalene 91-20-3 44
Naphthalene derivatives * 1
Naphthalenesulphonic acid, bis (1-methylethyl)-methyl derivatives 99811-86-6 1
Natural asphalt 12002-43-6 1
n-cocoamidopropyl-n,n-dimethyl-n-2-hydroxypropylsulfobetaine 68139-30-0 1
n-dodecyl-2-pyrrolidone 2687-96-9 1
N-heptane 142-82-5 1
Nickel sulfate hexahydrate 10101-97-0 2
Nitrilotriacetamide 4862-18-4 4
Nitrilotriacetic acid 139-13-9 6
Nitrilotriacetonitrile 7327-60-8 3
Nitrogen 7727-37-9 9
n-Methylpyrrolidone 872-50-4 1
Nonane, all isomers * 1
Non-hazardous salt * 1
Nonionic surfactant * 1
Nonyl phenol ethoxylate * 2
Nonyl phenol ethoxylate 9016-45-6 2
Nonyl phenol ethoxylate 9018-45-9 1
Nonylphenol 25154-52-3 1
Nonylphenol, ethoxylated and sulfated 9081-17-8 1
N-propyl zirconate * 1
N-tallowalkyltrimethylenediamines * 1
Nuisance particulates * 2
Nylon fibers 25038-54-4 2
Octanol 111-87-5 2
Octyltrimethylammonium bromide 57-09-0 1
Olefinic sulfonate * 1
Olefins * 1
Organic acid salt * 3
Organic acids * 1
Organic phosphonate * 1
Organic phosphonate salts * 1
Organic phosphonic acid salts * 6
Organic salt * 1
Organic sulfur compound * 2
Organic titanate * 2
Organiophilic clay * 2
Organo-metallic ammonium complex * 1
Other inorganic compounds * 1
Oxirane, methyl-, polymer with oxirane, mono-C10-16-alkyl ethers, phosphates 68649-29-6 1
Oxyalkylated alcohol * 6
Oxyalkylated alcohols 228414-35-5 1
Oxyalkylated alkyl alcohol * 1
Oxyalkylated alkylphenol * 1
Oxyalkylated fatty acid * 2
Oxyalkylated phenol * 1
Oxyalkylated polyamine * 1
Oxylated alcohol * 1
Paraffin wax 8002-74-2 1
Paraffinic naphthenic solvent * 1
Paraffinic solvent * 5
Paraffins * 1
Perlite 93763-70-3 1
Petroleum distillates * 26
Petroleum distillates 64742-65-0 1
Petroleum distillates 64742-97-5 1
Petroleum distillates 68477-31-6 3
Petroleum gas oils * 1
Petroleum gas oils 64741-43-1 1
Phenol 108-95-2 5
Phenol-formaldehyde resin 9003-35-4 32
Phosphate ester * 6
Phosphate esters of alkyl phenyl ethoxylate 68412-53-3 1
Phosphine * 1
Phosphonic acid * 1
Phosphonic acid 129828-36-0 1
Phosphonic acid 13598-36-2 3
Phosphonic acid (dimethlamino(methylene)) 29712-30-9 1
Phosphonic acid, [nitrilotris(methylene)]tris-, pentasodium salt 2235-43-0 1
Phosphoric acid 7664-38-2 7
Phosphoric acid ammonium salt * 1
Phosphoric acid, mixed decyl, octyl and ethyl esters 68412-60-2 3
Phosphorous acid 10294-56-1 1
Phthalic anhydride 85-44-9 2
Pine oil 8002-09-3 5
Plasticizer * 1
Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl) 24938-91-8 1
Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), alpha-(4-nonylphenyl)-omega-hydroxy-, branched
(Nonylphenol ethoxylate) 127087-87-0 3
Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), alpha-hydro-omega-hydroxy 65545-80-4 1
Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl), alpha-sulfo-omega-(hexyloxy)-, ammonium salt 63428-86-4 3
Poly(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl),a-(nonylphenyl)-w-hydroxy-, phosphate 51811-79-1 1
Poly-(oxy-1,2-ethanediyl)-alpha-undecyl-omega-hydroxy 34398-01-1 6
Poly(sodium-p-styrenesulfonate) 25704-18-1 1
Poly(vinyl alcohol) 25213-24-5 2
Polyacrylamides 9003-05-8 2
Polyacrylamides * 1
Polyacrylate * 1
Polyamine * 2
Polyanionic cellulose * 2
Polyepichlorohydrin, trimethylamine quaternized 51838-31-4 1
Polyetheramine 9046-10-0 3
Polyether-modified trisiloxane 27306-78-1 1
Polyethylene glycol 25322-68-3 20
Polyethylene glycol ester with tall oil fatty acid 9005-02-1 1
Polyethylene polyammonium salt 68603-67-8 2
Polyethylene-polypropylene glycol 9003-11-6 5
Polylactide resin * 3
Polyoxyalkylenes * 1
Polyoxyethylene castor oil 61791-12-6 1
Polyphosphoric acid, esters with triethanolamine, sodium salts 68131-72-6 1
Polypropylene glycol 25322-69-4 1
Polysaccharide * 20
Polyvinyl alcohol * 1
Polyvinyl alcohol 9002-89-5 2
Polyvinyl alcohol/polyvinylacetate copolymer * 1
Potassium acetate 127-08-2 1
Potassium carbonate 584-08-7 12
Potassium chloride 7447-40-7 29
Potassium formate 590-29-4 3
Potassium hydroxide 1310-58-3 25
Potassium iodide 7681-11-0 6
Potassium metaborate 13709-94-9 3
Potassium metaborate 16481-66-6 3
Potassium oxide 12136-45-7 1
Potassium pentaborate * 1
Potassium persulfate 7727-21-1 9
Propanol (Propyl alcohol) 71-23-8 18
Propanol, [2(2-methoxy-methylethoxy) methylethoxyl] 20324-33-8 1
Propargyl alcohol (2-propyn-1-ol) 107-19-7 46
Propylene carbonate (1,3-dioxolan-2-one, methyl-) 108-32-7 2
Propylene glycol (1,2-propanediol) 57-55-6 18
Propylene oxide 75-56-9 1
Propylene pentamer 15220-87-8 1
p-Xylene 106-42-3 1
Pyridinium, 1-(phenylmethyl)-, ethyl methyl derivatives, chlorides 68909-18-2 9
Pyrogenic silica 112945-52-5 3
Quaternary amine compounds * 3
Quaternary amine compounds 61789-18-2 1
Quaternary ammonium compounds * 9
Quaternary ammonium compounds 19277-88-4 1
Quaternary ammonium compounds 68989-00-4 1
Quaternary ammonium compounds 8030-78-2 1
Quaternary ammonium compounds, dicoco alkyldimethyl, chlorides 61789-77-3 2
Quaternary ammonium salts * 2
Quaternary compound * 1
Quaternary salt * 2
Quaternized alkyl nitrogenated compound 68391-11-7 2
Rafinnates (petroleum), sorption process 64741-85-1 2
Residues (petroleum), catalytic reformer fractionator 64741-67-9 10
Resin 8050-09-7 2
Rutile 1317-80-2 2
Salt of phosphate ester * 3
Salt of phosphono-methylated diamine * 1
Salts of oxyalkylated fatty amines 68551-33-7 1
Secondary alcohol * 7
Silica (Silicon dioxide) 7631-86-9 47
Silica, amorphous * 3
Silica, amorphous precipitated 67762-90-7 1
Silicon carboxylate 681-84-5 1
Silicon dioxide (Fused silica) 60676-86-0 7
Silicone emulsion * 1
Sodium (C14-16) olefin sulfonate 68439-57-6 4
Sodium 2-ethylhexyl sulfate 126-92-1 1
Sodium acetate 127-09-3 6
Sodium acid pyrophosphate 7758-16-9 5
Sodium alkyl diphenyl oxide sulfonate 28519-02-0 1
Sodium aluminate 1302-42-7 1
Sodium aluminum phosphate 7785-88-8 1
Sodium bicarbonate (Sodium hydrogen carbonate) 144-55-8 10
Sodium bisulfite 7631-90-5 6
Sodium bromate 7789-38-0 10
Sodium bromide 7647-15-6 1
Sodium carbonate 497-19-8 14
Sodium chlorate 7775-09-9 1
Sodium chloride 7647-14-5 48
Sodium chlorite 7758-19-2 8
Sodium cocaminopropionate 68608-68-4 2
Sodium diacetate 126-96-5 2
Sodium erythorbate 6381-77-7 4
Sodium glycolate 2836-32-0 2
Sodium hydroxide (Caustic soda) 1310-73-2 80
Sodium hypochlorite 7681-52-9 14
Sodium lauryl-ether sulfate 68891-38-3 3
Sodium metabisulfite 7681-57-4 1
Sodium metaborate 7775-19-1 2
Sodium metaborate tetrahydrate 35585-58-1 6
Sodium metasilicate, anhydrous 6834-92-0 2
Sodium nitrite 7632-00-0 1
Sodium oxide (Na2O) 1313-59-3 1
Sodium perborate 1113-47-9 1
Sodium perborate 7632-04-4 1
Sodium perborate tetrahydrate 10486-00-7 4
Sodium persulfate 7775-27-1 6
Sodium phosphate * 2
Sodium polyphosphate 68915-31-1 1
Sodium salicylate 54-21-7 1
Sodium silicate 1344-09-8 2
Sodium sulfate 7757-82-6 7
Sodium tetraborate 1330-43-4 7
Sodium tetraborate decahydrate 1303-96-4 10
Sodium thiosulfate 7772-98-7 10
Sodium thiosulfate pentahydrate 10102-17-7 3
Sodium trichloroacetate 650-51-1 1
Sodium tripolyphosphate 7758-29-4 2
Sodium xylene sulfonate 1300-72-7 3
Sodium zirconium lactate 174206-15-6 1
Solvent refined heavy naphthenic petroleum distillates 64741-96-4 1
Sorbitan monooleate 1338-43-8 1
Stabilized aqueous chlorine dioxide 10049-04-4 1
Stannous chloride 7772-99-8 1
Stannous chloride dihydrate 10025-69-1 6
Starch 9005-25-8 5
Steam cracked distillate, cyclodiene dimer, dicyclopentadiene polymer 68131-87-3 1
Steam-cracked petroleum distillates 64742-91-2 6
Straight run middle petroleum distillates 64741-44-2 5
Substituted alcohol * 2
Substituted alkene * 1
Substituted alkylamine * 2
Sucrose 57-50-1 1
Sulfamic acid 5329-14-6 6
Sulfate * 1
Sulfonate acids * 1
Sulfonate surfactants * 1
Sulfonic acid salts * 1
Sulfonic acids, petroleum 61789-85-3 1
Sulfur compound * 1
Sulfuric acid 7664-93-9 9
Sulfuric acid, monodecyl ester, sodium salt 142-87-0 2
Sulfuric acid, monooctyl ester, sodium salt 142-31-4 2
Surfactants * 13
Sweetened middle distillate 64741-86-2 1
Synthetic organic polymer 9051-89-2 2
Tall oil (Fatty acids) 61790-12-3 4
Tall oil, compound with diethanolamine 68092-28-4 1
Tallow soap * 2
Tar bases, quinoline derivatives, benzyl chloride-quaternized 72480-70-7 5
Tergitol 68439-51-0 1
Terpene hydrocarbon byproducts 68956-56-9 3
Terpenes * 1
Terpenes and terpenoids, sweet orange-oil 68647-72-3 2
Terpineol 8000-41-7 1
Tert-butyl hydroperoxide 75-91-2 6
Tetra-calcium-alumino-ferrite 12068-35-8 1
Tetraethylene glycol 112-60-7 1
Tetraethylenepentamine 112-57-2 2
Tetrahydro-3,5-dimethyl-2H-1,3,5-thiadiazine-2-thione (Dazomet) 533-74-4 13
Tetrakis (hydroxymethyl) phosphonium sulfate 55566-30-8 12
Tetramethyl ammonium chloride 75-57-0 14
Tetrasodium 1-hydroxyethylidene-1,1-diphosphonic acid 3794-83-0 1
Tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate 64-02-8 10
Thiocyanate sodium 540-72-7 1
Thioglycolic acid 68-11-1 6
Thiourea 62-56-6 9
Thiourea polymer 68527-49-1 3
Titanium complex * 1
Titanium oxide 13463-67-7 19
Titanium, isopropoxy (triethanolaminate) 74665-17-1 2
Toluene 108-88-3 29
Treated ammonium chloride (with anti-caking agent a or b) 12125-02-9 1
Tributyl tetradecyl phosphonium chloride 81741-28-8 5
Tri-calcium silicate 12168-85-3 1
Tridecyl alcohol 112-70-9 1
Triethanolamine (2,2,2-nitrilotriethanol) 102-71-6 21
Triethanolamine polyphosphate ester 68131-71-5 3
Triethanolamine titanate 36673-16-2 1
Triethanolamine zirconate 101033-44-7 6
Triethanolamine zirconium chelate * 1
Triethyl citrate 77-93-0 1
Triethyl phosphate 78-40-0 1
Triethylene glycol 112-27-6 3
Triisopropanolamine 122-20-3 5
Trimethylammonium chloride 593-81-7 1
Trimethylbenzene 25551-13-7 5
Trimethyloctadecylammonium (1-octadecanaminium, N,N,N-trimethyl-, chloride) 112-03-8 6
Tris(hydroxymethyl)aminomethane 77-86-1 1
Trisodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate 150-38-9 1
Trisodium ethylenediaminetriacetate 19019-43-3 1
Trisodium nitrilotriacetate 18662-53-8 8
Trisodium nitrilotriacetate (Nitrilotriacetic acid, trisodium salt monohydrate) 5064-31-3 9
Trisodium ortho phosphate 7601-54-9 1
Trisodium phosphate dodecahydrate 10101-89-0 1
Ulexite 1319-33-1 1
Urea 57-13-6 3
Wall material * 1
Walnut hulls * 2
White mineral oil 8042-47-5 8
Xanthan gum 11138-66-2 6
Xylene 1330-20-7 44
Zinc chloride 7646-85-7 1
Zinc oxide 1314-13-2 2
Zirconium complex * 10
Zirconium dichloride oxide 7699-43-6 1
Zirconium oxide sulfate 62010-10-0 2
Zirconium sodium hydroxy lactate complex (Sodium zirconium lactate) 113184-20-6 2
* Components marked with an asterisk appeared on at least one MSDS without an identifying
CAS number. The MSDSs in these cases marked the CAS as proprietary, noted that the CAS was not available, or left the CAS field blank. Components marked with an asterisk may be
duplicative of other components on this list, but Committee staff have no way of identifying such
duplicates without the identifying CAS number.
Source: Report –
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
*Permanently Removed From Internet Search Engines